Talk:iLife

Please go to

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like nothing has been added to this article about the new iLife '09 suite . Are we going to be working on that soon? SgtDonut (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

iLife 09 is not yet out. This article is wrong. End of January. Only iWork 09 was released on the 6th —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.31.149 (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, if I buy a Mac today it will come with iLife '09. So it is available. Tamajared (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove any of that with a citation? I see new Macs with still '08 as of today being sold.

talk • contribs) 00:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I am a relatively new user of software by Apple Corp., and am curious whether my copy of iLife '09 has been corrupted. Back in the 1980s, software programs were sold with checksums that the user was expected to examine for himself to see if his version of the software has/had been edited (corrupted) or not. Where can I find a source for the checksums that go with iLife '09? 216.99.201.2 (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to remove the overuse of icon images in the 'Components' section of this article as they are not in compliance with the spirit of 'fair use'. The use of them as decorative filler is not

I replaced the removed versions (the ones that had been deleted per poor fair use qualifications). I used the images used in the respective articles, which are already used fairly. While I think it is aesthetically pleasing, I also feel it gives a reader (especially a lay reader) a way to connect iLife (which has a different logo for each major release) to the individual programs, which have their own logos (which change minimally per release, safe for iMovie in the '08 version). I think they can stay since the sections of this articles are essentially mini summaries of the main articles. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it looks more pleasing, but it is hard to argue that it's fair use, ie minimal use and absolutely necessary. If no one else has anything to say then I'll let it go, but at least my concerns have been noted.

talk • contribs) 08:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, I don't think it's very attractive either. The icons are much too large for the little amount of text on the article. Perhaps if the resolution was reduced it would be more in line with fair use?Steven Fisher (talk) 08:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the chart about different iLife version details, it's mentioned that iTunes 4 would have been packaged with the original iLife package. However, when the original iLife package was release, iTunes 3 was included, according to Apple's press release (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2003/jan/07ilife.html). [iTunes] 4 was released in April 2003 and may have been packaged within the original iLife later. However, in my opinion there should be the version mentioned that came in the original package, not in an updated version. Because the chart also does not list integrated (subversion) updates of the other iLife apps. We could either mention only version 3 or both version 3 and 4 with citations in the chart. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canubis (talk • contribs) 12:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For iLife '09 you con download an iPhoto 8.0.4 for example http://support.apple.com/downloads/iPhoto_8_0_4_Update --139.20.53.46 (talk) 13:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The boxed outline of iLife11 is totally misleading. You cannot download iLife11 at all, instead, under the iLife11 you can independently download just three opponents: iPhoto, iVideo, Garage band. I expected iWeb and it was not there. I wasted money on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.217.112 (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apple now refers to iMovie and GarageBand simply as "iMovie and GarageBand", or as two of the many "OS X Built-in Apps". All traces of "iLife" and "Apple Creativity Apps" have been removed from product pages and support documents (except archived ones that are no longer updated).

Should we update the page title to reflect that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.42.253.12 (talk) 07:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the page title should be updated to reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vista980622 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article deals predominantly with the history of the iLife suite. iMovie and GarageBand have their own articles too. I am therefore against a page move.–Totie (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This warning, received when editing, about an unknown parameter in a template is actually just "|" and removing that pipe symbol corrected it.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]