Talk:Apple Inc.

Pre-article-name-change FA failure info: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Apple_Computer

Pre-article-name-change peer review info: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Apple_Computer

New Section for Criticisms of Apple

Why isn't there a section for this? Many people have issues with Apple, and seeing as there is one on the microsoft entry, makes me wonder why this hasn't been brought up before. Hogiaus 17:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

While I like my Powerbook, IF it's typical for corporate entries at wikipedia to have a criticisms section, Apple should have one too. Of course, any editor may challenge or re-word badly written or un-sourced statements, and if no one can supply references, delete the corresponding claim. The ideal criticism should state the issue in question, why one side thinks it's bad, and if there's any defense, why the other side thinks not. For instance, the "Cadillac"+closed Mac approach led to higher prices, on the other hand it also led to better technology and end-user experience. The article cites NuBus for being proprietary. Well, that had pros and cons. It was better than anything at the time, but it also cost more.

--Jason C.K. 04:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree, Apple can be criticized for a lot of things, from enviromental issues (the iSight was banned from the European Union) to lack of expanded support options (next-day support etc) to their habit of never releasing information about future products in advance. 81.233.73.177/A helping hand

Yes, for fairness, Apple, much like Microsoft, requires a Criticism section.--Zeeboid 22:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I politely agree. Has somebody deliberately left a criticism section out? There's one in many other similar articles. Please consider adding one. Andacar 06:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

FA run

I don't think it's ready yet, but like Microsoft I think that Apple has an FA in it. I know that my preivous nom was very premature, but I think that the article is vastly improved since then. Anybody interested in collaborating to get this up to FA status? Any suggestions on how to do so? - Mike | Trick or Treat 23:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to see this get to FA status! Here's my list of things I think we ought to look at:

• A longer lead section. This is a well-known, historically important technology company with a 30-year history, and for an article of this size, a solid four paragraphs covering all the major aspects should suffice.
• The history section should be cut down in size. We have a separate article for the full history, so let's be razor-sharp and focus on all the important stuff, without dragging the reader down with little details like when revisions of computers were released or other contextually irrelevant things when discussing the history of the company as a whole. Wikipedia:Summary style gives us good guidance here.
• The Corporate Affairs section shouldn't start off with criticism of the company. Something seems really wrong with that.
• There should be no red-links, no unsourced statements, and every reference we do have should be checked to ensure they're still valid.
• A picture of the Apple ][, a picture of the company's first employees, or at least -something- from the first 10 years of the company other than the 1984 commercial, would be fantastic.
• A good FA should stand the test of time. That is to say, I should be able to read the article as it is now, in 2025, and not encounter meaningless temporal terms like "recently", or speculation about the future.

I'll do some of this work myself in the coming days. We could also submit to Wikipedia:Peer review and get some perspective from other editors. -/- Warren 02:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great! I'll just keep doing my normal cleanup type stuff and hopefully this will be an FA soon! - Mike | Trick or Treat 22:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The Corporate affairs lead-section is terrible! None of it is about corporate affairs. It's mostly about hardware, and mostly that a random collection of criticisms of how the business is run. It all needs to go somewhere else in the article. A Criticism section?

--Jason C.K. 04:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

No way would I vote for this article for FA. Not until it gets some honesty. It doesn't even mention the 1997 Microsoft bailout[1]. Not even once! And no criticism section? This article is heavily colored by biased advocacy. --Skidoo 17:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been working on iPod, too, with the same goal... This one is most certainly not FA quality yet, but it has the potential.--HereToHelp 21:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

POV

There is nothing in here that says that criticizes Apple other than the lawsuits. How about the fact that Macs can't play games and can't run on AMD? --Rigist 22:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you misspelled "fewer games are available for Mac OS X than for Windows, and Macs use processors from Intel rather than AMD".

The first could be considered a deficiency of Mac OS X (not of Macs, any more, as you can install Windows on them if you want, even if they don't come with Windows). I'm not sure whether it would count as a "criticism" in the sense that a complaint that OS X is slow, or has security problems, or that applications crash, would be a criticism - the latter are things that one could argue should Just Be Fixed, but the only ways to "fix" the smaller number of games would be for Apple to:

1. switch from OS X to Windows, which would probably cause many other people not to want to use Macs, as they buy it because they like the way OS X works better than the way Windows works (just as there are people who like the way Windows works, and there are people who like the way KDE works, and so on - no "of course {Windows, OS X, etc.} is better" opining, please);
2. promote the use of games under virtualization software such as Parallels Workstation or VMWare;
3. promote the development and use of Darwine.

