Talk:IPhone

New SDK License prohibits porting and/or middleware

The new iphone!!!!!!! http://iphone4g2010.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.183.200.101 (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The license agreement for the new iPhone SDK prohibits the use of any middleware, and requires you to only use the programming languages that Apple specify. Here is the text in full:

Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited).

And here are some references that I found on a cursory glance:

http://daringfireball.net/2010/04/iphone_agreement_bans_flash_compiler

http://www.pcworld.com/article/193916/apples_new_iphone_app_rules_unreasonable_and_unjustifiable.html?tk=twt_pcw

This is notable because of the wide variety of apps which use middleware. I have it on good authority that the NY Times app demonstrated on the iPad was made in Flash, and many games use the Unity middleware engine. All this will be retroactively removed from the app store should Apple follow through with the new agreement.

I reckon it's a job of someone greater than I to add this properly into the article. -Skorpus McGee (talk) 11:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it should be in the article. But you should be Bold and do it yourself :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

And if you could provide that "good authority" for the NYTimes app being developed in Flash that would be great. Also a reliable source that says that this will have any effect on things like Unity would be great, because they don't even seem to be sure themselves.[1] AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Bold? Me? Is not possible. D: I'll give it a go and see if I can word something out, but I won't be able to finish it by myself.

Though I will say that I'm not surprised that Unity are unsure as to their fate. We won't know what Apple's policy will be in practice until OS 4 hits in July, and they start rejecting apps. They may only target Flash, or they may target everybody who uses middleware. Apple make the rules, and choose when and where to enforce them. It's a bit difficult to write an encyclopaedia section on something which is clear to nobody, and you can bet that Apple will be stupendously obtuse on the matter until they start removing apps. This is why I didn't want to start adding things in - it's all rather wishy-washy and theoretical, even though the potential implications are deeply troubling.

As for that "good authority", I seem to have misplaced that link. It may have been another newspaper altogether; my memory isn't very reliable. -Skorpus McGee (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, the updated license agreement absolutely does not prevent the use of any middleware, only of middleware 1) not written in the approved programming languages, or 2) allowing you to write the application in a non-approved programming language, or 3) allowing cross-compilation. In practice, you can still use C, C++ or Obj-C libraries in your project of course. SwissPol (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

iPhone 4G

Gizmodo got their hands on the 4G iPhone. We need to add this info in! UPDATE: Me Again, iPhone Confirmed, Res and Cam Data is fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.82.187.49 (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a ton of speculation about the supposed prototype, but I'm reluctant to add what is essentially gossip to this article, even if it is backed up by sources (and there are plenty out there). Wikipedia isn't a news site, and it's not essential that we keep each article updated "as news breaks" so there's no rush to add the info. I'd personally prefer to wait until a reaction from Apple (if it comes) but if someone can find a good way to work it into the article I wouldn't object. -- Atama頭 20:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well Apple has confirmed its existence with a letter asking for it back, so maybe you can update it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.88.74 (talk) 06:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Apple sent a letter to Gizmodo's editors asking for the prototype back, so it's pretty much real. Plus, either way, it's received significant media coverage. It's worth noting. --.:Alex:. 08:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The letter simply states that Gizmodo is in possession of a "device" that belongs to Apple and asks for it's return - they never reference the term "iPhone", "prototype" or even "phone". That letter doesn't confirm that it's a new iPhone prototype, it's just a letter asking for their property back. It is certainly reasonable to infer that the "Device" that Apple refers to *is* the prototype that Gizmodo have been showing off. However, given that the letter could be faked, as could the whole incident, I don't think it's worth including at this point. Until Apple comes out and actually confirms a new model of iPhone, this is all speculation. Even though it's pretty much guaranteed that this is a real prototype, and that Apple have released a new model every year for the last 3 years (from which you could reasonably infer that there will be a new model this year), it's still all speculation. Certainly newsworthy, but I don't think it's worthy of an encyclopaedia yet. Blcollier (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we can be certain that the letter is referring to the iPhone. Gizmodo stated that they had been in contact with Apple about the device, and that the letter is merely a formality in retrieving the phone (hence the lack of any specifics). It's very unlikely that this is a hoax, as it would have to be an extremely elaborate one at that (and therefore notable). If this turns out to be an elaborate marketing stunt, then that too is definitely notable. The fact that Apple lost possession of a prototype iPhone is in itself notable. I'm not saying that we need to specify the details of the device, but merely include the story behind this. --.:Alex:. 17:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

