Talk:iPod/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about IPod. 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

Please Please Help! I want my music back!

I would really appreciate help on this, and I'll do what I can to repay you if your advice helps. A friend borrowed my iPod (video), and it somehow crashed. Now it doesn't show up my songs any more, and even in the settings menu, it says I have zero songs. However if I plug it into my computer and check the Ipod_Control folder there are still many song files there (in e.g. F21 folders and named e.g. YXCG.mp3). How do I get it so I can play them on my iPod? I spent ages giving all my songs ratings and putting them into playlists, so is there a way I can get that back as well? I figure it might have something to do with importing a song list or whatever stored on my ipod. So to clarify, I can look at the music files by browsing through the iPod as a hard drive, but when I want to listen to music on my iPod it isn't there. Please mail me <email removed, it'll get spammed if you put it here, sorry> Cheers

P.S. I know I shouldn't place this right here, but I really am frustrated and desperate for help... :-(

Try resetting your iPod (hold Center and Menu for 6 seconds). Or completely wipe it and re-sync all songs from scratch. IE 09:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

What programs are good for extracting music from you ipod? It should be in the article.

ephPod

Another Free, easy to use and small program to both play back music directly from your iPod as well as extracting ANY media from an iPod (audio AND video) is PodPlayer ZyphBear 14:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, who keeps deleting my brief description of the iPod minis' frequent pausing problem? I had a major problem with this when I had my iPod mini and I'd really like to share this with everybody.

It's me. Because it's not regarded as common and only applies to the mini which is discontinued. You say that the headphone contacts are "substandard", but according to who? It's best if you have sources. Consider adding it as a brief sentence to the iPod mini article. And sign your discussion comments please. IE 08:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

According to who? Numerous internet articles I've found, plus I heard it directly from a technician when I went to the "Genius Bar" at the Apple Store in Denver, CO. Okay, so the mini is discontinued, but for people who bought a brand new iPod mini the month before it was discontinued (like me,) many people still have them and use them. What gives you credentials/authority over me to delete what I put on there? Are you any more of an encyclopedia author than myself?

I'll take your suggestion that I should put it in the iPod mini article, but if you think it's just going to be a "brief sentence" you are sorely mistaken. 68.102.23.51 16:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

While this issue has also been experienced for some, it is not always a "common" issue. I own a mini as well as a 5G (the mini which my significant other now uses), neither have the described issue. If a comment about this is going to be added to the mini article, please keep it to a neutral opinion and more of a factual basis and not a long described paragraph. And the headphone contacts? I have not had any issues about this either. ZyphBear 19:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

About the recent addition. Are there any sources on this aside from forum posting? Does anyone know if it is all timezones that involve the addition of a half hour? For example is French Polynesia affected as well? AlistairMcMillan 21:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Pick up any iPod with a screen and scan the list of timezones under Settings -> Date & Time -> Set Time Zone. I've done the work as follows. Each timezone has a corresponding DST setting.

Eniwetok (+12)* Midway (-11) Hawaii (-10) Alaska (-9) US Pacific (-8) US Mountain (-7) US Central (-6) US Eastern (-5) Caracas (-4) Buenos Aires (-3) Mid-Atlantic (-2) Azords (-1) London (0) Paris (+1) Athens (+2) Moscow (+3) Abu Dhabi (+4) Karachi (+5) Almaty (+6) Bangkok (+7) Beijing (+8) Tokyo (+9) Brisbane (+10) Magadan (+11) Auckland (+12)

• In the order they include it, it seems likely they may have accidentally misdefined it as -12 - this may or may not matter.

I've deduced all of the missing timezones from the relevant list on Wikipedia:

Marquesas Islands (-930), Newfoundland (-330), Iran (+330), Afghanistan (+430), India (+530), Nepal (+545), Myanmar/Cocos (+630), Caiguna–Eucla–Border Village (+845), South Australia (+930), Lord Howe Island (+1030), Norfolk Island(+1130), Chatham Islands (+1245).

So the iPod is actually missing twelve timezones, one of them being used by over 1 billion people in India. --205.251.166.208 18:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Just by sitting where i am and looking around at my english class of 19 people, 12 of those people have ipods. Now what i want to know is if theres a ratio between those who own one and those who don't. Just a question, but should be included if anyone knows the answer. -user: Thrawst

No offense, but that is a very... Hmm... What's the word? Oh yeah, senseless thing to know. Just go by the amount sold. But if you must know, it's around .5% of the world's population. --Zeromaru^TC 18:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

(42/6,500)*100 = 0.646% = one every 155 people. Pretty impressive :) Mushroom 18:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What's your number source? How do you know how many people have more than one? I agree with Zeromaru though that it's a pretty pointless statistic. Stubblyhead 22:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

My number source is the article itself: 42 million iPods sold, and there are about 6.5 billion people on Earth. I agree that it's pointless (and probably a lot of people have more than one), but it's factually correct. Mushroom (Talk) 09:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I've heard rumours of a 6Gb Nano being envisaged - can anyone shed any light on this? -- ChrisO 22:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but I do know that the logic board for the Nano currently has a 8GB capacity (2 chip slots, and the chips come in a max of 4GB). Someone recently bought 2 4GB units, noticed that the logic board on each was only using one chip slot of the two, and he de-soldered the chip from one unit and re-soldered it into the open chip port on the other unit. Instant 8GB Nano. (EmiOfBrie 13:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC))