The second runs the risk of turning into Yet Another AMD Fanboy Versus Intel Fanboy war; the mere fact that Apple used processors from Vendor A rather than Vendor B isn't, by itself, an item to criticize, you'd need to justify why choosing chips from Vendor B is a better idea than choosing them from Vendor A, and that could turn into a long debate about the relative merits of various aspects of AMD and AMD's processors vs. Intel and Intel's processors.

There's no inherent reason why the Apple Computer or Macintosh pages should be free of a criticism section; if they shouldn't have one, no page about a company or product should have one. However, there are cases where criticisms of a company are "notable", e.g. criticisms of ExxonMobil for the Exxon Valdez oil spill or Nestlé for their marketing of infant formula, so clearly "no criticism sections" is wrong. However, a criticism section shouldn't just be a forum for gripes (just as a Web page about a company or organization shouldn't be full of breathless enthusiasm about a company); WP:NOT a Web bulletin board. Guy Harris 23:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

On top of what has been said, regarding the Intel/AMD thing: Macs are a closed platform and always have been. It's entirely fair of Apple to choose Intel's chips, just as it was not worthy of criticism in an encyclopedia that they previously used PowerPC as a platform. In relation to games - that's more a criticism of game developers than Apple. Mac OS X has built-in OpenGL, so anybody can make games for it if they choose to invest the time and money, and as the Mac market grows, you'll see more of that happening - but it's not Apple's job to port other peoples software. Davidjk ^(msg+edits) 17:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

To attempt to add fairness to this POV, a screenshot of Tiger Crashing has been added, much like the Blue Screen of Death image on Microsoft's Wiki page.--Zeeboid 17:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not concerned with such a notion of fairness. If you want to cite it in the corporation's main article, what matters is, is it notable at the corporate level? The BSOD is well-known, appears in popular culture (i.e.--payphones, screensavers, humor, etc), and has been around since the early 90's. The tie between Microsoft, Windows, and BSOD is well-known. Microsoft is famous, so is Windows, and so is BSOD. It's a relatively common jab at Microsoft. Tiger crashing is hardly at that level of notability. On Microsoft-related topics, the idea of BSOD is hardly obscure. I don't think the tie between Apple and a Tiger crash screen is nearly so strong. That crash screen came into being in 2001...do you even know the name of that screen (it does have one)? This screen already appears elswhere in Wikipedia. Associated directly to the Apple article doesn't seem correct, it's not notable at the corporate level. Just like, on the MS side, consensus is that MS paying for Wikipedia edits, while it should appear somewhere in Wikipedia, isn't a noteworthy enough fact about MS to justify putting it in the main article.

--Jason C.K. 22:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It is notable at the corperate level, just as notable as the BSOD. it is an error screen that the machines are known for. as you say "It's a relatively common jab at Microsoft." Wikipedia is not the place for "jabs." Much like the need for the Microsoft page to include a photo of their operating system crashing, to be as accurate as possible, the Apple Computer page should include an image of their operating system crashing as well. The BOSD may be in pop-culture, but that does not make apple's crash screen unnoteworthy in fact, the fact that apple does crash is informational since the common misperception is that apples DONT crash, which from a user perspective, is very very not true. Perhaps information like this should be in An Apple Inc.'s own Criticism section? either that, or it should be fine where it is.

The fact that Blue Screen of Death has its own article indicates the reference on Microsoft' page is not for "pop-culture" significance, but is simply giving information about a reality of Microsoft systems. That standard, in strictly neutral encyclopedic interests, is being applied here. This is not a response to the Microsoft BSOD, simply following the standard that is used for Microsoft as a template in editing Apple. --Zeeboid 19:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, you've made your point better this time. I'm not agreeing yet, but I see your point. Well I guess we'll wait for some other folks to weigh-in. I am likely to be fine with whatever the consensus is, put in or leave out.

--Jason C.K. 20:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

KEEP--I am going to have to agree that the image should stay up. I have read an interesting justification for leaving it up, which makes a ton of sense and seems to coincide with a standard for information that is unconcerned with the negative vs positive image of the article's subject. The reasoning offered to censor the negative image about Apple is basically, "it is not commonly known that Apple crashes" and "you don't even know the name of the crash screen" therefore "it is not worthy of being on Apple's page".

Sounds to me like the only reason for keeping the image off of the page is to continue the fallacy that Apple does not crash. (If I had a nickel everytime someone in my office uttered that misbelief I would be able to hire someone to type these edits for me.)

