Talk:iPod Photo

Merger w/ iPod

• Strongly Object - iPod photo was at one time its own separate product line, and thus has its own history and deserves its own entry. raekwon 16:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object to merger - essentially for the same reasons as Raekwon above. Grstain 18:15, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Support It's a marketing term for a particular feature of what was essentially just another in a long line of iPod models. Just because it was branded a bit differently doesn't make it notable. I'll also note that the February 2005 models even had "photo" removed from the product packaging. --Dtcdthingy 23:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, the word "photo" just had its size reduced in the packaging, not removed, presumably because at that point, Apple was preparing for the lines to merge in June. raekwon 02:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Object – for Raekwon's reason. And the iPod article is already rather long. —RadRafe 11:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
• Support Since all current iPods include color screens and the photo display capabilties I don't see an seperate article about the now defunct iPod photo line being able to provide anough information not allready covered in the iPod article to be worth it. The two articles should be merged. The usefull information from --Cab88 15:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strongly Object - being its own Product line, with the original iPod in 4 lines with the iPod photo being a line one, well, I guess my argument is the same as Raekwon's. --05:02, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object - Yes all Full iPods now have cololor screens that dosen't change the fact that the iPod photo was its own line wich means it should have seprate history!
• Object - They were different at one point and this page should remain to reflect that. shinyplasticbag
• Object for some of the reasons above... plus, who doesn't like corporate astroturfing. Except... by consumers... gren グレン 20:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object as an owner of an iPod photo. Swirlix 13:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Object was a seperate model, should be kept seperate. The wizard 15:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Support the iPod Photo, was just called the iPod for 1 thing. Second, there aren't articles for the 1G, 2G, or 3G, so why is the 4G different? Jmclark911 21:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Object iPod photo was a separate and distinct line from the 4G iPod. Just because there was a 4.5G update that replaced it doesn't negate that fact. This article should detail that specific line and refer any discussion about the 4G iPod itself to the iPod classic page... I've undone the redirect as it wasn't really a good merge anyway... Paul^C/_T+ 04:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support. It was part of the 4g. It does not stand out in any way from any other models in the development 'classic' line. It has a disproportionate amount of information compared to any other single ipod model or generation. I originally wanted each individual model to have its own page, but since the rest of wikipedia doesn't agree, it's inconsistent for this one to have its own--80.86.74.135 20:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support. "Photo" was simply an upgrade to the existing iPod line. Much like the 5th generation "iPod Video". Anything worth saying in this article can be said in the iPod classic article. Pele Merengue 00:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Support. It's just the first of the 'classics' that had colour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.86.74.135 (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

iPod photo/classic consensus

So, just to clear things up, we are saying that the iPod photo was a slight branch off of the iPod classic line, and at a time, considered it's own separate brand of iPod (hence the need for this article), yet was later reintegrated with the iPod classic product line? -- MacAddct1984 13:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the best way to look at it is that the iPod photo was a separate line, a brand new product like the iPod mini at the time of introduction, but was later discontinued and its technology merged into the regular 4G iPod line. As such there was no predecessor and its successor is actually the 4G iPod, not the 5G. We should use the naming scheme present in the current iPod timeline, "photo" for the iPod photo models and "Color" for the "normal" 4.5G iPods they turned into. There should be a break in that template for when the iPod photo was discontinued tho. What do other people think? Paul^C/_T+ 13:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the photo was a separate line. All the other separate lines had completely different appearances. I still have a brochure/pamphlet thing from after they had the price cuts for the photo (when a cheaper 30GB photo took over for the 40GB), and Apple listed the photo alongside the 20GB original iPod, calling all of them "iPod", but also noting that the 30GB and 60GB models had a color screen (never mind, I think I might have recycled it when I cleaned my room a few months ago). Given that that's Apple's own marketing material, I think the photo article should be completely merged into the classic page, as the photo was, to me, a premium option/version of the normal iPod classic until the monochrome iPod was dropped in favor of the color iPod. Butterfly0fdoom 18:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Per MOS:TM, we should present the product name as "iPod Photo", not "iPod photo". There is examption for the initial "i" because it is a distinctive mark of the product and there's an exemption for improper caps in the first two letters, but "Shuffle" should be capitalised per standard title case. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion

An archive of the discussion can be found at Talk:IPod Touch#Requested move. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 09:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Present tense vs past tense

In the first sentence it is stated the iPod Photo "was" an mp3 player. They are still around even though they are not actively marketed or sold by Apple, so shouldn't it be that the photo "is" an mp3 player and make a distinction between it being something and that it was marketed by Apple? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.240.253 (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)