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:c_pJnS2Ndn8J:news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060202/ap_on_re_us/apple_ipod_lawsuit+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

"A Louisiana man claims in a lawsuit that Apple's iPod music player can cause hearing loss in people who use it. [...] The suit ... seeks compensation for unspecified damages and upgrades that will make iPods safer. Patterson's suit said he bought an iPod last year, but does not specify whether he suffered hearing loss from the device. [Quoted from article]" -- Rajiv Varma 03:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

He really can't sue unless he actually suffered from using the iPod. That would lack standing, but he could try a class act suit if he really wanted to. Yanksox 03:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone take responsibility for their own actions these days? Where does it say iPod use is compulsory? Where does it say it MUST be played at full volume? The iPod has a volume control - so use it if it's hurting your ears! If you need it that loud to start with, chances are your hearing was already shot. If I was the judge hearing this case, it would be thrown out on its ear! Graham 05:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well...hearing loss is progressive, not instantaneous, and you don't necessarily know you've suffered hearing damage until long after the event(s). The danger isn't obvious, either. If you're using any music player in a gym, for example, with a lot of noise to cover up (as I see dozens of people doing at the same time I'm doing it), unless you have really good earphones, you have to crank it up way high. Most people are unaware that this in itself is dangerous. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

As was stated earlier....no one MADE him turn his iPod up to ear-splittign levels...this is as bad as the lawsuits filed against fast food companies for "making" people fat. Personal responsibilty, people. if there is so much ambient nose that you have to turn up your iPod that far, then you DON'T LISTEN TO YOUR iPOD AT THAT TIME. Simple solution. (EmiOfBrie 13:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC))

That is not a reasonable comparison, fast food companies, even serving schools and penitentiaries, have excesive levels of sugar, even McDonald salads have sugar added! And recent studies by the World Health Organisation point to sugar as being kind of like a drug, giving a high and creating addiction. So please do not compare a voluntary use of headphones, which can be dangerous, with unhealth eating practices portrayed as the contrary.

And how do you know that turning up your iPod to that level is dangerous? If there's high ambient noise, it doesn't SEEM dangerous. It just is. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

How? Common sense should tell you that if the iPod is cranked up that high, whether there is ambient noise or not, it's going to be just as loud to your ears' physiology. (EmiOfBrie 01:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC))

I was looking at the main menu options (in settings) and it says photo import. This is a 4th generation (not photo or color) ipod. So why does it say photo import? Is it possible to put photos on it? Euphopolus 8:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This menu option was added after Apple and Belkin introduced the media reader that is attached to the iPod's dock. It is also available for 3G iPods, and is an accessory that was introduced to store photos on it before the iPod became capable of doing it itself. Ramallite ^(talk) 05:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we write something about how it is never referred to by Apple as "the iPod" but simply as "iPod?" I think it's pretty important. --daunrealist 01:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The current verbiage seems to cover the lack of "the." What I never thought about and now demand an answer to is, "what does 'Pod' mean anyway?" iLife, iCal, iSync, and iTunes are all pretty understandable. What were Apple's intentions in "Pod?" --JasonBrewer 23:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Pod as in storage, I'd guess --Ned Scott 02:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Pod: "a usually protective container or housing" (Merriam-Webster). — Walloon 06:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll write something on how it is never refered to as "The iPod". I'll have to find an example website, though. --Newguineafan 22:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I can see that someone already did this. --Newguineafan 22:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever it may be, I think we had it before, but we should have it in black and (look in source for word to the left) that they exclude the "the." Idk. --daunrealist 22:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand that the "official" spelling is iPod, but like any word which is not ordinarily capitalized, it should be capitalized when it begins a sentence. I don't believe that there are any style authorities that would agree with making "iPod" an exception to this universal rule of English mechanics. Nohat 09:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you figure? Don't proper nouns get to violate the rule?Gateman1997 09:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No style authority I have ever encountered permits anything other than capital letters at the beginning of sentences. Most don't even allow numerals to begin sentences. The reason for this is clear—sentence breaks are an important cue when scanning text, and sentences that don't begin with capital letters are harder to find. While companies are free to flout the norms of written English in their marketing materials, Wikipedia adheres the norms of English usage, not trendy marketing-inspired typographical whims. If you wish to revert to the sentences with initial "i", I suggest you cite a reputable style authority that sanctions that usage. Nohat 09:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I checked Wikipedia's own Capitalization definition and it says nothing on the subject one way or the other except to mention that proper nouns don't have to be capitalized at the beginning of sentences in Dutch.Gateman1997 09:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest that if people are averse to sentence-initial "IPod" and "ITunes", then rather than break the rule, the sentences should be recast so more ordinary words appear first in the sentence. Nohat 09:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not just preface "iPod" or "iTunes" with "The"? Or "An"? And in response to Gateman, whatever Dutch does is fine for Dutch, but on the English Wikipedia articles, we should (I imagine) follow conventions of English, not Dutch. --unsigned

you are forgetting on wikipedia there are no rules, only guidelines. They did this because there are times when you must break the rules for clarity or a better communication of the ideas in the articles. This is clearly the case in the iPod article. --Ned Scott 03:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not "clearly the case" in the iPod article. You might like to think Wikipedia has no rules, but you would do well to remember that English does, and if you don't follow them, people will edit your writing so that it, at least, does. Just as we don't use lower-case "de Gaulle" to start a sentence in English, we don't use lower-case "iPod". If it bothers you, put a "The" in front of "iPod" if you like. - Nunh-huh 03:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