Think about which standard we should apply as a Wikipedia rule of thumb. Leave the crash picture up because it is both a fact about the subject and in accordance with other articles in the same field. Take the crash picture down because not many people know about its existance. Imagine how much information we will have to remove from Wikipedia pages simply because they are not known in pop-culture?

Or is it the real reason for the double-standard application that leaving the image up for Microsoft is exactly a "jab at Microsoft" and, knowing the insane passions by the followers, consequently viewing a similar image for Apple as an equally vindictive "jab at Apple"--which simply is not permissible?

Regardless of the reason for anyone wanting to leave the BSOD image on Microsoft while fighting the very existance of a crash screen for Apple, the truly NPOV position is to leave it up here...or take down ALL negative information on all Wikipedia articles and take down ALL information on all Wikipedia articles that is not 'commonly known'. (Say good-bye to a lot of the scientific, mathematic and historical content!!)

Leave the image up, for crying out loud, or give a solid reason why Apple should be different than any/all other articles on Wikipedia. I mean a solid reason so that the common idiot (like myself) will know if the next update about Apple is allowed or not without having to go through all of this hassle.

Information and knowledge should be the endeavor...not preserving a positive image.

-- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 20:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You are mis-construing my reasoning, and taking this mis-construction to ridiculous extremes. Have you followed the discussion at Microsoft talk page about whether or not the "paying for wikipedia edits" controversy is worth mentioning at the corporate level? I'll note that it was me that convinced the final hold-out that it was not worth mentioning at the corporate level. No one is suggesting that paid-edits controversy doesn't belong on wikipedia...just that it doesn't merit mention on Microsoft main page. Likewise no one is suggesting the Tiger crash screen should be eradicated from every location on wikipedia (it already exists in other articles). The standard I'm using, the same that we used on the MS talk page, is whether this info is notable at the corporate level. I'm fine if consensus decides it is notable at the corporate level, but please do not mis-construe my reason for feeling (so far) that it isn't notable at the corporate level. As said on the MS talk page, there are a million facts that are true about MS. Likewise Apple. Our goal is not to include every fact in every possible article, but to decide which facts belong in which articles. Otherwise every article would be 100MB and completely lose the reader in trivia and detail. I probably wouldn't care at all about this if it didn't initially strike me as POV-pushing and not coming from some reasoned rationale. ALL computers crash. That's probably best mentioned on a general article about operating systems. The only thing that makes that fact notable in regards to a particular OS is notoriety, or if it crashes unusually often. XP & OS X seem about equally stable to me, however Windows, and it's crash screen, are WAY more well-known than either OS X or its crashes. This is not about information hiding. The Tiger screen is on wiki. It's about whether it's notable at the corp. level.

--Jason C.K. 21:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Your latest edits to your reply are making your point less well IMO. Correct, wiki is not the place for jabs. However, the fact that BSOD is a common jab at MS is another bit of support as to why it's notable at the corporate level. How much popular culture lampoons the Tiger crash screen? How much lampoons BSOD? Of course BSOD having it's own article has nothing to do with pop-culture. But the reason for even mentioning BSOD at the corporate level is because it IS very well known. "simply following the standard that is used for Microsoft as a template in editing Apple" I don't believe other articles are supposed to set detailed standards for one another. But I'll let veteran wikipedians weigh-in on that one. In any case, overall, you have made some good points, though I don't agree with all your reasoning...we'll wait to see what others think.

--Jason C.K. 20:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

All operating systems can crash. That does not mean every computer company article has to have a picture of its crash screen. Most reviewers credit OS X with being very stable. Absent some reliable source that says this crash screen is commonly enountered by OS X users, it's not notable and doesn't belong in this article. Whether BSOD belongs in the Microsoft artilcle should be discussed there, not here.--agr 20:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

