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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
The history section is pretty inaccurate according to this Wired Article: page 1, page 2. I've changed the article to reflect the history from Wired and another article from LEM. Tomhormby 00:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The iTunes date seems to be wrong. The History section says: "Apple accepted and development of the iPod began in February 2001, one month after iTunes was released." [that's saying iTunes was released in Jan '01]... and then in the iTunes Music Store section: "It was introduced on April 28, 2003"
Article says: In addition, the earphone plug is smaller.Does this mean it needs non-standard cables to hook to a stereo system? If not, why is this affirmation relevant? 201.128.116.10 17:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
It isn't, it's the same size. It is, however, missing the port fot the add-on remote. I'll update it.-- Erciesielski 05:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that "Worker Exploitation" and "Manufacturing" say almost the exact same thing, perhaps one should be deleted. also, maybe it's just me, but i think the "manufacturing" version sounds quite biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samguana ( talk • contribs) 17:58, 1 July 2006
On ipods, it always says the memory on the back of them. But the memory listed is not true. For a video 30GB ipod, the actual size is 27.8GB.Due to this, video ipods can't hold 7500 songs and 75 hours of videos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crayonkid1 ( talk • contribs) 02:41, 25 March 2006
I've got it! Why don't we simply replace the entire "Models" section with a simple table that matches Apple Macintosh#Current product line. It would fix the article size problem, and several other problems with the article such as referencing, language and POV. — Wackymacs 19:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Image | Name | Capacity | Battery life | Description |
---|---|---|---|---|
The iPod 5G | iPod (5th Generation) | 30 - 60 GB | 14 hours | description here |
The iPod Shuffle | iPod shuffle | 512 MB - 1 GB | 12 hours | description here |
iPod nano | 1, 2, 4 GB | 14 hours | description here |
I think this table thing is a pretty good idea. And perhaps we could have an iPod family article that goes into all the details and does the all the comparisons and stuff. -- IE 15:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Model | iPod | iPod Mini | iPod Nano | iPod Shuffle | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1G | 2G | 3G | 4G / Photo | 5G / Video | 1G | 2G | |||
Image | |||||||||
Capacity | 5 GB | 10, 20 GB | 10, 15, 20, 30, 40 GB | 20, 30, 40, 60 GB | 30, 60 GB | 4 GB | 4, 6 GB | 1, 2, 4 GB | 512 MB, 1 GB |
Changes introduced | First release | Touch sensitive wheel | Dock Connector, middle row of buttons | Color screen, photo viewer, buttons integrated to "touch wheel" | Larger screen, video player, slimmer | First release. Available in several colors | No AC adapter included | Successor to iPod Mini, slimmer with color screen | First release |
Connection | FireWire | FireWire | FireWire (USB for syncing only) | FireWire or USB | USB (FireWire for charging only) | FireWire (USB for syncing only) | USB or FireWire (double check this) | USB (FireWire for charging only) | USB |
Release date | October 2001 | July 2002 | April 2003 | July 2004 | October 2005 | January 2004 | February 2005 | September 2005 | January 2005 |
... This might simplify discussing other differences between the different versions - Rockbox, CPU, color vs. B&W display, etc. I just wanted USB vs. Firewire but I'm sure a case could be made for others. A picture per, uh, category (ipod, Mini, Shuffle, Nano) might be enough. The limited edition items are currently left out. Thoughts? - Pronoiac 07:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The first generation iPods were Mac compatible only. Apple later added limited Windows support to the 2nd and 3rd generation. From July 2004 and onwards, every iPod was made fully compatibile with either Mac or Windows.
I'd rather a table supplement the text, not replace or contain the text; the Harry Potter, U2, & Madonna iPods have different stories, not tech specs.
I wanted to double check the USB & FireWire support of the different generations (specifically, 3G & 4G & Mini) before moving it into the article - the article was unclear, so I was going to ask at the Apple Store or check the Wayback Machine.
I want to split this table in two, for the iPod proper & then the Mini, Nano, & Shuffle; this would fit on, say, iPod family. Also I wanted a higher contrast picture of the Shuffle. (And columns of the same width, and rows for weight & dimensions... And small text instead of weird linebreaks...)
