![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
"CPU: Initially ARM 400 MHz, but now 412 MHz for 1st generation, 532 MHz[4][39] and PowerVR SGX GPU 535 @ 200 MHz for 3rd/4th generation (Pushes 28 million polys/sec at peak)"
This makes no sense, the first two things listed are CPU's, the next things listed are GPU's. The third generation one should list the Cortex A8 at 600MHz, and the fourth generation one should list the Cortex A8 based Apple A4 chip at undisclosed frequency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.226.247 ( talk) 04:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Also can I add to the previous users comment, in the description to the side Ipod 2nd Gen info, CPU section, it lists "2nd generation: ARM11 620 MHz (underclocked to 533 MHz),[4] without internal ARM7 core for Jazelle acceleration" And then further down the page it states(Under Specifications) "620 MHz (underclocked to 533 MHz) Samsung ARM11 core with internal ARM7 core for Jazelle acceleration[4]"
Just thought I'd point that out... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.148.82 ( talk) 14:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Another problem with the specs: Back camera still photo resolution is cited as 960x640. It is actually 960x720, based on the iPod Touch 4th generation specifications page already cited. 174.97.143.219 ( talk) 02:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
iPod touch (2nd generation) has model A1288 printed on back iPod touch (3rd generation) has model A1318 printed on back iPod touch (4th generation) has two built-in cameras — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.84.194 ( talk) 16:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
There IS a 8GB iPod Touch as i own one but in your article it does NOT say anything about the 8GB 3G iTouch... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.37.34 ( talk) 08:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
This was added to the article earlier and I've found 3 reliable sources showing it, the NZ Herald article is explicit. Though as its in the FAQ its controversial, can it be discussed in this thread if anyone objects to it now? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 21:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Its pretty blatantly obvious that the statement in the article is correct (I mean look at the Google suggestions for itouch for starters). And I've given 3 reliable sources showing the term being used interchangeably with iPod touch as well, so what else would I have to do to meet your sourcing requirements? -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 07:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I accept Cybercobra's compromise of changing it to "sometimes referred to as the iTouch" as that is more clearly supported by the sources. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 08:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
@ArtistScientist, I thought the :p made it clear that my comment that Fake Steve was real Steve was a joke - but Fake Steve aka Dan Lyons is another well known person using the term iTouch. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 21:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion about including it, but I don't think it should be included right up in the lede sentence of the article. That seems to give the name iTouch a lot of importance, which it may not really have. I don't think it's synthesis to say that it's sometimes called iTouch, which is supported by sources. You just have to be careful not to estimate the frequency of iTouch mentions compared to total mentions of the product, unless you have a RS that explicitly does so. Putting it in the lede suggests it is very commonly called iTouch, which we don't know. Fletcher ( talk) 14:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Preventing the word "iTouch" from being mentioned in the article as a common nickname amounts to censorship of common usage, and Wikipedia is not censored. That the term is in common usage is beyond doubt; as of this writing, there are over 9,000,000 hits for "iTouch" on Google (see [1]) and over 200,000 hits on apple.com (the manufacturer's own website) alone (see [2]). Furthermore, User:Eraserhead1 has already found three mainstream media sources backing up its usage. — Lowellian ( reply) 01:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, thinking about it a little more, given that Google searches for iTouch return results from Apple's site which only contain the words 'iPod touch' its pretty clear this is in widespread use and should be in the article per WP:IAR. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 18:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Wow! Just to remind you all it was ME that added the line that "the iPod Touch is sometimes colloquially referred to as the iTouch could generate so much controversy. I can see that it was removed from the article sometime ago, but I will refrain from reinstating it as I don't want to get into an edit war. If someone else wants to put it back, all well and good. Ah well, talk about a difference of opinion. Diamondblade2008 ( talk) 19:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I've had a word with Eraserhead1 about the iTouch name being in the article and he thinks it should be in it, but advised me to discuss it here first. I also feel the iTouch name should be in the article, but not placed right near the start of it, but somewhere within the main body of it, and it will be worded to something like "The iPod Touch is sometimes incorrectly called the iTouch". I have googled the iTouch name and it indeed crops up in several sites. I do not want to get into a flame war over the iTouch name, but I stand by my feelings that it should be in the article. However I will still refrain from adding the iTouch name until I see a reply to this message. If I don't get a reply then I will consider re-adding it as described above. Diamondblade2008 ( talk) 22:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
If you wanted to say "Motorola incorrectly referred to the iPod Touch as iTouch in a lawsuit" then yeah you've got a good source. AlistairMcMillan ( talk) 19:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC) The macrumors article is enough to substantiate usage in a Motorola press release but doesn't explain usage by others. The one specific fact that you can derive from these two sources would be that Motorola's press release referred to the device as an iTouch. I have no specific objections for using these two sources for that. riffic ( talk) 19:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Apple's website mentions that iPhone (and iPod touch) has xxGB, but there is a footnote: "1GB = 1 billion bytes; actual formatted capacity less."
So shall we write real specifications instead of what marketeers said?