KEEP--What is your definition of "The only thing that makes that fact notable in regards to a particular OS is notoriety, or if it crashes unusually often." because from what I understand it’s all a numbers game. It is clear that a computer with 95% of the market share, would have the perception of crashing more often then one with 3.5% of the market share. The reason the windows crash screen is better known is because 95% of the users out there have a Windows machine. I am not here to argue semantics or play numbers games, or bicker over a better operating system, but the As we are all in agreeing that "all computers crash," my reasoning for posting that image is to help show other users that despite Apple's Advertising claims, and apparent majority misconception about the product, the computers actually do crash. As Tony stated, information about a topic that is not "commonly known" is just as important as the information that is "commonly known." Because of the misconception that is out there about Apples not crashing, is precisely the reason it is important to keep up.--Zeeboid 04:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source for your claim of an "apparent majority" "misconception that is out there about Apples not crashing"? Macs do have a reputation for being very reliable. Many independent reviewers have said so. But I haven heard anyone say they never crash. Do you have a source that contradicts this? Apple's market share has nothing to do with this reputation. If they crashed a lot, Mac users would be as familiar with the screen you show as Windows users are with the BSOD. I've been using OS X since 1999 and have seen that screen once, on a friend's machine, many years ago. I'm not saying I've never had to reboot, but full crashes like that are uncommon in my experience. In any case, this article is about the corporation, not Mac OS X. Reliability discussions belong there.--agr 06:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

A sorce for my claim to an "apparent majority" "misconception that is out there about apples not crashing": To quote Apple them selves refering to OSX point number two: "It Doesn't Crash". Would it be more approperate to include this image under the corperate Wiki in relation to their claims about how "It Doesn't Crash"? You can even view this "misconception" in their advertising commerical here spicifically refrencing the BSOD. --Zeeboid 15:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for answering every exaggerated advertising claim. I just went to microsoft.com and their front page has an ad for Office that says "Essential. Reliable. Easy." Should we answer that in the Microsoft article? I think not. If there is real controversy about the veracity Apple's ads in published sources, a discussion belongs in an appropriate section with a clear explaination of the issues. Merely showing a crash screen would not suffice. --agr 18:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Zeeboid, please read Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. You also need to go check out the Wikipedia arbitration process to see what happens to editors who fail to conform their behavior and their edits to those policies. Plus, finding legitimate sources is not that hard. There's a place full of them---it's called the public library. I make a point of writing down one more source citation for Wikipedia every time I go to the public library. --Coolcaesar 04:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Please quote the "original research". And the NPOV seems to be from the "pictures of Apple crashing cannot be permitted on the Apple article" side. What is NOT verifiable? The fact that Apple crashes? Or the part that Apple claims to 'never crash'? Or is the screen itself not verifiable? And, is that a threat? I do not understand what "to see what happens to editors who fail to conform their behavior" is supposed to mean. Those who do not view NPOV the way you do are subject to penalties? Sure seems easy to throw out accusations, masked threats in the face of 'sources' that contradict you POV.

The conflict seems to be "adding facts to the article" vs "prevent facts from being added". Somehow one of those is NPOV and the other is not...go figure. I think both sides are pushing very hard a blatant POV...and which side SHOULD win...the one that provides facts over the one that omits facts. As long as I have been observing these back and forths throughout Wikipedia I have noticed that such is not the case more often than not. It is very easy to apply these omission standards throughout Wikipedia...and perhaps a movement doing such should be started. We'll call it "NO-Double Standards" and remove negative content from articles using the very quotes being provided here.

-- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 17:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• The conflict seems to be "adding facts to the article" vs "prevent facts from being added". The conflict is notable vs. not notable. Change the subject for a second, do you think the paying-for-wiki-edits issue belongs on the Microsoft main page? Why/why not? Consensus there was "no" (with me convincing the final hold-out).

--Jason C.K. 17:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• "The reason the windows crash screen is better known is because 95% of the users out there have a Windows machine." Right. Therefore making it's crash screen more notorious. And, actually, thinking about it, I rescind my earlier claim. In my extensive experience with NT, XP, and OS X, OS X crashes far less often. Working in IT with Windows, I see crashes several times/month. However, combined my family has 18yrs experience with OS X. It's crashed exactly once. "despite Apple's Advertising claims" Apple probably shouldn't say that. Then again, Microsoft says a lot of things they shouldn't say. And, given that the Apple crash incidence seems to be close to 0, I'd actually forgive Apple that bit of hyperbole. Microsoft engages in far more exaggerated hyperbole.

--Jason C.K. 05:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, and everyone will claim to know someone or personally experience exactly what they are claiming to support. I have a friend who works at an imaging company that uses Macs and he says one of them crashes every other day, while his windows PC crashes once every 6 months of running 24-7... which would be Windows in use crashing far less often then a Mac. I am in the same boat. My windows machines are left on 24-7 and I can’t remember the last time one of them bombed out for a reason other then me altering core settings to see how that would affect it. However, for encyclopedic information, your personal experience, my personal experience, and the personal experience of my friend don't matter. What matters is the actual facts. Facts are, like you said: “all computers crash.” However there is a misconception that is spread from Apple themselves about how Apples “Don’t Crash.” There are many examples of correctting misconceptions. That is why Wikipedia exists, to educate those who wish to look it up. Because it is less known that Apples Crash, and because of The Apple Corporation’s advertising claims stating the contrary, is precisely why the image of the Apple Crashing screen (along with perhaps more information about apples crashing and Apple Inc's false advertising) should exist on their company Wiki.--Zeeboid 14:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• "for encyclopedic information, your personal experience, my personal experience, and the personal experience of my friend don't matter." Yes, I know that. "there is a misconception that is spread from Apple themselves about how Apples “Don’t Crash.” Interesting point. This is your best argument yet I think. I'm not convinced yet, but an interesting point. I'm interested to see what others think, if they even care.