Shoutouts to User:IE for some major work! - Pronoiac 08:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I've visited the Genius Bar at the SF Apple Store, & got some extra details on the Firewire to USB transition. I also looked at [ the tech specs] to the latest iPod. There are tons of items we could put in for comparison, the pixel dimensions of the screens, the exact dimensions & weights of the models - & I feel like not making this comprehensive. Or having a comprehensive table under another article but not here.
I've moved stuff around. I'm thinking about moving rows out to text, like, say:
Um, everything shipped since July 2004 works on Mac & Windows out of the box. I'm not sure this feature merits a mention either way.
Skimming what's in the main article: Geez, I'm not sure what's worth keeping around. I need to think about this.
Thoughts? - Pronoiac 05:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Your Windows vs. Mac paragraph works for me.
The dimensions, battery lives, & probably weight were sometimes different for different capacities of the same generation. These details would be fine on a comprehensive table, on a separate page, so it doesn't dominate then try to assimilate this article. :)
As for the photos: Um, this strikes me as overkill. (This is also something I can't directly do.) Check the original Shuffle thumbnail: The iPod Shuffle A bit of contrast - a negative halo or something - will have to be edited into the photos to actually see what's there. ... This is more ambitious than I am right now. - Pronoiac 23:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Here is a (very poor) example of what I mean. Of course, it should follow the article's current Toc:
Family | Image | Line | Model | Capacity | Battery life | Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
iPod | The iPod 5G | 5th generation | (This Box) | 30 - 60 GB | 14 hours | On October 12, 2005 Apple launched the 5th generation iPod at the "One more thing..." event. [1] This iPod is often called the iPod video or the video iPod, while Apple documentation refers to it as the Fifth Generation iPod or iPod with video (compare with the Fourth Generation iPod, iPod with color display, or iPod (Click Wheel); the Third Generation iPod or iPod (dock connector); Second Generation iPod or iPod (touch wheel); and First Generation iPod or iPod (scroll wheel)). [2] |
4th gen | test | |||||
U2 | test | On October 12, 2005 Apple reintroduced the Harry Potter collectible iPod along with an update of the iPod line. The new Harry Potter iPod retains the laser-engraved Hogwarts crest on back of the device and is sold with the "complete Harry Potter" (the first 6 books in the Harry Potter series). The capacity of this model iPod was increased to 30 GB from the previous 20 GB. The price remains the same as the 4th generation model. | ||||
Harry Potter | test | |||||
iPod photo | ||||||
iPod shuffle | The iPod Shuffle | 512 MB - 1 GB | 12 hours | description here | ||
iPod nano | 1, 2, 4 GB | 14 hours | description here | |||
iPod mini |
Would it be possible to split the box marked "(This Box)" into several rows based on each model? 30/60 for the 5g? Paul C/ T + 01:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I came up with the idea of this table concept to replace the complex "Models" section, but it is other users who have actually seemed to try different things with the table and put content in. I really like the second mockup, it seems completed, when is it going up on the article page to replace the Models section? — Wackymacs 20:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I have moved this to here for now as the current text is rubbish, and I'm not sure it should be included. Hamish ( Talk) 23:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello Jamie. I today added the link to Hot iPod News (www.hotipodnews.com) to the wikipedia. This is not my own site. I do not own a site. I DO own an iPod, (4GB Nano), and think that this site is very well done and have it in my del.icio.us bookmarks. The site has been ranked #1 on MacRank toplist for almost 2 years straight now. I benefit none from the inclusion (or not)of this site, so I do not see it as "spam", however if you choose to see it as such and decide to keep it removed, that is your perogative. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.74.64 ( talk • contribs) 00:57, 8 July 2006
I've seen a lot of criticism on many forums about how the iPods that use Mini Hard drives rather than Flash memory do not work even in pressurized airplane cabins well below the maximum specs of 10000ft. Here are some examples from a quick search on the apple forum alone. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Does anyone think this is worth mentioning in the article? A simple google search turns up many more topics similar to this. 71.235.83.132 12:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm new here, and don't know too much about Wikipedia, but wouldn't it make sense to do that? It looks strange when you look at the page and iPod is spelled "IPod" -- Edmn61 15:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I was reading the newspaper in Toronto a few days ago, and there was a story about a person who was struck by lightning when the ipod acted as a conductor for the lightning in a thunderstorm. I'll look for that article.- Delta Spartan 20:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I edited the iPod models table to have an easier view of the chronological release. I hope the creator of the table does not mind of the changes, the information is intact. The addtion of color futher enhances this chart. Please see this article I created recently, support it by improbing it, pre-order don't let them erase it.-- Toosmart215 22:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Since PC World has now officially reported on the iPod Shuffle's mysterious corruptions, effectively destroying the device, and the growing threads on the Apple forums about the issue, I added it to the criticisms section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.242.70.33 ( talk • contribs) 06:33, 7 August 2006
Any strong reason not to use the new timeline image? I know that User:Wackymacs mentioned the lack of embedded links, but these are in the table and througout the article. Are they really needed again on an image? -- IE 22:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but I can't the point where consensus was reached. And I stand by what I said earlier... how exactly can anyone else update this image? How are you generating it? Does anyone who wants to update it have to have MS Word and Apple's Pages installed?
