Talk:IPod Touch

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the IPod Touch article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 14 days

This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-09-05. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about technical issues/general comments. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about technical issues/general comments at the Reference desk.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 9 sections are present.

Introduction

I've changed the introduction. iPod touch differs from iPod in a way that it has a multi touch. just stating the iPod touch is an ipod made by apple doesn't make sense. Mugunth 10:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet there are other ways to say that the iPod touch has Multi-Touch. There's no rule it has to be in the first sentence. Butterfly0fdoom 14:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that is, really, the biggest feature of the iPod Touch (and iPhone), so technically it would be common sense to use it as the introduction. - Beautiful so ur (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I very much highly doubt that the multi-touch feature is even in the top-5 of most people's list when considering purchasing an iPod touch. It also isn't new technology - it's just that Apple incorporated the technology into a device more effectively than most others, which btw would be POV on my part. Groink (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality in time as well?

Facts such as how much it currently costs, what the current status at Starbucks is, etc are surely not very Encyclopedic. It's just asking for the article to be out of date. What do you all think?

I wanted to put one of those Wikipedia banners across it in the article but I don't know where to find them.

RatnimSnave 09:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Screen material

Is everyone sure that the screen material is diamond? I couldn't find in on the tech specs of Apple's page. Someone want to verify the legitimacy of the screen's material? Thanks.

Marcus J. McLean 01:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean 'diamond'? I thought it was glass, since it states so on the apple.com page. Hmm...and wouldn't that make the iPod Touch cost 100,000(USD/Euro/GBP) more.? - '''Beautiful so ur''' (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music

I was wondering if anyone knew what the song in the ads?1 wit da force 00:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)1 wit da force[reply]

Music Is My Hot Hot Sex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptimes (talk • contribs) 19:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Music Is My Hot Hot Sex" by Cansei de Ser Sexy. Evanturner (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you1 wit da force (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)1 wit da force[reply]

New Picture to better show the user interface of the iPod touch

As an average Wikipedian, it is my duty to enhance the article to make it more pleasing to readers, while keeping the article 100% accurate

So, it has come to my attention that the picture on this article does not show the user interface of the iPod touch clearly, compared to the iPhone article....

Therfore, I will upload a new iPod touch image to Wikipedia, which illustrates the interface better...

Any objections, comments, etc before I upload the image? Bentoman (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just that it had better be a picture you created yourself, rather than an image stolen from Apple. Also, it must be pure 100-percent unhacked. Groink (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm... That new image is HANOUS!!!!! What did you do to this iPod? Did you even bother to clean it before taking this photo????? Seriously, the previous image is better for one reason - it looks clean and it represents the iPod touch better by means of presentation - and NOT because of its content. I have to disagree with Bentoman in that this is a worse image, and not better. It is poorly cropped, it has an awful blue background, and it has a very ugly shadow like effect on the top of the iPod. And, the iPod has a ton of scratches! Personally, I'd rather have NO photo than a crappy one. I'm going to revert the image in the next day or so, so someone had BETTER come up with reasons for keeping it. 22:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The replacement image is MUCH better! Thanks for re-taking the photo. Groink 01:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Haley Triva belongs to iPod advertisement article, not here....

I propose a solution to the trivia section on iPod touch.... The Nick Haley's ad thing really actually belongs to the iPod advertisment article, not here... Any objections, comments? Bentoman (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's specific to the iPod touch, but why not just remove it all together? It's not really product information.-DMCer (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bigger capacity in the future?

Are there any plans of making a Touch that has a bigger capacity in the near future?--Martin925 (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page is not for asking questions. But to answer yours, it is inevitable that a higher-capacity iPod touch is in the works. IMHO, the reason for the 16GB max size is because flash memory is very expensive. If a 30GB flash drive based iPod touch was developed today, it would be about $600 or more, and no one would be paying that much for such a device. Also, Apple more likely went the flash memory route to make the device thinner, and to also increase battery life (the bigger display is eating more battery than the iPod Classic.) Based on feedback I've heard in various reviews, people probably prefer a hard disk drive-based iPod touch and have the larger capacity. But then you would have a bigger battery, and end up having a luggable of a device. Many people don't think of these things, which is why I'm throwing it out here (rather than adding my POVs in the article.) Groink (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