Artemka373 (
talk)
12:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
It has surfaced on a hacker website that the iPod touch camera can be hacked to use it's full capabilities and add .23 MP to images. My question: one, is the source reliable, and two, do we state nominal or actual tech specs? Most users, including (as far as I can tell) anyone unwilling to jailbreak their device, will not use this hack. So do I revert the anonymous changes to .93 MP? HereToHelp ( talk to me) 13:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
according to apple, the correct name is iPod touch Any comments? -- 128.107.239.233 ( talk) 01:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Replace all instances of it in the article and avoid it in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.78.55 ( talk) 06:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
In the fourth paragraph of the introductory section this is said: "It also contains Apple's A4 for faster processing, a microphone for communication, voice recognition, and voice memos, which can be useful for recording things, such as an academic tutorial, a voice lesson, or a college lecture, (for the space in the iTouch 4g has stronger than most iPod nanos and therefore can hold clearer audio recordings) and a three-axis gyroscopic sensor which enables the device to recognize approximately how far, fast, and in which direction it has moved in space."
Firstly, I believe it is incorrectly formatted with the comma then brackets then an "and": there shouldn't be the comma. Secondly, it doesn't make sense: "the space ... has stronger", etc. Thirdly, the term iTouch is used which is, as previously mentioned, incorrect.
Iamstupido ( talk) 09:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
In the past, there has been a coalition of editors who wanted to prevent any shots of the iPod touch that include any images of the interface. The argument was that, while it would be fine under US fair use, if for some reason the article were to be published on a CD for export to countries that are not governed by US copyright, the interface would not be allowed.
Now that this article has degraded to B / C quality, I would expect that it's unlikely to be part of a CD version of Wikipedia any time soon. Other Apple articles like the IPhone show the interface under fair use. I for one think that the iPod touch article would benefit from more detail on what the interface looks like (under fair use of course). Mattnad ( talk) 20:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Why does the chart read "16, 32 and 64 GB" for the 3rd generation? Shouldn't it include the 8GB model? I am going to change it to "8, 32, and 64". If you need proof, see this video: http://reviews.cnet.com/mp3-players/apple-ipod-touch-third/4505-6490_7-33770781.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.249.85 ( talk) 19:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
When looking at my ipod touch 3g, I am unable to find anything directly identifying it as a 3g. In the general settings 'about' display, the model is identified as MC008LL. I was surprised that the wikipedia article never mentions this fact, or clarifies if any other models might be included in the 3g category. I verified that this ipod is a 3g by googling MC008LL. I would edit the article to add this, but I don't know enough about it to make a reliable change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.150.235.107 ( talk) 20:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
On Apple's website, it calls it the iPod touch, with a lowercase letter t. I suggest changing the article name to iPod touch, to match official nomenclature — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolt473 ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
According to Apple's recent filing they have sold 60 million iPod touches as of March 2011. Here are the sources:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/04/19/apples_samsung_lawsuit_notes_over_60_million_ipod_touch_sold.html http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analysis/
I can't update the number since the article is locked, can anyone please put these in? Thanks -- 112.203.109.94 ( talk) 17:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
This page should not be speedy deleted because... -- seriously? riffic ( talk) 04:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
In the "Models" section, the pictures of the iPod touch 2nd and 3rd generations are the same picture twice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.205.233 ( talk) 21:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
WERE identical? they still are! -- 217.39.35.230 ( talk) 00:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I noticed some edits by an anon editor, where he added information regarding iOS 5 in two locations of the article - both of which were added between a previously cited statement, and the <ref></ref>reference itself. Doing so makes it appear to the reader that the iOS 5 statements are cited, when in fact they're not cited. I'm assuming this to be very poor editing technique, rather than trying to sneak something in to make it look factual. Please - when adding totally new information, make sure you add new citations to support the new information. Or, make sure the existing citation also include the new information (and change the date in the citation statement to indicate that the source was indeed updated.) Thanks! Groink ( talk) 12:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I think the "Hacks" should be separated as I indicated in the title. This would allow a more in-depth look at each topic. VisvambaNathan ( talk) 06:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Austi0217 (
talk)
23:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
hi i was looking in a apples itunes website and guess what i found iPod Touch 4g with 3g capabillities see this photo in the link http://images.apple.com/euro/itunes/home/images/hero20110720.png there is no iPhone on the picture witch is wierd because that is weird so im asking is this hoax?/old easter or an apple slip but this is cool :) Arttuh2010 ( talk) 07:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
It's just a poorly edited photo. DanielDPeterson ( talk) 18:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
its a iphone
I have a hypothetical question. If the iPod Classic gets killed and they decide to drop the "touch" from iPod touch, how would we go about it on this article? Do we rename this article to "iPod"? Do we merge with the iPod Classic article since it too was known as "iPod"? Or rename it "iPod (touch model)"? Jigen III ( talk) 05:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
The new iPod touch has been released, see apples website for details. Please update the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.2.76 ( talk) 03:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Is the date of the discontinuation wrong in the 3rd Generation? I don't think the iPod Touch 3rd Gen was discontinued in 2010. -- Sk8rSoda PENN STATE NITTANY LIONS 10:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:Ipod touch white and black.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 25 October 2011