Also, I really don't like the choice of colours. I don't know exactly what would look better, but the rainbow of colours combined with the big lettering make it look kinda bad. Also... why do the numbers not all line up? Take the longest line that starts under 1G and ends just before 5G. "10 GB" is almost touching the bottom of the line and the first "20 GB" is almost touching the top of the line.
If this was recreated an SVG image that anyone could easily edit, I might support it instead of the Wiki timeline, but as a PNG it gets both thumbs down from me. AlistairMcMillan 01:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Whichever timeline is used, the new shuffel need to be labeled as 2nd gen Nicoli nicolivich 00:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
WHAT is the ipod video 30GB screen specs? virus 19:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The default file type on Ipods is AAC/MP4A - from the page Audio Coding it appears that it is not a proprietary file type. This section may also be a violation of "Positive tone". (Should I perhaps have marked this as dubious instead of NPOV?) 202.168.63.129 03:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Chas66.
Apple hardware engineer Michael Dhuey did about the last 30% of the work on the first iPod, but his name has been erased from this article as of August 23, 2006. Why? Design News magazine nominated him for Design News Engineer of the Year based partly on his work on the iPod. — Walloon 03:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
There should be a section about how these damn iPods break all the time. My replacement just broke, and a BRAND NEW USED ONE never even worekd to begin with. -- 66.234.203.32 09:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Since the correct title is iPod but we cant capitalise it, why don't we just change the title to Apple iPod? It is the title in German Wikipedia and it looks better. Currently it looks like LPod.
It says in the article that holding menu turns on the backlight which is not true anymore, and is a major pain in the ass.
Who on earth moved this to The iPod, that's the worst name for an article EVER. It was fine before, no reason was given to the move and no vote was given. — Wackymacs 19:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no consensus for move. Joelito ( talk) 20:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
IPod to the iPod. There's no such thing as an IPod, only an iPod. Having an article on IPods is like having an article on gweemps, as they both don't exist. Only iPods exist, and so that should be the title. "IPod" in the font its in looks like "el pod", rather than "eye pod". Voortle 22:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I think there was a consensus—it's just that the consensus was to leave it here.-- Here T oHelp 22:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I've heard rumours of a 6th generation iPod being released on the 12th of his month. Are these rumours true? -- 72.228.5.240 03:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
6th generation iPod has been revealed. Edits needed immediately. -- 65.175.198.184 17:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The 5th generation was ENHANCED! I don't think this enhancement is the 6G. Please change until Apple officially calls this enhancement 6G.
-- Hamish ( Talk) 17:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
And it's not bloody 5.5 either, it's 5.1 if you have to do that at all.
The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 23:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
iPod → Apple iPod – To remove the "technical limitation" issue with regard to the name which is correctly "iPod". Also iPod has become a generic term of sorts for MP3 players along the lines of Kleenex or Q-tips. This article deals solely with Apple's MP3 player offerings. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Support for obvious reasons. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Why is the new ipod nano on the new timeline not labled as 2nd generation? Nicoli nicolivich 10:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
i don't know where else to look for help with some problems i've been having, so i'm asking here. i recently updated my 5g 60gb ipod to version 1.2 and now whenever i connect my ipod to my pc, the backlight comes on dimmer. how do i turn the backlight off completely? also i have a question that the answer for should maybe go on this page. when the ipod is plugged into the computer or to a tv and charger simultaniously. does the power go into the battery then to the backlight/tv. so for this backlight thing, would the power be chargering the battery, then the backlight taking power form the battery, or is the power linked to the backlight directly? thanx. ~~Patrick~~ 04:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
This Article seems to be more about iPod the brand then the iPod. I think there should be a separate section for the current iPod (video), like there is for the nano, mini, and shuffle. This article has alot of detail not directly related to the product, and its related products, while the nano mini and shuffle do not. What are your opinions on this?