+1, it seems pretty implausible at this point that its a giant hoax. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It has been officially confirmed that the iPhone 4G was legitimate. Someone needs to add this information into the article! Jsehrett (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)jsehrett, Apr 20 2010

Which section should it be added to? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, this might be better for History of the iPhone than this article. This article mostly describes the device itself, while the history article talks about incidents and controversies surrounding the releases of the various models and critical reception of the devices. -- Atama頭 20:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Dmarquard (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out that technically its name should be the iPhone 4, not the iPhone 4G, as it (or at least the prototype) uses 3G technology. The decision by them to use 3G technology instead of 4G technology was logical because very few companies have 4G technology at this moment, and most of those companies only have it in select areas. According to wikipedia's 4G article, the only companies to have 4G technology active at this moment are Sprint in the U.S., Telus and Bell in Canada, and O2 in England. Charwinger21 (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

A valid point, but luckily the misnomer is only on this talk page and not in the article. If you have sources for the limitation of 4G networks, they might be usable in the article. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 20:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The 4G used in this case does not necessarily refer to the technology used but rather refers to being the fourth-generation iPhone. This is the case with the iPod Touch 2G, which refers to being the second-generation iPod Touch. [User:HereToHelp|HereToHelp]] ^{(talk to me) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nahndavid (talk • contribs) 01:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)}

Introduction seem wordy to anyone else?

Just read it through and it seems pretty wordy, and throwing out a lot of later-repeated info into an intoduction section. Should we maybe trim it down a bit? Max.inglis (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't repeating info that's mentioned later the whole point of having an intro? WP:LEAD states that the introduction should summarize what's in the rest of the article, and that does seem to be the standard used in most articles. As the guideline states, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." By design there will be some repetition.

As for size, it doesn't seem that long to me; the entire lead section isn't much bigger than the lead in today's Featured Article, and about half the size of yesterday's Featured Article, so I really doubt that the size is a problem. If there's something specific that should be trimmed, you can suggest it, or just fix it yourself (though it might be reverted if the lead suffers from the removal of information). -- Atama頭 22:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think the lead is too long. ~NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 02:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request - INTRO- HSPA reference

Requesting edit of this sentence.

"The iPhone 3GS has improved performance, a camera with higher resolution and video capability, voice control,[22] and support for 7.2 Mbps HSDPA downloading (but remains limited to 384 Kbps uploading as Apple has not implemented the HSPA protocol)"

It should read "Apple has not implemented the HSUPA protocol"

as it has semi-implemented the HSPA protocol in the Download side.

Imalek0 (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Mike H.

Sounds reasonable, but I really don't know the difference between all of these protocols. Is there a reference somewhere to cite? HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

 DoneThis is important as the iphone DOES have HSPA, just not HSUPA. Alek2407 (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Page title uppercase or lowercase?

I've noticed that the title of this page (as displayed on the page, not the URL) is switching pretty regularly between IPhone and iPhone. For example, this revison is uppercase: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IPhone&oldid=361538209 while this revision is lowercase: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IPhone&oldid=361537997. Browsing the history yields a number of examples in quick succession. The thing is, I don't see anything obvious in the wiki text to explain the changes. Can anyone enlighten me as to why it gets changed? 63.229.31.77 (talk) 22:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Jeremy 5/11/2010