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 18:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC) |
I feel the 4g section should have something about the digitizer being glued to the screen and the frame http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Installing-iPod-Touch-4th-Generation-Front-Panel-Replacement/3639/1 216.160.181.242 ( talk) 17:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The included earphones are obviously minor as well because if they weren't you would mention how the Vietnamese ones are even worse than the Chinese ones, and that the latter are still worse than a £5 Sony pair! -- 217.39.35.230 ( talk) 23:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Some useful information (the article incorrectly refers to it as the "5th" generation)
Besides the white colour option and iOS 5 preloaded, the logic board has some changes:
"•Possible upgrade to the WiFi/Bluetooth chip package by Murata with part number RV KM1721006 •New markings VT1K3441AQ on the A4 chip, whereas last year’s A4 had K4X2G643GE markings •New gyroscope with markings AGD8 2131 •2129 33DH chip next to the gyroscope seems to have been packaged in the same die with the gyroscope in last year’s Touch"
http://www.ifixit.com/blog/2011/10/20/a-peek-inside-the-ipod-touch-5th-generation/
-- 217.39.35.230 ( talk) 23:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I have a black 32gb 4.5 gen iPod touch new in December 2011 and I complete a full cycle charge every evening the with the "Battery Doctor Pro" app, which is considered the only decent one. It has a status screen which estimates how long the user can do a certain activity. To get realistic times (12hr audio playback and at least 1hr for the most demanding activities) I have to set the "battery health" to 35%. Apple claims 40hr audio playback which isn't possible. I don't think my iPod touch is faulty because after looking around on the internet, everyone seems to get similar battery life in the real world. I think the pre-production units Apple use for testing must have better batteries and they can somehow get away with the ridiculous claims! -- 217.39.35.230 ( talk) 23:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is surely not the place to be ignorant either? Why should the article only feature Apple's nonsense claims, why can't it include the facts? Please don't annoy me! -- 217.39.35.230 ( talk) 23:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
No need to be such a dickhead, I swear the editors on here have two very different sides, I have had very nice people in the past! -- 194.83.82.3 ( talk) 11:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Aww sorry, maybe that was a bit harsh. No need to be so awkward, is that better? -- 217.39.35.230 ( talk) 15:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Just got some automated message, presumably because you can't be bothered to actually write one. Yeah, my aim was to improve the article and you could have used my information in the article rather than say this was a "general discussion" (ended up more like a bullshit discussion) and tell me to use a forum when I HATE FORUMS! Because stuff like THIS always happens on them. HERE, everything is always fine apart from on this occasion. A real shame :-S -- 217.39.35.230 ( talk) 15:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Oh, and if everyone else gets shorter battery life than claimed (which they do) then that's OBVIOUSLY a fact. And what about my information about changes to the 4.5 gen iPod touch compared to the 4th gen? Oh let me guess, that stuff is MINOR! Well, I see plenty of "minor" details on other articles so why can't this one have them? Let me guess, the editors of it are Apple SNOBS who also own iPads, MacBook Pros, iMacs and whatever. Not normal people who have Windows PCs (FTW!) and have the iPod touch because its the one decent product Apple makes, a great one! Oh well, I learned the hard way but glad I did cos I can go to better places on this site :-) -- 217.39.35.230 ( talk) 15:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC) |
It would be useful to add a section listing what Bluetooth profiles it supports. I can't find and don't recall seeing that info on Wikipedia for iOS devices.-- Elvey ( talk) 20:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Does the first generation have GPS, Please can somebody add a row dedicated to GPS in the specifications section Thank you!
Thank you 86.154.35.123 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 ( talk) 12:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
IPod Touch → iPod touch – "iPod Touch" is the wrong way, it's simple as that. (That "t" should lowercase). Further more, there has Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules. If there has the rule saying can't do this article moving, then ignore that rule. Rules should applying only if it's can improving the thing. There have a discussion that can found supporter of this renaming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AIPod_Touch/Archive_5#Capitalisation. Hope this can moved same as these wikis: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod_touch http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod_touch http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_iPod_touch IEatSoxLikeAnimal ( talk) 01:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Basically what's in the title. Also, article needs to be unlocked and I hope that that nasty battery life person is gone! -- 90.203.202.53 ( talk) 19:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Nice work! However, discontinuation of 8gb and 64gb 4th gen and addition of 16gb 4th gen need to be added to the first table (with the images). -- 90.205.7.200 ( talk) 06:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
One more thing - the specs in the infobox need to be updated. -- 90.205.7.200 ( talk) 06:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
All of the pictures of iPod Touches have a photo of it from the front. The fifth generation one has it from multiple angles. Should it be changed for consistency? ArturGhostmancer ( talk) 01:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i want to edit the itouch photo, to an 5th generation photo Roniz98 ( talk) 07:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Just where do they sell the 4th generation 16 GB? Is it sold in the OEM market or internationally? Because I'm not finding any evidence of its existence to warrant a mention for it. therewillbehotcake ( talk) 17:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see. So will they be released together with the 5th generation models? therewillbehotcake ( talk) 21:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The last sentence of the section: "Comparison to iPhone" claims "the iPod Touch camera lacks a flash for low light photography." The iPod 5 camera now has flash, so this sentence should be changed to something like "Until the 5th generation, the iPod Touch camera lacked a flash for low light photography." or something along those lines. To verify, check apple's features page for the iPod Touch: http://www.apple.com/ipod-touch/features/ . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapistic ( talk • contribs) 02:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I need to how many iPod touches were sold total Pardeep12 ( talk) 21:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