This article should be about all of the iPods. We need to have a different article for each different line, Like the iPod nano should have its own article, but not a new article for first genoration and second genoration. The name for the new iPod (5th genoration etc...)aritcle should be "iPod (hardware) or something along those lines, and this article should be "iPod (product line). Mastercheif 05:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I kinda agree with Masterchief. We should keep the separate articles. The article "iPod" should just be about the actual iPod, similar to the "iPod nano" and "iPod shuffle" articles. Then have an article titled "iPod (product line)" or "iPod family" or whatever that covers all the different models as a whole. One big reason for doing this, aside from this article already being way too long, is that if we merge the separate articles into one big "iPod" article then if someone wants to create a link to a specific model in another article then the link is going to be something like "iPod#iPod mini". AlistairMcMillan 16:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't get this. Earphones are put under advertisement. And it goes:
First, what do earphones have to do with advertisement? Second, why is there no mention of the new earphones that were introduced recently? Misha 18:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
9/25/2006 the iPod page says: "September 2006 A new ad featuring the updated iPod nano.Silhouette dancers can only be seen when the cross the paths of color generated by their iPod nano. This features the song "The Audience Is Listening Theme Song" by Cut Chemist[61]." Is this new ad on Television? if so, perhaps this entry should say "A new television ad featuring" Or is this on busses? and I think there is a missing "y" - "Silhouette dancers can only be seen when they cross the paths..."
I think the article needs to point out that Apple used the Design Chain method of product design and development in coordination with PortalPlayer. This Design Chain method page is being built right now and needs links to support it. Refer to the following article. Anomalycp 22:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I added a couple words to a paragraph in History to indicate the method by which Apple instituted its production of the iPod, i.e. Design Chain. Anomalycp 22:47, 26 September 2006 (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 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
The history section is pretty inaccurate according to this Wired Article: page 1, page 2. I've changed the article to reflect the history from Wired and another article from LEM. Tomhormby 00:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
The iTunes date seems to be wrong. The History section says: "Apple accepted and development of the iPod began in February 2001, one month after iTunes was released." [that's saying iTunes was released in Jan '01]... and then in the iTunes Music Store section: "It was introduced on April 28, 2003"
Article says: In addition, the earphone plug is smaller.Does this mean it needs non-standard cables to hook to a stereo system? If not, why is this affirmation relevant? 201.128.116.10 17:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
It isn't, it's the same size. It is, however, missing the port fot the add-on remote. I'll update it.-- Erciesielski 05:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that "Worker Exploitation" and "Manufacturing" say almost the exact same thing, perhaps one should be deleted. also, maybe it's just me, but i think the "manufacturing" version sounds quite biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samguana ( talk • contribs) 17:58, 1 July 2006
On ipods, it always says the memory on the back of them. But the memory listed is not true. For a video 30GB ipod, the actual size is 27.8GB.Due to this, video ipods can't hold 7500 songs and 75 hours of videos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crayonkid1 ( talk • contribs) 02:41, 25 March 2006
I've got it! Why don't we simply replace the entire "Models" section with a simple table that matches Apple Macintosh#Current product line. It would fix the article size problem, and several other problems with the article such as referencing, language and POV. — Wackymacs 19:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Image | Name | Capacity | Battery life | Description |
---|---|---|---|---|
The iPod 5G | iPod (5th Generation) | 30 - 60 GB | 14 hours | description here |
The iPod Shuffle | iPod shuffle | 512 MB - 1 GB | 12 hours | description here |
iPod nano | 1, 2, 4 GB | 14 hours | description here |
I think this table thing is a pretty good idea. And perhaps we could have an iPod family article that goes into all the details and does the all the comparisons and stuff. -- IE 15:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Model | iPod | iPod Mini | iPod Nano | iPod Shuffle | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1G | 2G | 3G | 4G / Photo | 5G / Video | 1G | 2G | |||
Image | |||||||||
Capacity | 5 GB | 10, 20 GB | 10, 15, 20, 30, 40 GB | 20, 30, 40, 60 GB | 30, 60 GB | 4 GB | 4, 6 GB | 1, 2, 4 GB | 512 MB, 1 GB |