--Jason C.K. 16:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If you think Apple is engaged in false advertising, write an article about it and get it published, or file a complaint with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission or your local equivalent, or see a class action lawyer. If you concerns haven't been published elesewhere in a reliable source they don't belong in Wikipedia. --agr 16:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask a simple question and get a direct answer. I'm not smart enough to follow this whole conversation and I am trying to understand: What is the factual problem with the picture of an Apple crash screen?

I did see someone pose the question about knowing 'the name of the Apple crash screen'...for such a question I always go to Wikipedia. Sadly, this is the first time I could not find the answer to my questions on Wikipedia...and all because people want to prevent any negative content of fact from being placed on an article of facts. Sad, and contrary to the pursuit of an online encyclopedia.

Why is it so horrible to have the picture up? (sorry...thought of another question, and it is not rhetorical)

It seems to me that acknowledging the fact that Apples do crash is (1) verifiable and (2) brings the article closer to "encyclopedic" (a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge).

From what I have read of the policies, guidelines and rulings the Notability guideline deals with the question of if an article should be included in Wikipedia. It does not apply to content within the article. Content is subject to the Verifiablity policy. So why do you want to exclude the picture or mention of the crash screen? (yep, sorry, a 3rd question that came to mind)

-- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 16:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information (WP:NOT). I think it is clear from this discussion that the image was added to this article to further a point of view, namely that Apple has engaged in false advertising and created a public misconception that their computers never crash. That claim needs a verifiable source and if it is verified, it should be addressed forthrightly. The image itself is already avaliable on Wikipedia in Screens of Death and may belong elsewhere, perhaps under Mac OS X, or Crash (computing) or even BSOD, but not here. --agr 16:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That does not answer why the image should be left off of this page. Frankly, it seems that if it is a fact that Apple purported its product as "never crashing" (which obviously does not apply to their iPods, as both of my wife's iPods crash every 5 or 6 hours of use) makes their crash screen applicable on the corporate level as well (i.e. effective misleading or exaggerated marketing).

-- Tony (click to learn more...c'mon, you know you want to...just click.) 17:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• "What is the factual problem with the picture of an Apple crash screen?" As I wrote (though you might easily have missed it), the addition seemed to me like an attempt at POV-pushing, and not based out of any reasonable rationale. The more we have discussed this, the more I believe my initial reaction was correct. There has been, I think, FINALLY, *ONE* interesting rationale about putting it in here. Yet, in regards to notability, EVERY article in wiki is not supposed to be a collection of EVERY possible relevant fact, and I remain unconvinced that this crash screen is notable at the corp. level. Under Crash (computing) it would make a great deal of sense. I don't know that it even belongs under Mac OS X, unless someone can cite an authoritative source that Macs crash frequently. "all because people want to prevent any negative content of fact from being placed on an article of facts" Perhaps you missed all the negative stuff under Apple_Inc.#Corporate_affairs, which I've already written in another Talk that it ought to be in its own Criticisms section. '"the fact that Apples do crash is (1) verifiable and (2) brings the article closer to "encyclopedic" The issue has to do with notability. Why isn't the paying-for-wikipedia edits issue on Microsoft main page? Because we all agreed it wasn't notable at the corp. level. Have you seen Wiki is not an indiscriminate collection, Wiki is not a dumping ground, and Wikipedia:Notability (not the same as WP:NOT)? "if it is a fact that Apple purported its product as "never crashing" makes their crash screen applicable on the corporate level as well (i.e. effective misleading or exaggerated marketing)." Do you think EVERY advertising claim should be de-bunked on EVERY corp.'s main page? That would make EVERY corp. article rather long, and lose the reader, and the main point (the corp.) in the process. Change the subject for a second, do you think the paying-for-wiki-edits issue belongs on the Microsoft main page? Why/why not? Consensus there was "no" (with me convincing the final hold-out).