When are the Mobile TV chips going to be added to the IPods and Iphones? I will not consider buying one until this feature is added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.88.174.84 ( talk) 19:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Does the iPod touch allow web browsing? Although the device has WiFi access, there is no mention either way, so I assume not. If my assumption is incorrect, the article should be changed to clarify. 111.196.174.218 ( talk) 15:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
It bothers me that SVG renderings are used in place of actual photographs for these devices. While they aren't bad vectors, I feel like actual photographs would be more useful and more accurately represent the product. Imagine if Obama's mugshot on his article was a painting. Would someone with a better camera than myself be willing to take such photos for the article? -- Guess Who ( talk) 06:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
It has 512 MB of ram. You should add the info in the list of models, it has already been added in the specifications.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
XDavid69 (
talk •
contribs)
16:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add interwiki pa:ਆਇਪਾਡ ਟਚ ਰਾਜੇਂਦਰਾ ਸਿੰਘ ( talk) 11:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
It's currently craaaazy long. Surely it'd be better to summarise the current gen? As is it pointlessly repeats information in the specifications table. Яehevkor ✉ 19:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I've always thought that that infobox doesn't really make sense anyway because the specs are for the current generation only when they should really be a summary of the specs for all generations, for example 8, 16, 32 or 64GB of flash memory, 412, 533, 600 or 800MHz CPU, 128MB, 256MB or 512MB of RAM, 3.5" or 4" screen, 480x320, 960x640 or 1136x640 screen resolution etc. -- 86.156.190.100 ( talk) 22:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pardeep12 ( talk) 02:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC) In mid october samsung claimed that the iPod touch 5th generation, iPad mini, and iPad 4 violated its patents. It is scehduled to trial at 2013
All the other iOS devices have individual articles based on generation. So I think it's wise that its time to split the article into each individual generation of iPod touch. Otherwise, it will get too long. Bentoman ( talk) 00:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi could we create different articles for the iPod touches due to some of the iPod now discontinued and are not supported the only one which is now is the 5th generation and I think the iPod touch article should be about the new iPod touch and the old iPod touch should have there own articles. 90.201.78.163 ( talk) 14:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Now the article's locked again, and you removed my post saying that it was no longer locked. -- 194.83.82.3 ( talk) 10:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, the product which is compared to "an iPhone without phone" does have name "iPod touch" and the letter "t" should be lowercase. Look, in this page the product is obviously named "iPod touch". So, I suggest moving the article to iPod touch. -- AppleJoyNeop ( talk) 12:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The new 16gb 5th gen is not available in colors. Also the color scheme - black front silver back - is unique to the 16gb edition.
67.169.114.35 ( talk) 22:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The first citation is to https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=338019&fcc_id=%27BCG-E2407 which is not functioning (Message from the NSAPI plugin:No backend server available for connection: timed out after 10 seconds or idempotent set to OFF. Build date/time: Dec 5 2006 11:10:07 Change Number: 871803). When I search the FCC site for the approvals, I find none. I'm getting: There are no applications on file that match the search criteria specified: Grantee Code: BCG Product Code: E2407 whether I search starting at http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/ or https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm . The (an) FCC ID of the iPod Touch 4G is BCG-E2407. Is the FCC site glitchy? I do get other Apple products ( example) (and I cam make the site display funny messages by messing with the URL.-- Elvey ( talk) 03:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Here are some working links to the FCC Applications / Exhibits. Unsure of how to integrate them into the article.
iPod 1:
http://fccid.net/number.php?id=693627&fcc=BCGA1213
iPod 2:
http://fccid.net/number.php?id=128461&fcc=BCGA1288
iPod 3:
http://fccid.net/number.php?id=156063&fcc=BCG-2310
iPod 4:
http://fccid.net/number.php?id=338019&fcc=BCG-E2407
iPod 5:
http://fccid.net/number.php?id=141880&fcc=BCG-A1421
Lgats (
talk)
02:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add to the fourth generation iPod touch that iOS 7 will not work on it. Look at the bottom of this page: http://www.apple.com/ios/ios7/features/ 53kyle12 ( talk) 20:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC) 53kyle12 ( talk) 20:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I noticed on browsing this page that it makes heavy use of fake product shots-- the lead image is a Photoshop mockup, and some of the n-generation 'photos' are the same. This seems highly misleading to me--we should either show the product as is or have no photo, and leave the fake renders to marketing. In some cases the images are so bad that they're misleading anyhow: my 1G touch looks nothing like this cartoon. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 13:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Per this edit is the iPod Touch a "dedicated" gaming device? The navbox seems to be for devices that there conceived, designed and released as primarily gaming devices, whereas the iPod touch seems to be primarily a media player, and a game device second.. Яehevkor ✉ 16:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
It would be good if each model had its own header so that other articles (and external pages) could link to the correct anchor point. They'd also show up in the contents box at the top. Mackerm ( talk) 00:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Catfan660, here to talk about why I put the Missing information template on the Software section.
The reason I did is: there's NO information on iOS 7 and iPod, iOS 8 and iPod, iOS 9 and iPod, and iOS 10 and iPod. It just simply doesn't live up to Wikipedia's high standard of articles. I will be trying to edit this in the future.