Changes introduced | First release | Touch sensitive wheel | Dock Connector, middle row of buttons | Color screen, photo viewer, buttons integrated to "touch wheel" | Larger screen, video player, slimmer | First release. Available in several colors | No AC adapter included | Successor to iPod Mini, slimmer with color screen | First release |
Connection | FireWire | FireWire | FireWire (USB for syncing only) | FireWire or USB | USB (FireWire for charging only) | FireWire (USB for syncing only) | USB or FireWire (double check this) | USB (FireWire for charging only) | USB |
Release date | October 2001 | July 2002 | April 2003 | July 2004 | October 2005 | January 2004 | February 2005 | September 2005 | January 2005 |
... This might simplify discussing other differences between the different versions - Rockbox, CPU, color vs. B&W display, etc. I just wanted USB vs. Firewire but I'm sure a case could be made for others. A picture per, uh, category (ipod, Mini, Shuffle, Nano) might be enough. The limited edition items are currently left out. Thoughts? - Pronoiac 07:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The first generation iPods were Mac compatible only. Apple later added limited Windows support to the 2nd and 3rd generation. From July 2004 and onwards, every iPod was made fully compatibile with either Mac or Windows.
I'd rather a table supplement the text, not replace or contain the text; the Harry Potter, U2, & Madonna iPods have different stories, not tech specs.
I wanted to double check the USB & FireWire support of the different generations (specifically, 3G & 4G & Mini) before moving it into the article - the article was unclear, so I was going to ask at the Apple Store or check the Wayback Machine.
I want to split this table in two, for the iPod proper & then the Mini, Nano, & Shuffle; this would fit on, say, iPod family. Also I wanted a higher contrast picture of the Shuffle. (And columns of the same width, and rows for weight & dimensions... And small text instead of weird linebreaks...)
Shoutouts to User:IE for some major work! - Pronoiac 08:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I've visited the Genius Bar at the SF Apple Store, & got some extra details on the Firewire to USB transition. I also looked at [ the tech specs] to the latest iPod. There are tons of items we could put in for comparison, the pixel dimensions of the screens, the exact dimensions & weights of the models - & I feel like not making this comprehensive. Or having a comprehensive table under another article but not here.
I've moved stuff around. I'm thinking about moving rows out to text, like, say:
Um, everything shipped since July 2004 works on Mac & Windows out of the box. I'm not sure this feature merits a mention either way.
Skimming what's in the main article: Geez, I'm not sure what's worth keeping around. I need to think about this.
Thoughts? - Pronoiac 05:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Your Windows vs. Mac paragraph works for me.
The dimensions, battery lives, & probably weight were sometimes different for different capacities of the same generation. These details would be fine on a comprehensive table, on a separate page, so it doesn't dominate then try to assimilate this article. :)
As for the photos: Um, this strikes me as overkill. (This is also something I can't directly do.) Check the original Shuffle thumbnail: The iPod Shuffle A bit of contrast - a negative halo or something - will have to be edited into the photos to actually see what's there. ... This is more ambitious than I am right now. - Pronoiac 23:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Here is a (very poor) example of what I mean. Of course, it should follow the article's current Toc:
Family | Image | Line | Model | Capacity | Battery life | Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
iPod | The iPod 5G | 5th generation | (This Box) | 30 - 60 GB | 14 hours | On October 12, 2005 Apple launched the 5th generation iPod at the "One more thing..." event. [1] This iPod is often called the iPod video or the video iPod, while Apple documentation refers to it as the Fifth Generation iPod or iPod with video (compare with the Fourth Generation iPod, iPod with color display, or iPod (Click Wheel); the Third Generation iPod or iPod (dock connector); Second Generation iPod or iPod (touch wheel); and First Generation iPod or iPod (scroll wheel)). [2] |
4th gen | test | |||||
U2 | test | On October 12, 2005 Apple reintroduced the Harry Potter collectible iPod along with an update of the iPod line. The new Harry Potter iPod retains the laser-engraved Hogwarts crest on back of the device and is sold with the "complete Harry Potter" (the first 6 books in the Harry Potter series). The capacity of this model iPod was increased to 30 GB from the previous 20 GB. The price remains the same as the 4th generation model. | ||||
Harry Potter | test | |||||
iPod photo | ||||||
iPod shuffle | The iPod Shuffle | 512 MB - 1 GB | 12 hours | description here | ||
iPod nano | 1, 2, 4 GB | 14 hours | description here | |||
iPod mini |