These are names of things, the proper identity of these things. It's a popular naming style for lots of products and services and other things. And this naming style has occurred long after someone made those rules for english. I honestly would not be surprised to see it become "official" that a lowercase i or e followed by an uppercase letter become acceptable, since it's becoming so widespread. This isn't school, this is real-life, where things don't always fit the way someone years ago planned them to. Which is exactly why Wikipedia has guidelines and not rules. Wikipedia is meant to be able to move with the times. The exception we are asking for is consistent, logical, and has structure to it. We're not saying "hey, at any given time lets make it so capital letters don't matter, at random". If you get so wrapped up into these retarded technicalities then you're missing the whole point of language itself. --Ned Scott 03:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, here's a thought, if we are to be true to the rules of English, then the first letter of a proper name should be capitalized too, correct? So it wouldn't matter in this argument if there was a "the" in front of "iPod", correct? But you didn't say that, as if to suggest that you yourself made an exception to the proper rules of English. Very interesting... very interesting indeed... --Ned Scott 03:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

(Hmm.. he/she's not saying that "The iPod" is the correct name, just that it a "the" should go before it to save answering the question of whether it should be "iPod" or "IPod". Willkm 03:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ned Scott's initial point... in this case, historically correct English usage should come second. I don't imagine any style authority has been encountered that would permit capital letters in the middle of words, either, but it would be equally farcical to change every instance of iPod in the article to ipod. This spelling would also, I imagine, flout pronuncation rules. The difference with de Gaulle is that "de" is a word in its own right, like "of", and with iPod we do use a lower case i, wherever it appears in a sentence. See also the BBC, a pillar of wisdom as regards correctness of language, where iPod is used, as opposed to IPod, in articles where the title begins with the word "iPod". Willkm 03:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This whole thing is being discussed in the Manual of Style. Mushroom (Talk) 03:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The thought that companies can dictate the orthography of their products is a non-starter for copyeditors. Best adjust. - Nunh-huh 04:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep any further discussion to the manual of style section specifically about this issue. Willkm 04:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

There is also a straw poll there, please vote if you're interested. Mushroom (Talk) 05:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The avalanche has started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote. - Nunh-huh 05:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Darn those technical restrictons. Crazy Eddy 15:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I promise that the first thing I will do when I get my black video iPod in a few weeks is take a picture of it and upload it here. I like them better than the white ones :P — Ilyanep (Talk) 15:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well... Don't replace the picture at the top, it's so beautiful. -- Wanka 21:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not (the picture is very well taken), but I can put it into the section about the 5G iPods and remove the promotional picture that's made by apple digitally. — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I nominated this page after immediately noticing some material (especially in the opening paragraph of the article) which may not conform to the NPOV rules (eg. "excellent sound quality"). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.71.53.25 (talk • contribs) .

I've removed the sentence you were objecting to. AlistairMcMillan 21:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's not rush to the lowest unargued demoninator: consider the handheld music devices which "average people" will have used - FM radio, Sony Walkman, personal CD player, etc. MP3 players may be no match for a home Hi-Fi system, but they (in general, not just iPod) beat most of what came before... Ojw 21:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I may not be contricuting much with this, but it is best that sentence was removed, from my personal experience I can conform that the iPod really isn't much special in terms of sound quality among DAP's. --Prodigital 20:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Are the clickwheels for the 1st through 3rd generations rotatable in a circle or are they touch-sensitive like the newer ones?--Martin925 19:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Apple only recently (perhaps as of 3G but not sure -- perhaps as of iPod with Click Wheel) opted to go with touch rather than mechanical so short answer is some of them are rotatable. — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

All iPods except the first-generation model use a touch-sensitive scroll wheel. The "click wheel" proper wasn't introduced until the fourth generation, though. Zetawoof 18:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and it was first introduced on the Mini a few months before the 4G came out. Worthless trivia, but throwing it out there. --TKE 04:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I'd like to suggest a test for whoever has access to a 2G, 4G iPod, or mini. With the iPod Nano and 5G iPod, Apple started making their own Click Wheels which differ in technology to the Synaptic wheels in the previous models. With the 3G (I know this for a fact) the wheel isn't actually touch sensitive, but it reacts to the electrical conductivity present in the human finger (which is why you the touch wheel wouldn't react if you were wearing gloves). This is can be tested by opening an iPod and touching the circuitry on the back of the wheel and it reacts. However, with the 5G iPod (haven't tested a Nano) the wheel seems to be pressure-touch sensitive, because it can be used through cloth or paper. Anyone want to help prove this?