Catfan660 ( talk) 16:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
what is the storage on ipod touch 6 and how much is the price for black ipod touch 6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by A8v ( talk • contribs) 23:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Which, if any, of these devices come with charging adapters / power blocks / chargers (to power them from wall outlets), and what is the wattage or amperage of such adapters (on the USB side)? — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
"CPU: Initially ARM 400 MHz, but now 412 MHz for 1st generation, 532 MHz[4][39] and PowerVR SGX GPU 535 @ 200 MHz for 3rd/4th generation (Pushes 28 million polys/sec at peak)"
This makes no sense, the first two things listed are CPU's, the next things listed are GPU's. The third generation one should list the Cortex A8 at 600MHz, and the fourth generation one should list the Cortex A8 based Apple A4 chip at undisclosed frequency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.103.226.247 ( talk) 04:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Also can I add to the previous users comment, in the description to the side Ipod 2nd Gen info, CPU section, it lists "2nd generation: ARM11 620 MHz (underclocked to 533 MHz),[4] without internal ARM7 core for Jazelle acceleration" And then further down the page it states(Under Specifications) "620 MHz (underclocked to 533 MHz) Samsung ARM11 core with internal ARM7 core for Jazelle acceleration[4]"
Just thought I'd point that out... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.148.82 ( talk) 14:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Another problem with the specs: Back camera still photo resolution is cited as 960x640. It is actually 960x720, based on the iPod Touch 4th generation specifications page already cited. 174.97.143.219 ( talk) 02:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
iPod touch (2nd generation) has model A1288 printed on back iPod touch (3rd generation) has model A1318 printed on back iPod touch (4th generation) has two built-in cameras — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.84.194 ( talk) 16:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
There IS a 8GB iPod Touch as i own one but in your article it does NOT say anything about the 8GB 3G iTouch... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.37.34 ( talk) 08:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
This was added to the article earlier and I've found 3 reliable sources showing it, the NZ Herald article is explicit. Though as its in the FAQ its controversial, can it be discussed in this thread if anyone objects to it now? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 21:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Its pretty blatantly obvious that the statement in the article is correct (I mean look at the Google suggestions for itouch for starters). And I've given 3 reliable sources showing the term being used interchangeably with iPod touch as well, so what else would I have to do to meet your sourcing requirements? -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 07:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I accept Cybercobra's compromise of changing it to "sometimes referred to as the iTouch" as that is more clearly supported by the sources. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 08:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
@ArtistScientist, I thought the :p made it clear that my comment that Fake Steve was real Steve was a joke - but Fake Steve aka Dan Lyons is another well known person using the term iTouch. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 21:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion about including it, but I don't think it should be included right up in the lede sentence of the article. That seems to give the name iTouch a lot of importance, which it may not really have. I don't think it's synthesis to say that it's sometimes called iTouch, which is supported by sources. You just have to be careful not to estimate the frequency of iTouch mentions compared to total mentions of the product, unless you have a RS that explicitly does so. Putting it in the lede suggests it is very commonly called iTouch, which we don't know. Fletcher ( talk) 14:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Preventing the word "iTouch" from being mentioned in the article as a common nickname amounts to censorship of common usage, and Wikipedia is not censored. That the term is in common usage is beyond doubt; as of this writing, there are over 9,000,000 hits for "iTouch" on Google (see [1]) and over 200,000 hits on apple.com (the manufacturer's own website) alone (see [2]). Furthermore, User:Eraserhead1 has already found three mainstream media sources backing up its usage. — Lowellian ( reply) 01:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, thinking about it a little more, given that Google searches for iTouch return results from Apple's site which only contain the words 'iPod touch' its pretty clear this is in widespread use and should be in the article per WP:IAR. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 18:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Wow! Just to remind you all it was ME that added the line that "the iPod Touch is sometimes colloquially referred to as the iTouch could generate so much controversy. I can see that it was removed from the article sometime ago, but I will refrain from reinstating it as I don't want to get into an edit war. If someone else wants to put it back, all well and good. Ah well, talk about a difference of opinion. Diamondblade2008 ( talk) 19:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I've had a word with Eraserhead1 about the iTouch name being in the article and he thinks it should be in it, but advised me to discuss it here first. I also feel the iTouch name should be in the article, but not placed right near the start of it, but somewhere within the main body of it, and it will be worded to something like "The iPod Touch is sometimes incorrectly called the iTouch". I have googled the iTouch name and it indeed crops up in several sites. I do not want to get into a flame war over the iTouch name, but I stand by my feelings that it should be in the article. However I will still refrain from adding the iTouch name until I see a reply to this message. If I don't get a reply then I will consider re-adding it as described above. Diamondblade2008 ( talk) 22:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
If you wanted to say "Motorola incorrectly referred to the iPod Touch as iTouch in a lawsuit" then yeah you've got a good source. AlistairMcMillan ( talk) 19:00, 7 October 2010 (UTC) The macrumors article is enough to substantiate usage in a Motorola press release but doesn't explain usage by others. The one specific fact that you can derive from these two sources would be that Motorola's press release referred to the device as an iTouch. I have no specific objections for using these two sources for that. riffic ( talk) 19:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Apple's website mentions that iPhone (and iPod touch) has xxGB, but there is a footnote: "1GB = 1 billion bytes; actual formatted capacity less."
So shall we write real specifications instead of what marketeers said?