Would it be possible to split the box marked "(This Box)" into several rows based on each model? 30/60 for the 5g? Paul C/ T + 01:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I came up with the idea of this table concept to replace the complex "Models" section, but it is other users who have actually seemed to try different things with the table and put content in. I really like the second mockup, it seems completed, when is it going up on the article page to replace the Models section? — Wackymacs 20:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I have moved this to here for now as the current text is rubbish, and I'm not sure it should be included. Hamish ( Talk) 23:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Hello Jamie. I today added the link to Hot iPod News (www.hotipodnews.com) to the wikipedia. This is not my own site. I do not own a site. I DO own an iPod, (4GB Nano), and think that this site is very well done and have it in my del.icio.us bookmarks. The site has been ranked #1 on MacRank toplist for almost 2 years straight now. I benefit none from the inclusion (or not)of this site, so I do not see it as "spam", however if you choose to see it as such and decide to keep it removed, that is your perogative. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.74.64 ( talk • contribs) 00:57, 8 July 2006
I've seen a lot of criticism on many forums about how the iPods that use Mini Hard drives rather than Flash memory do not work even in pressurized airplane cabins well below the maximum specs of 10000ft. Here are some examples from a quick search on the apple forum alone. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Does anyone think this is worth mentioning in the article? A simple google search turns up many more topics similar to this. 71.235.83.132 12:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm new here, and don't know too much about Wikipedia, but wouldn't it make sense to do that? It looks strange when you look at the page and iPod is spelled "IPod" -- Edmn61 15:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I was reading the newspaper in Toronto a few days ago, and there was a story about a person who was struck by lightning when the ipod acted as a conductor for the lightning in a thunderstorm. I'll look for that article.- Delta Spartan 20:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I edited the iPod models table to have an easier view of the chronological release. I hope the creator of the table does not mind of the changes, the information is intact. The addtion of color futher enhances this chart. Please see this article I created recently, support it by improbing it, pre-order don't let them erase it.-- Toosmart215 22:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Since PC World has now officially reported on the iPod Shuffle's mysterious corruptions, effectively destroying the device, and the growing threads on the Apple forums about the issue, I added it to the criticisms section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.242.70.33 ( talk • contribs) 06:33, 7 August 2006
Any strong reason not to use the new timeline image? I know that User:Wackymacs mentioned the lack of embedded links, but these are in the table and througout the article. Are they really needed again on an image? -- IE 22:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but I can't the point where consensus was reached. And I stand by what I said earlier... how exactly can anyone else update this image? How are you generating it? Does anyone who wants to update it have to have MS Word and Apple's Pages installed?
Also, I really don't like the choice of colours. I don't know exactly what would look better, but the rainbow of colours combined with the big lettering make it look kinda bad. Also... why do the numbers not all line up? Take the longest line that starts under 1G and ends just before 5G. "10 GB" is almost touching the bottom of the line and the first "20 GB" is almost touching the top of the line.
If this was recreated an SVG image that anyone could easily edit, I might support it instead of the Wiki timeline, but as a PNG it gets both thumbs down from me. AlistairMcMillan 01:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Whichever timeline is used, the new shuffel need to be labeled as 2nd gen Nicoli nicolivich 00:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
WHAT is the ipod video 30GB screen specs? virus 19:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The default file type on Ipods is AAC/MP4A - from the page Audio Coding it appears that it is not a proprietary file type. This section may also be a violation of "Positive tone". (Should I perhaps have marked this as dubious instead of NPOV?) 202.168.63.129 03:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Chas66.
Apple hardware engineer Michael Dhuey did about the last 30% of the work on the first iPod, but his name has been erased from this article as of August 23, 2006. Why? Design News magazine nominated him for Design News Engineer of the Year based partly on his work on the iPod. — Walloon 03:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
There should be a section about how these damn iPods break all the time. My replacement just broke, and a BRAND NEW USED ONE never even worekd to begin with. -- 66.234.203.32 09:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Since the correct title is iPod but we cant capitalise it, why don't we just change the title to Apple iPod? It is the title in German Wikipedia and it looks better. Currently it looks like LPod.
