Talk:iPod Touch/Archive 2

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

The article is way too negative.

I can't understand why the article has such an extensive "Criticisms" section, when you look at all the other new iPods' articles none of them have a Criticisms section.

It feels like the article was written by people who seem to hate the Touch. -Pho3nix- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pho3nix- (talk • contribs) 12:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that all the criticism comes fromt he fact that this is a pretty revolutionary technology compared to the standard iPod. We all know what the iPod has and doesn't have by now, there's no point in pointing this out for every new iPod. Since this is something brand new, it will be criticized.NyyDave 17:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I sense a higher then normal level of vandalism. Mathiastck 23:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of products is somewhat of a regular thing nowadays in the tech world. IMHO, I think a circle of people on the Internet think much too far when it comes to expecting features in a product. About 10 years ago, consumers' expectations flew past what was currently available. I think the Internet age is very much involved in this, along with the ME ME ME ME ME complex. Think back to 1982 when EPSON was selling the MX-80 dot matrix printer. If that printer was sold in 1982 to today's finicky consumer, there would be complaints of the printer printing in jaggies, being too loud, the lack of 300dpi printing, lack of color, no letter quality fonts, yada yada yada.... My point here is that criticism of products is a bunch of baloney! Everyone on Wikipedia has an opinion - and negative spin like the criticism section is most editors' only creative outlet. I've always taken a product for what it is. And if it didn't have a feature I want, I just simply don't buy it - rather than hitting the blog scene and whine about it. And last, I don't think criticism is actually encyclopedic. Try reading a real encyclopedia. I don't see any criticism about Henry Ford's Model-T not being able to reach 0-to-60 in under six seconds, or that you couldn't get it in metallic red. An encyclopedia should be, stealing the words of Joe Friday, "Just the facts, ma'am." Groink 07:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, now the criticisms section is even more comprehensive. I can't understand why people are so bothered to find these small faults which don't really have any significance. -Pho3nix- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pho3nix- (talk • contribs) 07:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

One note about the storage capacity... I've seen a few attempts from editors to say in the criticism section that the storage capacity is either too small, or it is smaller than what's available in the classic line. If one, larger capacity flash drives (32GB for example) were available in large quantities, and two, at a price where it wouldn't place the price of the iPod touch over let say $500, then yes it would be something to criticize. BUT neither is the case right now! So you can't criticize this device for storage capacity. And second of all, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, reading tea leaves or wishful thinking. Any comments along these lines will be rv'd Groink 03:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Wikipedians are a bunch of disgruntled hermits that get horny off of criticizing things. Why is there a war on trvia but not on criticism? I think we should discuss some things we can remove from the section.--Asderoff 00:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the trivia has to do with the fact that a separate trivia section is looked upon negatively within Wikipedia. There's an effort going on right now where certain editors are tagging articles that have a trivia section - despite the fact that the trivia/no trivia section argument hasn't actually been burned into an official guideline or style suggestion. So the next thing that happens is that the editors take the trivia and merge it into the other sections, so there is no longer a trivia section, but still keep the information. This is why other editors would rather have the lesser of the two evils: have a trivia section for the crap, rather than merging the crap into the sections and basically take the article down the toilet. There are other ways to go about adding nonsense information, such as creating an "iPod touch in popular culture" section (aka trivia IMO) so that the iPod touch fandorks can jot down every instance they see an iPod touch on TV, movies, magazines, mentioned in a gangsta rap song, saw the president of Ethiopia carrying one, etc. Groink 06:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
"I completely agree. Wikipedians are a bunch of disgruntled hermits that get horny off of criticizing things." Alright, I think this topic has gone a little too far. If there's any published sources on notable faults on the iPod touch, if it can be found, users have a right to insert it here. There shouldn't be opinionated editing, selective editing, or any kind of editing but unbiased and citation-backed editing. Yes, I know there's users of this player or the iPhone that are satisfied or haven't experienced any of the faults, but that doesn't mean they can make the product(s) seem good by removing or 'softening' the criticism. That's propaganda, man. I've left the criticism of players in the Creative ZEN article, so long they have a good citation. And if anyone suggests adding trivia sections to Wikipedia, please read WP:NOT first. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah(discuss•edits)'NUCKS:5-6-0 19:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's where you and I differ: bugs can or cannot be criticized. There are basically two things going on here: 1) Bugs, and 2) Design flaws. IMHO, bugs should not be criticized - as bugs can be fixed. As you said, one person can experience the bug, while someone else does not. That's why bugs cannot be criticized in an article like this. Wikipedia should be looked at as a permanent document. If Wikipedia were to take this article and burn it onto a CD-ROM, then forever and ever the bug-based criticism will be etched in that article. That makes absolutely no sense - as the bugs will be long gone, but a version of this document will keep mentioning it. This is the attitude we should all be following. On the other hand, design flaws are basically features that are purposely implemented by the manufacturer. These design flaws - it is open season for them regarding criticism!!! They should be consistent with EVERY unit made up to today - as it is unlikely the manufacturer will address them. HOWEVER, each criticism should be supported by information giving reasons why the device functions that way. For example, people claim that leaving out Java in the Safari browser is a safety feature, while others consider it something to criticize. IMHO, it is Java that should be criticized for its security issues, and not the application that would be using it, therefore the criticism made about Safari lacking Java is POV. That's basically where I'm coming from. Groink 19:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Article Image