I use my clickwheel through a case with a clickwheel cover (which does reduce sensitivity but that's because it's a tad too thick) so I think it's most likely tocuh sensitive if that's what you want to test. — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the new wheel is that there is no way to adjust the sensitivity, which royally sucks. --Mboverload 20:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

(Mboverload, I moved your statement to this section, because it was in the section below) I have a 5th Generation iPod, and you can NOT scroll through by pressing with an object like a pencil eraser, but you CAN with something wet like a wet tissue. Why this works, I don't know, but the scrolling part of the input wheel is not pressure sensitive. --Dvigour 21:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It isn't touch-sensitive; it's all down to capacitance. [1] Henry^Flower 22:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The top image shows an iPod in German to demonstrate that its interface is multi-lingual, but considering that this is the English Wikipedia site, shouldn't the first image the reader sees be in English? I think in a later section its multi-lingual capabilities could be explained. MrC 03:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing that the image was chosen because it was up to date, displays the contents included with the newest iPod, and showcases : how universal the iPod is. It isn't simply a North American phenomena. --Thinspirit 15:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia site, yeah, and thats why the article is in English. The image is up-to-date, nicly taken, and shows how international the iPod is. I think its a great photo to feature at the top of the article. (( Kigoe 22:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC) ))

Under the heading 2nd Generation it says and I quote,

"iPod replaced the mechanical scroll wheel of the original with a touch-sensitive, nonmechanical one" however the photo with the caption "2nd gen" shows an ipod with a mechanical clickwheel. Either this is a photo of a 1st gen , or the description of the 2nd gen ipod is incorrect. I tried a Google search to clear this matter up but couldn't find any clarification, somebody else needs to do the detective work. cheers

They are two different pictures and here's how you tell. First off the difference b/t 1G and 2G is the wheel, they look essentially the same. If you look at the 2G picture, you'll see the select (center) button is raised above the touch-wheel. The raised nature of the button is because the non-mechanical/touch wheel is slightly sunk because there's no spinning mechanism beneath it. Looking at the 1G picture (which comes directly from Apple), the select (center) button isn't raised, but is even with the mechanical wheel, due to the mechanism necessary to spin it. Can ya see it?CritCol 02:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What do the letters of ipod stand for? --Joel M. 15:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

They don't: it's not an acronym. Mark^{your words} 15:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean that it doesn't stand for anything? How did they come up with the name? --Joel M. 18:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

They consulted their branding department and had them come up with a name that represented the product. Same way that most product names arise. Zetawoof 18:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The "i" in the name denotes that the products are primarily internet based- it began with the naming of the iMac. A pod is a storage device. The original intent was to market on the music but push the back-up hard-drive side, so now it's a music device by most advertising. The photo and video abilities are something that they could have done a while ago with software tweeks; it's an attempt to get back to the multi-media storage capabilities. --TKE 04:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Darn... And all this time I thought it was Internet Portable (Something) Device --Joel M. 20:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad conjecture. You don't need the Something...just i(nternet)PO(rtable)D(evice). Still, not worth speculation in the article since Apple hasn't commented. But I think you may be right. --TKE 01:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I disagree. It definately isn't an acronym. Nice imagination with the internet Portable what-have-you, but iPod is simply that: iPod. The "i" is a trademarked brandname that Apple uses with its products, originating in the iMac, where it represented "internet." However, this letter carried over into other Apple products, including the iPod, and is now the "i" helps consumers recognise the iPod, iMac, iSight, etc. as an Apple-made product. The "Pod" simply represents the fact that the iPod stores data. Demosthenes 1 01:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Why would the iPod stand for Internet something? It doesn't have internet access that I know of. The idea of a 'pod' is a shell that encompasses something. The iPod will hold ALL your music.--Dvigour 21:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this discussion should be incorporated into the Name section of the page; I'll try to do it tomorrow, but feel free to beat me to it. --ScottAlanHill 03:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't. Unless you have a credible source that explains how Apple came up with the iPod name. All we have here is speculation. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. AlistairMcMillan 19:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I personally predict that Apple will do something such as "Putting the 'i' back in iPod" by adding a wireless function. I predict that the first step will be wireless access to the music store (which will then carry downloadable iPod games) followed by a second generation which will have web-surfing capabilities. They could throw in a twist and make it be part of a .Mac account and only .Mac people could get web access...... just my predictions for the future. we shall see... Zooobala 01:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the article could be a little more explicit or straightforward (only because I was looking for this information) as to which iPods support file transfers, not just charging, through either FW or USB--or more technically, which iPods have Firewire and/or USB controller chips inside. I don't know how this relates to which iPods can charge through what (except that it's not always the same, since the 3G can sync but not charge through USB for example). I know this information is already there, but it's hidden near the bottom of each generation's subsection, and it's not always clear in the article what was supported: the 3G section, for example, doesn't say anything about Firewire support, only that USB was introduced, and the 4G section doesn't say anything about either. Maybe the idea is that the reader is supposed to assume previous technologies were carried over unless otherwise stated, but that isn't very useful if one is looking for the info pertaining to a specific generation. Faceless007 10:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Does anyone know whats the proper way to clean an iPod?

Blonde2max 19:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC) Imerse it in boiling water =) (seriously don't do this- i just don't like i-POPs since it broke)

Imerse in boiling water. Got it. Clean with a microfiber cloth. Dampen it a bit with water if you must. 200.116.244.131 06:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Added Digital audio players category tag.