iPod Touch works on Windows

^^ The iPod Touch works on Windows, not only OS X as shown on the page for the iPod Touch. I've edited this many a times and someone/thing keeps deleteing it. I mean it clearly sttes on the www.apple.com/ipodtouch site that it works with both Mac OS X and Microsoft Windows, so it should be there. - Beautiful so ur (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this is soooooooooo unclear for some readers. The "OS X" shown on the page does NOT indicate the operating system(s) that works with the iPod touch. It indicates the operating systems that RUNS the iPod touch. Please try harder at comprehending what you're reading before jumping into conclusions. Groink (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhh okay cool thanks for letting me now that. Wouldn't it be useful to include to the page the operating systems which work WITH the iPod Touch? As to include less confusion? - Beautiful so ur (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing it up in such a patient and not at all condescending manner! Really promotes civility. I would like to see "compatible systems" under the "operating system" so you don't have to take time out of your busy day to explain this to all the simpletons who read this page. joshschr (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The iPod touch page uses the {{Information appliance}} template. Compatible operating systems is currently not a parameter in that template. You would need to work with the editors who manages that template. Because if you mess with the template without committee, it can have a negative effect on hundreds of other articles. Groink (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it wasn't something too easy to do. I'll look at the article again and see if there's somewhere appropriate to clear up the confusion. I'm sure more people will bring the issue up. Sorry for the sarcasm in my last post. It was not necessary. joshschr (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and developed a new section to cover the requirements, such as operating system, cabling, etc. In the section, I also placed a comment on what not to place in the section. Without it, I would expect Linux fanboys, anti-iTunes store foes and others to start hacking away at the section to fit their agendas. I think overall this is a better approach than to put the information in the info appliance template - as it allows for the editors to cover more details than just rattling off OS names. Groink (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements section

As a reminder to all, and to summarize the dialog right above this, I created the requirements section so that readers who have no knowledge of the iPod touch can find out whether or not the device works under Microsoft Windows. In the infobox, some readers were mis-interpreting the "OS" field as "the operating system that manages the iPod touch." The requirements section presents things a lot clearer. As for the "spec section" suggestion, that is the wrong place to put this information. The spec section is doing its job; it does not need to be bulked up even larger. Organizationally, that is also a bad suggestion; it would be poor web page design. On any web page, you always want to present what EVERY user must know about the device. Some people here think that knowing how to jailbreak is more important than knowing what he needs just to even turn the device on! Keep in mind that people actually believe an iPod can be used without a computer! You must take off your tech cap before editing on Wikipedia, and keep in mind the common English-reading man.

And last, a delete of an entire section without committee - that's just totally lame-o! No constructive thought was put into that edit. Groink (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What IS the goal of the intro image we're trying to achieve here?

There seems to be a dispute as to what the image should entail:

Some people think that the "home" screen is most important.
Some people (like myself) think should show the device and everything that comes with it (the docking unit, etc.)

There may be other views, but these are the top-2 that I've seen. So rather than going back-and-forth on the intro image, let's get a consensus on what the image should present, and how it should be presented. I'll start it off... I have a problem with the "home" screen bit. What am I seeing? I'm seeing a screen with a bunch of icons. BFD! That type of a photo does not tell me anything, such as:

The physical dimensions of the unit. Even sticking it against a metric ruler would help.
What the iPod touch can actually DO. Sure, it shows a YouTube icon. What's BEHIND the icon?
How does the iPod touch present itself in an environment, such as a workarea or attached to someone or something?

"Hey! Show me what the iPod touch is like!!!" "Okay, here's the home screen. THERE!" LOL! That's like demonstrating Mac OS X to a usergroup using SSH and *NIX commands!!!! Groink (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know where you're coming from, but for now I'd suggest the main picture would be of an iPod Touch (switched ON so you can see the menu/home screen) on the docking unit or/and whatever comes with it. If the reader wants to know what happens when you touch this icon or someting, he/she will have to buy it. Simple as that I'D say but there we are. The poto of just an iPod Touch a couple of mm away from the camera lense just doesn't cut it for me and wouldn't persuade me to even look into the iPod Touch, but there we are. My opinion. - Beautiful so ur (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]