I have taken a picture of my touch on the home screen flat against a white piece of paper. I think this would be a better image for the article. Any objections? Matt J User|Talk 13:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Upload it and let's see it here. -- Fyslee / talk 05:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Yea the current image is pretty poor. Do it! RatnimSnave 09:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Other Specs of the device

I've been digging around SSHed into the iPod touch and I've discovered that it's got 96MB of RAM for processes you run. Where would this type of information go? We have an Apple official spec list, but no full list of what the device has in terms of CPU and RAM for the OS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.0.227 (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Last two lines of criticism section

The last to lines of the Criticism-section is poorly written and irrelevant to the article, but they seem unremovable. I attempted to edit them out, but they didn't show up in the edit summary. Can somebody explain this? Wikiburger 20:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)

I cleaned up the current picture on Photoshop. It can be found HERE. Any user can upload it and use it. --DeathShot39 (talk) 02:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Great job! I would replace the image right now. However, there seems to be a heated discussion about whether or not the GUI can actually be included in a non-fair use, free image. To prepare for the possibility that all iPod touch images that include the GUI will get deleted, it would be best if we start working on creating a photo of the iPod touch WITHOUT the GUI. I can't, as my iPod touch is sitting in a Griffin iClear case (which BTW I highly endorse). But getting the case open takes someone with a Ph.D. Groink (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
So we need a picture of an iPod touch that's turned OFF? HERE is a version of the picture with just a gray/grey screen (yay). Perhaps we could just have one with a wallpaper? Since I have the clown fish wallpaper on my computer.--DeathShot39 (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 as early in the article as possible. Some people here think that knowing how to jailbreak is more important than knowing what he needs just to even turn the device on, and therefore jam the top paragraphs with this crap! 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. Present the information in the order of how someone should learn about the device.

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)

One more time... The versions of Windows, the fact that Windows even works with the iPod touch, the version of iTunes, etc. are NOT covered in the infobox. Keep this information close to the top of the article. Groink (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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:

  1. Some people think that the "home" screen is most important.
  2. 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)

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)

Requirements section

I feel this section is unnecessary. The system requirements are in the table, and the information regarding connecting to iTunes before use and creating an iTunes account can be placed in the specifications section. That section offers no further conducive information. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The system requirements are NOT in the table!

{{Information appliance
 |title=iPod touch
 |image=[[Image:IPod touch no BG.png|250px]]
 |caption=The Home screen of an iPod touch
 |manufacturer=[[Apple Inc.]]
 |type=[[Portable Media Player]]
 |connectivity=[[Universal Serial Bus|USB 2.0]], [[Wi-Fi]] 802.11b/g
 |media=[[Flash Memory]]<br>8 or 16 GB
 |input=[[Multi-touch]] [[touchscreen]]
 |display=480 x 320 3.5" [[color]] [[LCD]]
 |operatingsystem=1.1.2 (OS X)
 |lifespan = [[September 13]], [[2007]]-present
 |power = [[lithium-ion battery]]
 |related=[[iPhone]]

}}

Read the earlier sections on this talk page. Someone earlier complained that the infobox does not mention that Windows works with the iPod touch, and demanded that this information be added. The infobox displays very little information that is meant to indicate a "requirement". Connectivity=USB - sure, it uses USB. But it does NOT say that it is a requirement for functionality. Matter of fact, the infobox indicates that the user has a choice between USB and wi-fi. That is WAY off from the truth - you cannot interface the iPod touch to your computer via wi-fi. The infobox has no mention of iTunes. I have iTunes on my PowerPC Mac - there's nothing that indicates incompatibility with the version of Mac OS I'm running on it.

As I mentioned in my earlier comments, an properly written Wikipedia article should briefly summarize the device, with the MUST know information after it, followed by more detailed information. If you crack open the iPod touch user guide, it is organized like this.

In summary, that infobox contributes very little to indicate how the iPod touch must be used. To stick this information at the end of the article and require the reader to read through the entire article in order to the information is very poor article design. Groink (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not the infobox, the model table. It states that it uses USB, and it states which versions of Mac OS X and Windows it's compatible with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butterfly0fdoom (talk • contribs) 00:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Still, things that can be mistakenly assumed based on that table:

  • iPod touch will work with my iMac G3 running Mac OS 10.4.1
  • My iMac is running iTunes. The version's not mentioned.
  • It still does not make the distinction that the USB port is a requirement.