Artemka373 (
talk)
12:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
It has surfaced on a hacker website that the iPod touch camera can be hacked to use it's full capabilities and add .23 MP to images. My question: one, is the source reliable, and two, do we state nominal or actual tech specs? Most users, including (as far as I can tell) anyone unwilling to jailbreak their device, will not use this hack. So do I revert the anonymous changes to .93 MP? HereToHelp ( talk to me) 13:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
according to apple, the correct name is iPod touch Any comments? -- 128.107.239.233 ( talk) 01:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Replace all instances of it in the article and avoid it in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.78.55 ( talk) 06:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
In the fourth paragraph of the introductory section this is said: "It also contains Apple's A4 for faster processing, a microphone for communication, voice recognition, and voice memos, which can be useful for recording things, such as an academic tutorial, a voice lesson, or a college lecture, (for the space in the iTouch 4g has stronger than most iPod nanos and therefore can hold clearer audio recordings) and a three-axis gyroscopic sensor which enables the device to recognize approximately how far, fast, and in which direction it has moved in space."
Firstly, I believe it is incorrectly formatted with the comma then brackets then an "and": there shouldn't be the comma. Secondly, it doesn't make sense: "the space ... has stronger", etc. Thirdly, the term iTouch is used which is, as previously mentioned, incorrect.
Iamstupido ( talk) 09:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
In the past, there has been a coalition of editors who wanted to prevent any shots of the iPod touch that include any images of the interface. The argument was that, while it would be fine under US fair use, if for some reason the article were to be published on a CD for export to countries that are not governed by US copyright, the interface would not be allowed.
Now that this article has degraded to B / C quality, I would expect that it's unlikely to be part of a CD version of Wikipedia any time soon. Other Apple articles like the IPhone show the interface under fair use. I for one think that the iPod touch article would benefit from more detail on what the interface looks like (under fair use of course). Mattnad ( talk) 20:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Why does the chart read "16, 32 and 64 GB" for the 3rd generation? Shouldn't it include the 8GB model? I am going to change it to "8, 32, and 64". If you need proof, see this video: http://reviews.cnet.com/mp3-players/apple-ipod-touch-third/4505-6490_7-33770781.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.249.85 ( talk) 19:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
When looking at my ipod touch 3g, I am unable to find anything directly identifying it as a 3g. In the general settings 'about' display, the model is identified as MC008LL. I was surprised that the wikipedia article never mentions this fact, or clarifies if any other models might be included in the 3g category. I verified that this ipod is a 3g by googling MC008LL. I would edit the article to add this, but I don't know enough about it to make a reliable change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.150.235.107 ( talk) 20:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
On Apple's website, it calls it the iPod touch, with a lowercase letter t. I suggest changing the article name to iPod touch, to match official nomenclature — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolt473 ( talk • contribs) 20:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
According to Apple's recent filing they have sold 60 million iPod touches as of March 2011. Here are the sources:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/04/19/apples_samsung_lawsuit_notes_over_60_million_ipod_touch_sold.html http://thisismynext.com/2011/04/19/apple-sues-samsung-analysis/
I can't update the number since the article is locked, can anyone please put these in? Thanks -- 112.203.109.94 ( talk) 17:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
This page should not be speedy deleted because... -- seriously? riffic ( talk) 04:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
In the "Models" section, the pictures of the iPod touch 2nd and 3rd generations are the same picture twice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.131.205.233 ( talk) 21:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
WERE identical? they still are! -- 217.39.35.230 ( talk) 00:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I noticed some edits by an anon editor, where he added information regarding iOS 5 in two locations of the article - both of which were added between a previously cited statement, and the <ref></ref>reference itself. Doing so makes it appear to the reader that the iOS 5 statements are cited, when in fact they're not cited. I'm assuming this to be very poor editing technique, rather than trying to sneak something in to make it look factual. Please - when adding totally new information, make sure you add new citations to support the new information. Or, make sure the existing citation also include the new information (and change the date in the citation statement to indicate that the source was indeed updated.) Thanks! Groink ( talk) 12:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I think the "Hacks" should be separated as I indicated in the title. This would allow a more in-depth look at each topic. VisvambaNathan ( talk) 06:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Austi0217 (
talk)
23:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
hi i was looking in a apples itunes website and guess what i found iPod Touch 4g with 3g capabillities see this photo in the link http://images.apple.com/euro/itunes/home/images/hero20110720.png there is no iPhone on the picture witch is wierd because that is weird so im asking is this hoax?/old easter or an apple slip but this is cool :) Arttuh2010 ( talk) 07:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
It's just a poorly edited photo. DanielDPeterson ( talk) 18:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
its a iphone
I have a hypothetical question. If the iPod Classic gets killed and they decide to drop the "touch" from iPod touch, how would we go about it on this article? Do we rename this article to "iPod"? Do we merge with the iPod Classic article since it too was known as "iPod"? Or rename it "iPod (touch model)"? Jigen III ( talk) 05:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
The new iPod touch has been released, see apples website for details. Please update the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.2.76 ( talk) 03:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Is the date of the discontinuation wrong in the 3rd Generation? I don't think the iPod Touch 3rd Gen was discontinued in 2010. -- Sk8rSoda PENN STATE NITTANY LIONS 10:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:Ipod touch white and black.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 25 October 2011