There is hardly a mention about the iPod Hi-Fi Stereo, which Apple considers a part of its ipod line. I included a link to it before the contents box, as well as another short line, but there should be a short paragraoh to go with the photo buried in the article.

Thanks, Theonlyedge 03:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

• I edited the article, and under the accessories section, added a seperate iPod Hi-Fi section. It should do the job. Theonlyedge 02:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm just curious if anyone knows full details about the warrenty for an ipod. I've run into several people who say that getting the warrenty on an ipod is worthless and that the people who sell these are lying to the public. I think it goes along with the battery life issue. BigMar992 04:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

People who say it's worthless are the people who damage their iPods by dropping it or some other user-caused damage. The warranties (especially Apple's own AppleCare warranties) ensure against component failure, including batteries. Most warranties don't cover user-caused damage, such as dropping, spilling, running-over, or other acts. CritCol 01:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Under Harry Potter Collector's iPod, it says:

"The only way of purchasing the new Harry Potter Collector's iPod is by visiting [13]."

where [13] is a link to the Apple Store. I've changed it to read

"The only way of purchasing the new Harry Potter Collector's iPod is by visiting The Apple Store."

with the external link sign, but I'm not positive that this is the correct way to go. Thoughts?

Sounds good to me. Zetawoof^(ζ) 00:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. AlistairMcMillan 21:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I am very surprised and puzzled by this comment. Firstly, I have added no links to my own private website (I do not own or control Lindos Electronics). Secondly, Wikipedia is full of external links to company sites, often of poor quality. Lindos is a very high profile company in the area of audio measurements, and the articles on its site are very pertinent to many Wikipedia topics. The test sheet database is a novel public resource, built by users, rather like Wikipedia, and hence of great interest to those reading audio topics. My personal interest has always been in improving the understanding of audio quality and measurement, and that is my role now, through my own business Lindos Developments, which does not sell anything but has income from IP rights. And then - isn't this topic, on IPod, rather than digital music players pure advertising for one manufacturer. On this basis Lindos (and every other company with some claim to faim) could put up a page for each of its products. Don't tell me it's an icon, as I think that could be debated in relation to many products! --Lindosland 11:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lindosland"

from Wikipedia:external links - What should be linked to:

1. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.
2. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews.

The Lindos links are to reviews, which I think it better to link to than include on the page, as they are detailed. --Lindosland 11:30, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

“An independent test report…” A more specific reference would be appreciated. — JKľ 2006-04-07T14:42+0200

After modifying the first image of the article, I was told it was copyrighted and couldn't be added in the article and the usual yada yada yada I'm used to. But what's the problem, I say? There are other copyrighted images in this article, some of them were even taken from the official Apple website (like I did). What's the difference? This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ipod_5th_Generation_white.jpg ) image is inadequate, in my opinion: it looks way too amateurish. MoLo 19:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this article needs to comment on the hearing damage caused (or allegedly caused) by irresponsible iPod use, focussing on the danger of earbud headphones. In France, iPod volume has to be limited to 100 decibels – the same level as a snowmobile. Escheffel 23:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? I knew France was a Nanny State but come on --Mboverload 23:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

An early iPod patch limited the output level to 100dB on all european models, due to an EU law. However, there is also a high-profile case in the US where a user has started a class action against Apple for damage to his hearing through loud iPod use. My own view is that this is a typical case of someone unable to take responsibility for his own actions (after all, the iPod has a volume control) and is casting around for someone to blame. Unfortunately it's a disease the Americans seem to be successfully exporting. Anyway, perhaps it might be mentioned in the article, though there's no way I could do it in an NPOV way, the whole situation makes me see red. Graham 02:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The rules the US used to rule by. I'm sick and tired of 3 pages of stupid warnings in a fricken blender manual. Stuff like that is why I usually don't even read them. They treat you like a complete dumbass, then don't explain/expand enough on important subjects. http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/37/messages/354.html

Anyway, having a warning message when the iPod first starts up from the box....that'd be ok. But things like where you have to accept a legal agreement EVERYTIME you start your car (yes, I'm serious. Some NAV systems make you do that) are just over the top. --Mboverload 05:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else here think this should get a mention? I know it's hard to differentiate the fakes from the real news, but there is an increasing likelihood of the click wheel being replaced by a larger touch sensitive screen with a touch wheel built in. Even if all the rumours/photos/video clips out there are fake, the fact that this has attracted so much speculation and interest, is encyclopaedia-worthy in itself. It's also a shame there is nowhere on the web that attempts to collect all the information out there and distinguish the real from the rubbish. Anyone agree/disagree? 86.134.45.56 10:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

How about we wait until Apple release the next version of the iPod. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. AlistairMcMillan 17:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We should wait until there IS a Sixth Generation to record it. I've heard it's coming out sometime between May and July, though...rumors, rumors. Demosthenes 1 01:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll go along with that. I'm just impatient that's all. Oh well. Luckily I don't have to wait ages for Microsoft Office 2007, Windows Vista, or the PlayStation 3. Oh no... wait... 86.134.45.56 03:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4265374.stm
• http://www.audiouk.com/info/regency-add.jpg