Seriously, I don't know why you're so animate about getting rid of the requirements list. If we went based solely on Wikipedia guidelines and good web page design, your table would be GONE. According to WP:HTUT, tables are not recommended because 1) the data that's being presented right now in your table is too simple, and 2) it complicates editing by other editors where table editing is not as simple as editing a list. What you're trying to do is remove a simple-to-read listing and wedge it into a complicated table. And, to fit the data into your table, you're eliminating important words to compensate for the too-detailed table design (which for the record I'm against that table from existing.) As proof that tables are inefficient, useit.com suggests using lists instead - as lists are faster to read. Your argument of "no constructive background information" in the requirements section does not require that kind of information. It is not enough of an argument to eliminate it - especially since it has been in the article since December 9 without any argument from anyone, and only NOW you have a problem with it. LEAVE IT ALONE! So far three people are behind the section, based on the RVs. Groink (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The ARM CPU and RAM

I noticed an anon changed the CPU speed to 412MHz. I've read this somewhere else, so I started searching around. Most of the sites are written in Japanese (really intense Apple gadget otaku in Japan.) Fortunately I can read Japanese. The consensus on the Japanese sites is that the CPU is indeed 412MHz. The CPU is identified as an ARM 339S0029 (339S0029ARM), which is identified by several photographs - including one at CNET. What I can't find, however, is a source that matches this part to a CPU rating. Until now, it appears that most people assume that the iPhone and iPod touch use the same CPU and are therefore the same speed of 620MHz. But even the ARM part numbers differ between the models (the iPhone uses a 339S0030ARM.) If someone can find a source that links the 412MHz to the 339S0029 ARM processor, please add a reference to that data in the specifications section.

Another thing to note is that the ARM CPU and RAM appear to be a PoP type component. On the photos, the RAM is identified by the part number K4X1GA53PE-XGC3. The "K4" means it is manufactured by SAMSUNG. The Japanese believe the RAM is 128MB SDRAM mobile DDR 1Gbit. Like the CPU, we need a reference that links the 128MB to that SAMSUNG part number. Groink (talk) 11:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm posting this from my iPod touch and I can verify that the CPU is 412MHz and there is 128MB of RAM. Selectodude (talk) 08:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
But that's original research. We need verifiable sources. Off the record, it looks like you got the typing on the multi-touch keyboard down pat. Groink (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Ars Technica has a page that says 400MHz, which showed up in the 1.1.1 firmware. 1.1.2 shows 412MHz but 12MHz off is much closer than 112MHz off.Selectodude (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
There's also some chatter going about regarding the firmware 1.1.2 on the iPhone also showing 412MHz after the upgrade. Regardless of what any software is pointing out, what we really need on Wikipedia is a source that links a speed rating to the physical part number of the CPU chip. Groink (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Reading the ARM architecture article, it mentions that the iPhone uses the following:

Family Architecture Version Core Feature Cache (I/D)/MMU Typical MIPS @ MHz In application
ARMv6KZ ARM1176JZ(F)-S SIMD, Jazelle DBX, (VFP) variable, MMU+TrustZone Apple iPhone, Conexant CX2427X, Motorola RIZR Z8

Any info like this for the iPod touch? Groink (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Pricing

Do not change pricing to be based off of the USD price at current exchange rates because that is NOT how Apple prices their products. Just a note. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 05:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what I figured. Thanks for clarifying that. Groink (talk) 07:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Quicktime

Should it be mentioned that the iPod touch can play Quicktime videos through safari? And also that you can't watch YouTube videos through safari -only through the YouTube application itself? Because this is true, I have noticed these myself. Should they be mentioned or should we wait for the February apps to arrive? - - '''Beautiful so ur''' (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this goes along the line of too much information. There are a zillion things about the iPod touch where the user will experience incompatibility issues like these. It shouldn't be the responsibility of Wikipedia to cover everything. There are many web sites that cover this for the users (Macintouch, among other support sites.) You can make (citing a reliable reference) a generalized statement where Safari under OS X 1.x is not the equivalent of Safari under Mac OS X 10.x, and then any incompatibilities found on the iPod touch re Safari would be covered by that one statement. Groink (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh cool I see thanks for pointing that out and for replying of course. - - '''Beautiful so ur''' (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Image improvement request

The home screen shown should show icons for the handful of new applications formerly limited to the iPhone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.13.186.2 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This request has been fulfilled, although while I appreciate the effort, the photo showing all the apps isn't of particularly good quality; for example the screen is smudged and the camera is visible. I'm not entirely sure whether of not there are copyright/etc. issues by adding an official photograph (being a new user), but the Apple website has an appropriate photo here --Extr3me (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

We cannot use official Apple imagery, per Wikipedia guidelines pertaining to non-free images. Regarding free images such as the one we have right now, you really can't expect A-plus quality. Groink (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:IPod_Touch/Archive_2"