See here. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Tmuller2, 16 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In the Internet section- the file download limit is out of date. It has been upped to 20MB. http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/apple-raises-iphone-download-limit-to-20mb/19365036/. Also the download speed is dated too. It's closer to 3.2Mbs and in some areas 7.2Mbs for those with 3GS modelsTmuller2 (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Tmuller2 (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done, also the data speed - regardless of whether the US supports 7.2mbps yet I think even South Sudan has 7.2mbps 3G network these days. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

One more item-- In the "Sim Unlocking" section-- the information about AT&T selling iPhone with out a contract commitment isn't totally accurate. The non-commitment pricing is $499/599/699 (8GB,16GB, 32GB) compared to $99/$199/$299. Hence, $400 more. The reason is AT&T subsidizes handset cost in turn for a 2-year commitment. If the contract is terminated then a prorated ETF is charged to recover the up-front subsidy. AT&T recovers the subsidy plus "then some" over the life of the two-year contract from monthly fees. The part that is inaccurate is that Apple lose deferred income. That's incorrect. Apple doesn't receive any of the monthly service revenue. So that needs to be removed. I think the explanation for why non-commitment iPhones are so much more expensive should be that there is no guarantee that it would recover the subsidy due to no contract agreement as well as doesn't provide AT&T the right to charge ETF to recover subsidy if terminated.Tmuller2 (talk) 10:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that AT&T discontinued selling out-of-contract phones, and Apple did receive revenue - but that's just my vague recollection. If you can provide reliable sources, I'll be more than happy to add the information. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 13:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

iPhone 3GS iceland

the iPhone 3GS is listed of buy in vodafone iceland website http://www.vodafone.is/simtaekin/um/Apple%20iPhone%203GS%2016GB but it is weird as iceland is not on the list of country that have the iPhone 3GS Available http://www.apple.com/iphone/countries/ Andri12 (talk) 11:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

on censorship

wikipedia is not supposed to be censored. if there are notable problems that are noted by notable officers of a notable company, and reported on by notable news sources by notable reporters, and you leave it out of your encyclopedia, then your encyclopedia loses credibility. many media outlets have reported that an worker at an iphone factory committed suicide and claimed he was beaten and interrogated because he lost an iPhone prototype. Apple itself has commented on the situation with its laborers. Leaving this out of the article is not representative of the spirit of wikipedia and i believe it is in violation of several policies. Decora (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

oh and i was trying to come back here and add to the article a notice that it had been copy/pasted from the Criticism of Apple Inc article and wasnt written by me... of course since the section has been deleted now i guess its kind of a moot point. Decora (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:V is a core policy; reliable sources must be presented, especially when critical. Also, note WP:NPOV.--mono 00:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be more relevant in Apple Inc. as workers' practice, the here? Might be worth mentioning, perhaps. But as far as crying "censorship" - seems a lot like WP:POINT. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 03:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I say that this is irrelevant to the topic at hand. The iphone here is not the problem, just apple/foxcon. We are not instituting censorship, just this content should be somewhere else (as it is on the apple article, and it has its own article). Which policies do you believe are being violated?

Next time before adding such a bold subject to the article, receive consensuses on the talk page. And make sure to get really good sources before alleging conspires that Apple kills its employees.

Alek2407 (talk) 06:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The Foxconn thing shouldn't be included, see this on the iPad talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent Rash Of Suicides at Iphone manufacturer Foxconn

Something should be mentioned of the 10 or so suicides at iphone manufacturer Foxconn. Foxconn has also made all employees sign a letter promising not to kill themselves. requires 60+ hours a week of overtime and employees make $120 a month, yes a month. Apple has stepped up somewhat offering to give up .7 percent of their profit on the iphone so the employees could get a 20% raise and stop killing themselves (total 3% of profit will go to labor after the increase). That would make them being paid 144 / mo . Not that Im saying all of this is apples fault mind you, but Foxconn is the only firm building the iphone and apple does continue to do business with them so it should be mentioned here as it generating quite a bit of press lately . Any Ideas on where we put it? -Tracer9999 (talk) 03:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

See here (and directly above). Airplaneman ✈ 03:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)