[ Anyway, the iPod is the supreme triumph of style (sic) over content and value. No cheap feeling white plasticy iPod has ever done what other better-constructed and -designed (and sometimes cheaper) products have not done perfectly well long before. Just remember when the video iPod came out - cue dozens of print, tv and radio media outlets raving on about the "new revolution in portable video that Apple has begun with its innovative product". Right. That would be the revolution in portable AV millions of us joined several years previously with products from the likes of Archos, would it?  ;-) ]

There is a lot of speculation about the next video iPod [2]. I think it might be proper to add a two-or-three sentence blurb, either under the fifth-generation iPod section or as a new subheading, describing the speculation and how Apple really has to keep coming up with new innovations because of the sudden increase in competition. I'll add it if there aren't objections. Thanks, Theonlyedge 02:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oh, I just noticed it was already discussed. Maybe you're right...still any thoughts? It is getting considerable attention, which might justify at least a mention. Theonlyedge 02:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• The "new video iPod" rumor appears to have been started by a single image of an iPod-like device with a screen covering its entire surface. A video later turned up online which demonstrated how that image was created in Photoshop. Nevertheless, the rumor seems to have persisted. Any treatment of the "6G video ipod" in this article should mention that there's been no announcement from Apple regarding it, nor any reputable source (Think Secret doesn't count) with reliable information. Zetawoof^(ζ) 03:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I was doing some tidying on the Patent section, and moved a couple of the "External Links" of patents to "References". Since I was adding references anyway, I decided to convert all the oldstyle {{ref}} template references to the new "<references />" style (using this utility. Hopefully this won't be too controversial, since the existing refs format is deprecated, I believe. There were some dead reference links in the previous section - I'll look at those and see if they should be re-incorporated. If anyone feels a strong need to undo this, perhaps it could be discussed here first, since a simple reversion to restore the old ref formatting will also lose the changes to the Patent section.

Also, this article seems to be quite large. I haven't taken a comprehensive look through this Talk page or the change logs, but is there some scope for moving some of this to other pages? For instance, there is a separate iPod mini page, but this page still has three paragraphs of information including details such as the fact that the 2G mini didn't include the AC adapter. If some of this could be moved to the "mini", "nano", etc. pages, a compact summary could be left in this page. David Oberst 22:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts on organisation: this page doesn't seem to know whether it's for the whole iPod family or just for the ones actually called 'iPod' (generations 1 to 5). I think we should really separate off the detailed information for each generation to separate articles, remove (as you suggest) the detailed info for the devices which already have their own pages, and with what remains focus less on the technical details of each generation to look at the broader picture. Henry^Flower 22:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The following text (from User:Theonlyedge was removed from the article:

Although the iPod lineup is relatively new, there has been widespread speculation that Apple is preparing to release a new full-sized model. While originally novel and unique, the iPod is now facing intense competition from the likes of Sandisk, Dell, Creative Technology, and iRiver. Because of this, market analysts and technology websites believe Apple will have to release a new video iPod earlier than expected. Some predict that the new iPod will have a widescreen LCD that encompasses the entire front, likely with an embedded clickwhell. However, these guesses have repeatedly been denied by the company, and so far, all speculative photos have been proven false.

I did the revert mainly because it had erased some extensive rewrites of the "Patent" section I had just made, but the issue probably deserves some comments itself. Aside from whether future model speculation is needed or not, the proposed paragraph could be be greatly improved. David Oberst 22:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this paragraph could be improved or simplified, but in principal, it should be added to the article. It is very important, for such an enormous article, to at least have a brief paragraph on the future of the iPod. While it is speculative, it is important to show how Apple has to react to new competition, and what analysts think the next iPod will look like. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, so I don't know if this goes to a vote or what, but the 'Future Models' section should definetely be added. Thanks, Theonlyedge 23:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:VERIFY. Thanks. AlistairMcMillan 23:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I assume the intention was to bring up the rumours of a possible touch-screen video iPod? I'll leave the debate on rumour inclusions to others for now, but a few comments on the above text in case someone was looking to reinsert it. "intense competition from..." - is without foundation - is the iPod actually losing significant market share, etc. that would prompt a new model. Would a new video iPod release actually be "sooner than expected" (who is doing the expecting, is this based on historical release patterns, or what). Would a new video iPod necessarily be in response to the current competition or the loss of the iPod's "novelty" or "uniqueness", or more to advance Apple's own interests in video and movie distribution, etc. Has Apple actually "denied" guesses - they tend to maintain silence on future products. What are these "speculative photos", and does "proven false" mean they were fakes, or didn't match actual product releases. I don't mean to pick on the original author of the paragraph, but even if speculation is deemed useful for this article, it should be limited, clear and well-sourced. David Oberst 23:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• As I've said, I added the paragraph somewhat hastily and it is propably not the best way to include the information. I realize I'll need sources and I'll choose my wording much better. However, does anyone not agree with the paragrph on principle? I think its important information. Theonlyedge 12:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. AlistairMcMillan 19:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• This isn't being a crystal ball. This is just a brief paragraph on the future of the iPod. If you think Wikipedia can't be forward-thinking, see these: [3][4] [5] [6]. Actually, now that I look at it, some of these articles are pretty weired... Anyways, I just don't see what is wrong with addressing the future of the iPod. This article is enormous, but absolutely nothing addresses what happens next. Theonlyedge 02:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference, though. All of those articles discuss things which we know will be happening, or are at least definitely planned. A touch-screen iPod is purely speculation right now. Zetawoof^(ζ) 03:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: I made the Hon Hai Precision Industry article, because of the red link in the first sentence of the iPod article. Do you think the company should be mentioned in the very first line? It should be bumped out of the first paragraph, I think. Thanks, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theonlyedge (talk • contribs) 02:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