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 18:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC) |
I feel the 4g section should have something about the digitizer being glued to the screen and the frame http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Installing-iPod-Touch-4th-Generation-Front-Panel-Replacement/3639/1 216.160.181.242 ( talk) 17:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
The included earphones are obviously minor as well because if they weren't you would mention how the Vietnamese ones are even worse than the Chinese ones, and that the latter are still worse than a £5 Sony pair! -- 217.39.35.230 ( talk) 23:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Some useful information (the article incorrectly refers to it as the "5th" generation)
Besides the white colour option and iOS 5 preloaded, the logic board has some changes:
"•Possible upgrade to the WiFi/Bluetooth chip package by Murata with part number RV KM1721006 •New markings VT1K3441AQ on the A4 chip, whereas last year’s A4 had K4X2G643GE markings •New gyroscope with markings AGD8 2131 •2129 33DH chip next to the gyroscope seems to have been packaged in the same die with the gyroscope in last year’s Touch"
http://www.ifixit.com/blog/2011/10/20/a-peek-inside-the-ipod-touch-5th-generation/
-- 217.39.35.230 ( talk) 23:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I have a black 32gb 4.5 gen iPod touch new in December 2011 and I complete a full cycle charge every evening the with the "Battery Doctor Pro" app, which is considered the only decent one. It has a status screen which estimates how long the user can do a certain activity. To get realistic times (12hr audio playback and at least 1hr for the most demanding activities) I have to set the "battery health" to 35%. Apple claims 40hr audio playback which isn't possible. I don't think my iPod touch is faulty because after looking around on the internet, everyone seems to get similar battery life in the real world. I think the pre-production units Apple use for testing must have better batteries and they can somehow get away with the ridiculous claims! -- 217.39.35.230 ( talk) 23:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is surely not the place to be ignorant either? Why should the article only feature Apple's nonsense claims, why can't it include the facts? Please don't annoy me! -- 217.39.35.230 ( talk) 23:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
No need to be such a dickhead, I swear the editors on here have two very different sides, I have had very nice people in the past! -- 194.83.82.3 ( talk) 11:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Aww sorry, maybe that was a bit harsh. No need to be so awkward, is that better? -- 217.39.35.230 ( talk) 15:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Just got some automated message, presumably because you can't be bothered to actually write one. Yeah, my aim was to improve the article and you could have used my information in the article rather than say this was a "general discussion" (ended up more like a bullshit discussion) and tell me to use a forum when I HATE FORUMS! Because stuff like THIS always happens on them. HERE, everything is always fine apart from on this occasion. A real shame :-S -- 217.39.35.230 ( talk) 15:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC) Oh, and if everyone else gets shorter battery life than claimed (which they do) then that's OBVIOUSLY a fact. And what about my information about changes to the 4.5 gen iPod touch compared to the 4th gen? Oh let me guess, that stuff is MINOR! Well, I see plenty of "minor" details on other articles so why can't this one have them? Let me guess, the editors of it are Apple SNOBS who also own iPads, MacBook Pros, iMacs and whatever. Not normal people who have Windows PCs (FTW!) and have the iPod touch because its the one decent product Apple makes, a great one! Oh well, I learned the hard way but glad I did cos I can go to better places on this site :-) -- 217.39.35.230 ( talk) 15:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC) |
It would be useful to add a section listing what Bluetooth profiles it supports. I can't find and don't recall seeing that info on Wikipedia for iOS devices.-- Elvey ( talk) 20:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Does the first generation have GPS, Please can somebody add a row dedicated to GPS in the specifications section Thank you!
Thank you 86.154.35.123 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 ( talk) 12:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
IPod Touch → iPod touch – "iPod Touch" is the wrong way, it's simple as that. (That "t" should lowercase). Further more, there has Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules. If there has the rule saying can't do this article moving, then ignore that rule. Rules should applying only if it's can improving the thing. There have a discussion that can found supporter of this renaming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AIPod_Touch/Archive_5#Capitalisation. Hope this can moved same as these wikis: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod_touch http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPod_touch http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_iPod_touch IEatSoxLikeAnimal ( talk) 01:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Basically what's in the title. Also, article needs to be unlocked and I hope that that nasty battery life person is gone! -- 90.203.202.53 ( talk) 19:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Nice work! However, discontinuation of 8gb and 64gb 4th gen and addition of 16gb 4th gen need to be added to the first table (with the images). -- 90.205.7.200 ( talk) 06:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
One more thing - the specs in the infobox need to be updated. -- 90.205.7.200 ( talk) 06:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
All of the pictures of iPod Touches have a photo of it from the front. The fifth generation one has it from multiple angles. Should it be changed for consistency? ArturGhostmancer ( talk) 01:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i want to edit the itouch photo, to an 5th generation photo Roniz98 ( talk) 07:28, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Just where do they sell the 4th generation 16 GB? Is it sold in the OEM market or internationally? Because I'm not finding any evidence of its existence to warrant a mention for it. therewillbehotcake ( talk) 17:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see. So will they be released together with the 5th generation models? therewillbehotcake ( talk) 21:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The last sentence of the section: "Comparison to iPhone" claims "the iPod Touch camera lacks a flash for low light photography." The iPod 5 camera now has flash, so this sentence should be changed to something like "Until the 5th generation, the iPod Touch camera lacked a flash for low light photography." or something along those lines. To verify, check apple's features page for the iPod Touch: http://www.apple.com/ipod-touch/features/ . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapistic ( talk • contribs) 02:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I need to how many iPod touches were sold total Pardeep12 ( talk) 21:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
