 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
In Nokia watching competitors we saw LG Prada international version announcement with specs in the fall of 2005. Article may be correct about US launch but ignores a few details on what really happened before.
Link to iPhone
editApple fanboys refuse to allow any mention of this phone on the iPhone page, even though the LG unit came before the "new and revolutionary" Apple offering.
99.110.132.64 (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)No, as far as I remember there was some noise between LG Prada phone and Apple iPhone on who copied whose. Actually there were some debates in S.Korea but if my memory is still good, it was like that LG got a prototype or some of iPhone on their hands because LG was also a supplier to Apple and need to know Apple's iPhone to make their components or test. So, there were lots of saying that LG "borrowed" iPhone design at that moment.
So I've removed the iPhone link from this page until LG is restored on the other. 86.17.247.135 02:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- First, no personal attacks. Second, don't engage in retaliatory edits. Just cuz there isn't consensus for an outgoing link to here doesn't mean there de facto shouldn't be a link from here to there. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- There is less justification for an iPhone link here than there is for an LG link on the iPhone page given the Korean came first - and especially when Apple and it's fans are claiming the iPhone to be "new and revolutionary". The other link on this page is for another product from the same company so is perfectly reasonable. If you insist that the iPhone link must be reinstated here I expect you to head straight over to the iPhone page to immediately add an LG link there, otherwise the accusation of bias and "fanboy"ism - however worded - has substance. (We all know that certain Wiki pages are controlled by "interests" and bias dictates what is written. This is an excellent example. As for the iPhone page itself, it is not encyclopaedic: it's a free promotional advertisment for Apple.) 195.92.40.49 16:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please cool it on the "bias" and "controlled by interests" rhetoric. It does nothing to support your arguments. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- What you choose to call "retaliatory edits" is what other more sensible and consistent people call applying the same rules across the board. Link to LG doesn't belong on iPhone? Then link to iPhone doesn't belong on LG. Simple. Inescapable. As for "if there's a link to [LG] Chocolate, should be to iPhone too", well if you head over to the iPhone page you will find "see also" links to other Apple pages too (but the link to LG is banned). Tit for tat or an attempt to apply consistency which removes any bias? 86.17.247.135 00:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Links are not de facto reciprocal on Wikipedia. Just because article X links to Y doesn't mean that Y must link to X. Conversely, if X does not link to Y, that doesn't mean that Y must not link to X. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe so in a wider context, but I am talking about a specific argument. Put your money where your mouth is and at least attempt to explain why you reinstated a link to iPhone on this page but did not insert a link to this product on the iPhone page. But don't use your justification "there is already a link to another phone here so the iPhone should be included" because 1) the one already there is another LG product 2) well, why not add every other phone on the market?! and 3) the iPhone page also has other links to other products - but not the LG. Be one of those rare "editors" who gives a real, sensible and specific reason why one rules applies here and another applies there, even though they are in the same category of pages and should follow a similar format with similar rules. Otherwise just give up. 195.92.40.49 21:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- I did add a link to this article on iPhone: [1]. So please don't get all arrogant and tell me to "put my money where my mouth is" etc. It seems, however, consensus at that article is that such link doesn't belong. Feel free to try to build consensus there if you want it included again. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe so in a wider context, but I am talking about a specific argument. Put your money where your mouth is and at least attempt to explain why you reinstated a link to iPhone on this page but did not insert a link to this product on the iPhone page. But don't use your justification "there is already a link to another phone here so the iPhone should be included" because 1) the one already there is another LG product 2) well, why not add every other phone on the market?! and 3) the iPhone page also has other links to other products - but not the LG. Be one of those rare "editors" who gives a real, sensible and specific reason why one rules applies here and another applies there, even though they are in the same category of pages and should follow a similar format with similar rules. Otherwise just give up. 195.92.40.49 21:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Links are not de facto reciprocal on Wikipedia. Just because article X links to Y doesn't mean that Y must link to X. Conversely, if X does not link to Y, that doesn't mean that Y must not link to X. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe if you spent some time expanding this article, then people would want to link to it. AlistairMcMillan 01:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- You link to something because it's relevant, not because it's interesting/long/comprehensive. My argument is that there should be reciprocal links consistent within categories, but if people continue to insist that the iPhone page must NEVER mention the LG phone, but the LG page MUST mention the iPhone - even though the Korean came first - then the only answer is that neither should. Otherwise there is a strong suggestion of bias, fanboyism etc. I don't care if people find that outrageous, it is more important to remove any possibility of the accusation ebing made by being CONSISTENT. 195.92.40.49 21:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please show me where on the iPhone page it is insisted that iPhone must "NEVER" mention the LG, or that this article "MUST" link to the iPhone. I see no consensus support for such absolutionist positions, and I fear you're creating them merely to support some rhetorical point of your own. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Head over to the iPhone page and add the LG link. It'll be reverted in under 60 seconds. 86.17.247.135 01:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- That's because there's no consensus to support including it. That doesn't mean it could "NEVER" be added. Perhaps you can build a persuasive argument to support its inclusion, and discuss it there, rather than just complaining here. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Of course there's no consensus!!! And we all know why that is. That's the main problem in this debate! Jeez: I remember when you were allowed to say that Xerox first introduced the mouse....ah, happy pre-Apple fanboy days....now Jobs claims "Apple introduced the computer mouse to consumers; then the clickwheel; then touchscreen technology". Wrong and misleading on so many levels, but revisionism lives on in the technological world. -- 195.92.40.49 19:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- That's because there's no consensus to support including it. That doesn't mean it could "NEVER" be added. Perhaps you can build a persuasive argument to support its inclusion, and discuss it there, rather than just complaining here. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Head over to the iPhone page and add the LG link. It'll be reverted in under 60 seconds. 86.17.247.135 01:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please show me where on the iPhone page it is insisted that iPhone must "NEVER" mention the LG, or that this article "MUST" link to the iPhone. I see no consensus support for such absolutionist positions, and I fear you're creating them merely to support some rhetorical point of your own. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- You link to something because it's relevant, not because it's interesting/long/comprehensive. My argument is that there should be reciprocal links consistent within categories, but if people continue to insist that the iPhone page must NEVER mention the LG phone, but the LG page MUST mention the iPhone - even though the Korean came first - then the only answer is that neither should. Otherwise there is a strong suggestion of bias, fanboyism etc. I don't care if people find that outrageous, it is more important to remove any possibility of the accusation ebing made by being CONSISTENT. 195.92.40.49 21:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- What you choose to call "retaliatory edits" is what other more sensible and consistent people call applying the same rules across the board. Link to LG doesn't belong on iPhone? Then link to iPhone doesn't belong on LG. Simple. Inescapable. As for "if there's a link to [LG] Chocolate, should be to iPhone too", well if you head over to the iPhone page you will find "see also" links to other Apple pages too (but the link to LG is banned). Tit for tat or an attempt to apply consistency which removes any bias? 86.17.247.135 00:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please cool it on the "bias" and "controlled by interests" rhetoric. It does nothing to support your arguments. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- There is less justification for an iPhone link here than there is for an LG link on the iPhone page given the Korean came first - and especially when Apple and it's fans are claiming the iPhone to be "new and revolutionary". The other link on this page is for another product from the same company so is perfectly reasonable. If you insist that the iPhone link must be reinstated here I expect you to head straight over to the iPhone page to immediately add an LG link there, otherwise the accusation of bias and "fanboy"ism - however worded - has substance. (We all know that certain Wiki pages are controlled by "interests" and bias dictates what is written. This is an excellent example. As for the iPhone page itself, it is not encyclopaedic: it's a free promotional advertisment for Apple.) 195.92.40.49 16:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
LG Officially Accuses Apple iPhone For “Copying” Prada Concept Design According to reports, LG Electronics is alleging Apple of stealing the concept of its much-hyped iPhone from LG’s own Prada model.
As per a Korean website, Woo-Young Kwak, head of LG Mobile Handset R&D Center, at a press conference said, “We consider that Apple copied Prada phone after the design was unveiled when it was presented in the iF Design Award and won the prize in September 2006. We take that to mean ‘Apple stole our idea.”
Though, the Apple’s iPhone and LG’s Prada were both launched around the same time, and sport quite similar appearances, it was pretty vague as to which company held the original design concept and which company had copied it. However, now LG has publicly stated that Apple has copied theirs. Though, there is no news of a lawsuit against Apple yet.
It's utterly ridiculous to think that EITHER company copied each other. They were announced so close to each other it would have been impossible. Apple has been working on the iPhone for YEARS. It's equally ridiculous to suggest that Apple moved their announcement a week earlier because of the LG Prada... they announced it at MacWorld, which is the same week every year. You LG fanboys are just as bad as the Apple fanboys...
- No. LG Prada phone(KE850) unveiled 2006.9. and iPhone unveiled 2007.1. and, LG and Prada have been working on the KE850 for YEARS. iphone is first phone product from apple. apple is beginner of mobile phone maker, but LG is not. Godsmodo 19:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, because you can build an entire working phone and polished interface in a few months. They are both phones with a large touch screen and a black case; beyond that....TrevorLSciAct 05:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
OS ?
editI couldn't find any info about the OS used.
anyone knows something about this ? It kinda looks like UIQ, but uiq neither symbian mention it
- A very valid question. Maikel (talk) 12:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
COST/Availablility
editI see the cost for some foreign contries, but what about cost/availabilty in the US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.231.130.50 (talk • contribs)
- Believe it or not, the US is a "foreign" country to 95% of the world's population! Jesus..... -- 86.17.211.191 20:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Announced/launched on 12 December 2006
editI've changed this to launched. It was in fact announced much earlier. The specifications of the (then) planned unit were announced in early 2006 and the finished article was submitted to an international design competition mid-2006. 195.92.40.49 18:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
where is this phone made?
editIt's made in China, right? Arthurian Legend (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- No. LG is a S.Korean company. 99.110.132.64 (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on LG Prada. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081206042109/http://www.mobilechoiceuk.com/News/Best+phones+of+2007+unveiled+at+Mobile+Choice+Awards/841 to http://www.mobilechoiceuk.com/News/Best+phones+of+2007+unveiled+at+Mobile+Choice+Awards/841
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511173338/http://www.whatmobileawards.co.uk/2007winners.php to http://www.whatmobileawards.co.uk/2007winners.php
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080915144928/http://asia.cnet.com/readerschoice/2007/mobiledevices/best_looking_phone.htm to http://asia.cnet.com/readerschoice/2007/mobiledevices/best_looking_phone.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)