An anon editor added that Hon Hai manufactures the iPod in China. [7] I can find sources that say they are "one of the largest contract manufacturers of the iPod" [8], that "Inventec and Hon Hai make the iPod on an OEM basis for Apple." [9], while another says that "Foxconn Electronics (the registered trade name of Hon Hai Precision Industry) is the contract manufacturer for Apple’s newly launched Mac mini computers, while Asustek Computer is making the iPod shuffle for the vendor" [10]

Does someone have a reliable and reputable source? AlistairMcMillan 05:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

In order to not be unclear of the article's name due to technical restrictions, we could move it to "Apple iPod". Just a thought. Nicholasink 02:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IPod/Archive1#Requested_move AlistairMcMillan 02:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The first lines say it has a simple user interface, who is to judge if it simple? Some may find it very difficult to others, I suggest it be completely removed or re-written.--Andeee 05:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw the edit that explais how the Apple AV cable takes into account a switch in the Right Audio and Composite Video jacks...how can Apple do this without compromising Stereo output with convantional headphones? Does the iPod internally swap the Right and Video signals only when it detects video being played, or do connections to conventional headphones result in only mono playback (in other words, is the swap full-time)? This is something I haven't really paid attention to, to be honest. -EmiOfBrie 00:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

In early 2003 there were 4 limited edition iPods for $50 over the normal retail price in each 5, 10, 20 gig capacity iPod...[11] This should be added to the article. Paul^C/_T+ 01:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that the "Models" section be broken out into its own main article to reduce article size. This will allow the main article to retain an easier to read over-view of the main topic. It should be simple enough to copy and paste this section into its own article. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree, that would make things even more complex for the reader. Its bad enough as it is currently with several sisters articles, (ipod nano, shuffle & mini articles, etc). — Wackymacs 20:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I missed the area where it is detailed, but haven't there been several lawsuits against the IPod? I know of at least one dealing with Creative. Any others? And if I did miss this section, it should probably be made bolder by giving it a header - "Legal Issues" or something such. (moved to bottom of Talk page, sorry.)

There was, an anonymous user deleted it yesterday. I've restored the "Patents and patent disputes" section. --Canley 07:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone wanted to start a historic tech specs section, the original old tech specs pages from apple can be reached via the webarchive under http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.apple.com/ipod/specs.html 84.191.9.90 23:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Another option is the EveryMac Website, they go into Painstaking Detail about differences and specs about the different iPods. If this is popular, I can add it to the actual article.ZyphBear 11:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

A user mentioned that iPods came with cases up through the 3rd Generation, does anyone else have proof of this and what they may have looked like? I have always seen that no such case was provided by Apple, and Nano/5th Gen was the first to contain any form of protection. He was quoted as saying in his edit summary: "iPods up to at least third gen used to include cases." I do not ever recall seeing this mentioned on Apple's website or any other site. (which would also exibit why cases had become one of the biggest accessory sellers for the iPod, since one was not provided before.) Any information would be most useful. Thanks. ZyphBear 01:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This review mentions the case and includes pictures. [12] AlistairMcMillan 18:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I know the 1st gen iPod didn't come with a case. At least, mine didn't. Which model did The Gadgeteer review? Zetawoof^(ζ) 19:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a clue at the start of the third paragraph. And come to think of it, I don't think my first gen had a case either. My third gen does though. I still use it all the time. AlistairMcMillan 22:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The cases started with the 2nd generation. They ended when Apple removed all the accessories from the revised 4th generation when they lowered the prices.Paul^C/_T+ 00:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What would you like to see in the next generation of iPods? MarioV 00:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know what I'd like to see, but I really think there should a small section on the future of the iPod, particularily on the 6G iPod. Can there be a vote here or something? I say add the section.

Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, particularly the section on "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". AlistairMcMillan 20:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Only add information about the next iPod if it can be verified with good reliable sources. However any speculation without citation can be removed. — Wackymacs 20:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I read somewhere that it's probably gonna have a touchscreen, so maybe the whole front will be a widescreen display for showing movies and stuff. But whatever it's gonna have I'm planning on finally getting one. ReelGenius 04:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That rumor was debunked when the creator of the image posted a video of him creating it in Photoshop. Zetawoof^(ζ) 05:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I read the article, noticed a lot of problems, and tried restructuring it.

It looks good so far (as you can see, I moved all the 5th gens under 5th gen, all the 4th gens under 4th gen, and removed the unneeded second note about the Harry Potter iPod.

However, there's a problem: it's treating the 5th gen like a subsection of the Mini, however, what it should be is mini remains a sub of iPod, while 5th gen becomes a supersubsection, being under iPod while being above shuffle and nano. Shuffle was moved because, as it is still sold, it is a fifth gen iPod.