When are the Mobile TV chips going to be added to the IPods and Iphones? I will not consider buying one until this feature is added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.88.174.84 ( talk) 19:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Does the iPod touch allow web browsing? Although the device has WiFi access, there is no mention either way, so I assume not. If my assumption is incorrect, the article should be changed to clarify. 111.196.174.218 ( talk) 15:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
It bothers me that SVG renderings are used in place of actual photographs for these devices. While they aren't bad vectors, I feel like actual photographs would be more useful and more accurately represent the product. Imagine if Obama's mugshot on his article was a painting. Would someone with a better camera than myself be willing to take such photos for the article? -- Guess Who ( talk) 06:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
It has 512 MB of ram. You should add the info in the list of models, it has already been added in the specifications.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
XDavid69 (
talk •
contribs)
16:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add interwiki pa:ਆਇਪਾਡ ਟਚ ਰਾਜੇਂਦਰਾ ਸਿੰਘ ( talk) 11:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
It's currently craaaazy long. Surely it'd be better to summarise the current gen? As is it pointlessly repeats information in the specifications table. Яehevkor ✉ 19:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I've always thought that that infobox doesn't really make sense anyway because the specs are for the current generation only when they should really be a summary of the specs for all generations, for example 8, 16, 32 or 64GB of flash memory, 412, 533, 600 or 800MHz CPU, 128MB, 256MB or 512MB of RAM, 3.5" or 4" screen, 480x320, 960x640 or 1136x640 screen resolution etc. -- 86.156.190.100 ( talk) 22:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pardeep12 ( talk) 02:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC) In mid october samsung claimed that the iPod touch 5th generation, iPad mini, and iPad 4 violated its patents. It is scehduled to trial at 2013
All the other iOS devices have individual articles based on generation. So I think it's wise that its time to split the article into each individual generation of iPod touch. Otherwise, it will get too long. Bentoman ( talk) 00:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi could we create different articles for the iPod touches due to some of the iPod now discontinued and are not supported the only one which is now is the 5th generation and I think the iPod touch article should be about the new iPod touch and the old iPod touch should have there own articles. 90.201.78.163 ( talk) 14:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Now the article's locked again, and you removed my post saying that it was no longer locked. -- 194.83.82.3 ( talk) 10:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, the product which is compared to "an iPhone without phone" does have name "iPod touch" and the letter "t" should be lowercase. Look, in this page the product is obviously named "iPod touch". So, I suggest moving the article to iPod touch. -- AppleJoyNeop ( talk) 12:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The new 16gb 5th gen is not available in colors. Also the color scheme - black front silver back - is unique to the 16gb edition.
67.169.114.35 ( talk) 22:41, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
The first citation is to https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=338019&fcc_id=%27BCG-E2407 which is not functioning (Message from the NSAPI plugin:No backend server available for connection: timed out after 10 seconds or idempotent set to OFF. Build date/time: Dec 5 2006 11:10:07 Change Number: 871803). When I search the FCC site for the approvals, I find none. I'm getting: There are no applications on file that match the search criteria specified: Grantee Code: BCG Product Code: E2407 whether I search starting at http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/ or https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm . The (an) FCC ID of the iPod Touch 4G is BCG-E2407. Is the FCC site glitchy? I do get other Apple products ( example) (and I cam make the site display funny messages by messing with the URL.-- Elvey ( talk) 03:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Here are some working links to the FCC Applications / Exhibits. Unsure of how to integrate them into the article.
iPod 1:
http://fccid.net/number.php?id=693627&fcc=BCGA1213
iPod 2:
http://fccid.net/number.php?id=128461&fcc=BCGA1288
iPod 3:
http://fccid.net/number.php?id=156063&fcc=BCG-2310
iPod 4:
http://fccid.net/number.php?id=338019&fcc=BCG-E2407
iPod 5:
http://fccid.net/number.php?id=141880&fcc=BCG-A1421
Lgats (
talk)
02:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add to the fourth generation iPod touch that iOS 7 will not work on it. Look at the bottom of this page: http://www.apple.com/ios/ios7/features/ 53kyle12 ( talk) 20:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC) 53kyle12 ( talk) 20:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I noticed on browsing this page that it makes heavy use of fake product shots-- the lead image is a Photoshop mockup, and some of the n-generation 'photos' are the same. This seems highly misleading to me--we should either show the product as is or have no photo, and leave the fake renders to marketing. In some cases the images are so bad that they're misleading anyhow: my 1G touch looks nothing like this cartoon. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 13:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Per this edit is the iPod Touch a "dedicated" gaming device? The navbox seems to be for devices that there conceived, designed and released as primarily gaming devices, whereas the iPod touch seems to be primarily a media player, and a game device second.. Яehevkor ✉ 16:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
It would be good if each model had its own header so that other articles (and external pages) could link to the correct anchor point. They'd also show up in the contents box at the top. Mackerm ( talk) 00:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I'm Catfan660, here to talk about why I put the Missing information template on the Software section.
The reason I did is: there's NO information on iOS 7 and iPod, iOS 8 and iPod, iOS 9 and iPod, and iOS 10 and iPod. It just simply doesn't live up to Wikipedia's high standard of articles. I will be trying to edit this in the future.
Catfan660 ( talk) 16:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
what is the storage on ipod touch 6 and how much is the price for black ipod touch 6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by A8v ( talk • contribs) 23:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Which, if any, of these devices come with charging adapters / power blocks / chargers (to power them from wall outlets), and what is the wattage or amperage of such adapters (on the USB side)? — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)