It says in the article that holding menu turns on the backlight which is not true anymore, and is a major pain in the ass.
Who on earth moved this to The iPod, that's the worst name for an article EVER. It was fine before, no reason was given to the move and no vote was given. — Wackymacs 19:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was no consensus for move. Joelito ( talk) 20:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
IPod to the iPod. There's no such thing as an IPod, only an iPod. Having an article on IPods is like having an article on gweemps, as they both don't exist. Only iPods exist, and so that should be the title. "IPod" in the font its in looks like "el pod", rather than "eye pod". Voortle 22:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I think there was a consensus—it's just that the consensus was to leave it here.-- Here T oHelp 22:48, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I've heard rumours of a 6th generation iPod being released on the 12th of his month. Are these rumours true? -- 72.228.5.240 03:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
6th generation iPod has been revealed. Edits needed immediately. -- 65.175.198.184 17:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The 5th generation was ENHANCED! I don't think this enhancement is the 6G. Please change until Apple officially calls this enhancement 6G.
-- Hamish ( Talk) 17:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
And it's not bloody 5.5 either, it's 5.1 if you have to do that at all.
The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 23:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
iPod → Apple iPod – To remove the "technical limitation" issue with regard to the name which is correctly "iPod". Also iPod has become a generic term of sorts for MP3 players along the lines of Kleenex or Q-tips. This article deals solely with Apple's MP3 player offerings. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Support for obvious reasons. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Why is the new ipod nano on the new timeline not labled as 2nd generation? Nicoli nicolivich 10:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
i don't know where else to look for help with some problems i've been having, so i'm asking here. i recently updated my 5g 60gb ipod to version 1.2 and now whenever i connect my ipod to my pc, the backlight comes on dimmer. how do i turn the backlight off completely? also i have a question that the answer for should maybe go on this page. when the ipod is plugged into the computer or to a tv and charger simultaniously. does the power go into the battery then to the backlight/tv. so for this backlight thing, would the power be chargering the battery, then the backlight taking power form the battery, or is the power linked to the backlight directly? thanx. ~~Patrick~~ 04:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
This Article seems to be more about iPod the brand then the iPod. I think there should be a separate section for the current iPod (video), like there is for the nano, mini, and shuffle. This article has alot of detail not directly related to the product, and its related products, while the nano mini and shuffle do not. What are your opinions on this?
This article should be about all of the iPods. We need to have a different article for each different line, Like the iPod nano should have its own article, but not a new article for first genoration and second genoration. The name for the new iPod (5th genoration etc...)aritcle should be "iPod (hardware) or something along those lines, and this article should be "iPod (product line). Mastercheif 05:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I kinda agree with Masterchief. We should keep the separate articles. The article "iPod" should just be about the actual iPod, similar to the "iPod nano" and "iPod shuffle" articles. Then have an article titled "iPod (product line)" or "iPod family" or whatever that covers all the different models as a whole. One big reason for doing this, aside from this article already being way too long, is that if we merge the separate articles into one big "iPod" article then if someone wants to create a link to a specific model in another article then the link is going to be something like "iPod#iPod mini". AlistairMcMillan 16:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't get this. Earphones are put under advertisement. And it goes:
First, what do earphones have to do with advertisement? Second, why is there no mention of the new earphones that were introduced recently? Misha 18:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
9/25/2006 the iPod page says: "September 2006 A new ad featuring the updated iPod nano.Silhouette dancers can only be seen when the cross the paths of color generated by their iPod nano. This features the song "The Audience Is Listening Theme Song" by Cut Chemist[61]." Is this new ad on Television? if so, perhaps this entry should say "A new television ad featuring" Or is this on busses? and I think there is a missing "y" - "Silhouette dancers can only be seen when they cross the paths..."
I think the article needs to point out that Apple used the Design Chain method of product design and development in coordination with PortalPlayer. This Design Chain method page is being built right now and needs links to support it. Refer to the following article. Anomalycp 22:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I added a couple words to a paragraph in History to indicate the method by which Apple instituted its production of the iPod, i.e. Design Chain. Anomalycp 22:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)