72.194.95.52 22:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The TOC is horribly large - some sections should be merged together or taken out into another article. violet/riga (t) 10:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the section on the 5th generation ipod be section 6.2.5 and not listed under ipod mini?--GeneralDuke 15:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What's up with the dual title? -Vmatikov

From the lead:

Apple's widespread marketing campaigns have led to the iPod's reputation as an easy-to-use, stylish device and dominance among the MP3 market (to the extent that some people erroneously refer to all MP3 players as "iPods"); this has led to a large market dedicated specifically to iPod accessories.

Wow, what happened here? Real POV problems here. This sentence not only suggests that the iPod's dominance is due to marketing campaigns (rather, than say, being a good product) but that the iPod's reputation of being easy-to-use and stylish is a marketing ploy. This ought to be changed. I'm not sure how (since I don't know how the editing history behind this), but certainly we should remove the implication that marketing is the primary cause. Now certainly Apple is very clever about advertising and hyping their products; however, whenever I've seen the iPod reviewed (pcmag, ars technica, stereophile, etc.), the review is generally very positive and mentions ease-of-use and attractiveness/form factor. I think it's fair to say that a good deal many people are of the opinion that the iPod is stylish, independent of the marketing, and that it is in fact easier to use than other MP3 players. --C S (Talk) 18:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the edit that added that paragraph. [13] I'm inclined to just pull it. I don't think we lose anything by not having it. AlistairMcMillan 18:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I've already fixed it. — Wackymacs 18:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the caption it's a white iPod, but it looks more like dark grey to me.

Maybe you'll like this version better, or maybe not. Your choice. Bye, Shinobu 07:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

In real life, nothing is pure white, white in photographs often look slightly grey due to lighting. — Wackymacs 14:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I know. The colour of objects is interpreted in relation to the surrounding objects. This is also the basis for the chessboard illusion. In this case, the iPod is compared to the surrounding white article and therefore looks grey in comparison. I have given you a lighter version that will look white - you can decide for yourself if you want it. Shinobu 17:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a good effort but it looks a bit artificial, almost posterised, to me. The only real solution is a new photo which is lit better. If you supply me with the new iPod, I'll provide you the photo ;) BigBlueFish 16:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think 'work exploitation' should be actually replaced with 'manufacturing'. If the author of of 'manufacturing' agrees then someone please move it.

I thought article names had to begin with a capital.--Ssj4android 04:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, geez, someone tried to use {{title}} again. It doesn't work reliably; I've reverted it. Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Everyone knows about these MP3 players, and I believe the article is now ready to become a featured article - but first it needs to be peer reviewed carefully so that we're all certain its ready. — Wackymacs 12:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This might sound overly critical, but here's what I think needs to be improved with the article:

It's too long. Some parts talk too much about the specific models, when they already have their own individual articles. I think someone already mentioned this on the talk page (might be in archives).

It needs structural improvements so that readers can skim through the contents and immediately identify what's good and what's bad about the product. All the pros in one section, and the cons in another section, instead of being spread throughout the whole article.

Someone did a good job of putting all the references in one section, but they still need a tidy up - with all the citations being properly formatted. Some of them are duplicates. Look at the Super Mario 64 article for an example of good referencing.

Some of the photography for the products is not so good. Too much orange light or too close up, or part of the product is cut off the edge, or just untidy/lacking focus. Also, the image sizes and angle of camera shot are inconsistent.

Lack of cohesion. For example, there are about 3 different paragraphs that talk about sound quality, all spread out (Software > EQ settings and bass distortion, Hardware > Technical performance, and iPod shuffle > end of 1st paragraph). The article feels like a collection of separate mini articles, instead of one free flowing article.

--IE 15:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, above everything else, it's WAY too long (presently 81k, I'd aim at less than half of that for an article of this scope). That also means that little is missing, content-wise. The references need some formatting (preferably using cite templates). I won't complain about the product photography, since I feel there's still a few too many fair use images in there (Do we really need images of both Harry Potter special editions, for example? Or the BMW remote?). The "Advertising" needs to become prose, and I'd also like to see some analysis of Apple's target audience there, since the iPod basically brought the portable MP3 player to the masses - how did they do it? I'll also make a timelines for the article, unless someone has a reason against it. Buut above everything else, shorten mercilessly. -- grm_wnr Esc 17:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Great stuff guys, this helps! I've cut the article down to 76k so far (all by my own too, hehe!) - I've also removed more fair use images, and have added more "free use" ones from the WikiCommons. The advertising section has been changed to prose, but still needs work. A few other tid bits have been changed. — Wackymacs 17:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Use a decent referencing system. I think to be FA, you want to use a system with date accessed/name etc.. ?. Nice work though. Cvene64 18:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed, the Cite web template needs to be used, but thats a lot of work to do on more than 40 links! — Wackymacs 18:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• I have now cut it down to 71k from the original 81k. Still work to be done... — Wackymacs 20:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The Models section really cold be trimmed down significantly - shifting a lot of the content out into another article (or several article) and describing them in summary style would be an option worth considering to get the article to a more managable size. Should the design section come before the capabilities section?--Peta 00:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)