--Jason C.K. 17:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If I may—I concur with Jason C.K.. It is clearly a fallacy that Mac OS X never crashes, but the Apple Inc. main page just doesn't seem to be the right place to try to debunk that particular myth. There is an article on Screens_of_Death which includes the Mac OS Kernel Panic screen—so it is on Wikipedia somewhere. The other odd thing about where it comes in the article. There is no reference to OS X crashing in the text, yet there the kernel panic is. In a fairly short software section, it just seems out of place. I'm not, of course, advocating that it should not be on Wikipedia, far from it, but simply that it seems very out of place at the moment. And countering personal experience of OS X not crashing with other personal experience is no decider on its place on this page—no-one's personal experience surely has the logical upper hand! Instead, I would urge people to strongly consider whether it really belongs on Apple Inc's main page.--Walafrid 11:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. The crash screen certainly has a place on Wikipedia, but Apple's main page is not that place. I'd personally place it somewhere in OS X's dedicated pages. Hyperflux 12:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research I have not performed any research on this, it is documented that people have had their Apple crash, and it is a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, much like the BOSD being displayed on Microsoft's Wiki page is neutral, and Wikipedia:Verifiability is met because the crash screen is not only verifiable but duplicatable... It Does Exist.

There is no POV pushing here, simply to educate those who have been misinformed about how "Apples Don't Crash" which was a message in multiple forms directly from Apple. Otherwise, would you argue then that the Crash Screen does not belong on the Windows Wiki, but in the Screens_of_Death section only?--Zeeboid 20:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

For me, the question seems to be this: because Apple have made the claim that Mac's don't crash, does that mean a screenshot of a Kernel Panic belongs on Apple Inc.'s main page? No-one here (I hope) is arguing that kernel panics don't happen; rather, as I have said before, there has to be a better place for this particular picture. For one thing, if it is to stay, I think it needs a reference in the text. At the moment, its presence is pushing a particular POV simply because there is no attempt to balance it: its only reason for being there appears to be to prove that Mac OS X crashes, in response to a perceived view that it doesn't. Is it the place of Wikipedia articles to attempt to address every supposed misperception? As to the argument that Microsoft has the BSOD, so Apple's page must too: why can't OS X stand up on its own merits? Again, the question is raised—does the kernel panic screen have such notoriety that a visitor wishing to learn about Apple Inc. would find it useful? As the article stands, the answer has to be ‘No’. --Walafrid 23:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

So, due to the lack of information in the article to acompony the OSX Crash image, a refrence in the text in the software section was added.--Zeeboid 14:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, Zeeboid, thanks for adding that segment. At least it explains the graphic's presence a bit more now. I hope you don't mind (I don't mean it personally, of course), but I've changed some of the wording of the paragraph. Would be happy to discuss it with you if you'd like.--Walafrid 16:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Your changes helped clear it up also, totally cool, though I altered it a little bit to inlucde "past and current" only because of the statements still on apple's website under the "Why Switch" section, which has been up since the start of the "switch" campaign.--Zeeboid 16:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Glad you're all right with it. I can't actually find reference to the claim on apple.com or apple.com/uk, but I'll take your word for it that it is up there! Thank you again for clearing things up, hopefully the article will be the more informative for it. --Walafrid 20:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to the claim on their website: see Reason #2--Zeeboid 18:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"The Microsoft Deal" - 1997

No mention of this? 142.59.135.116 08:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I am laughing out loud at the GLARING absence of any mention of the 1997 Microsoft bailout. Clearly some Apple fanatics have had their way with this article. Hopefully someone will fix this. It's ridiculous. That was one of the pivotal moments in Apple's history, AND IT'S NOT EVEN MENTIONED!! Good grief. If I get some time, I'll put it in.

I don't care how big a Mac fan you are, it's dishonest not to have ANY MENTION WHATSOEVER of this huge event. Come on, people. --Skidoo 16:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

One controversy over this issue is whether Microsoft's payoff was indeed then "bailing Apple out", or whether it was indeed paid to Apple in order to settle previous and upcoming lawsuits. Of course, with the secrecy of the company, we may never know what the deal really was about, but I personally find it strange for one company to help out virtually its only competition. --Rfaulder 00:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• LOL, be careful what you wish for, Skidoo & others...the full story looks pretty poor on Microsoft. Anyway, gave more detail to the entire issue. Some very interesting reading at San Francisco Canyon Company. There was lots of speculation about the settlement. Was it really an end to fighting + a partnership, as stated, or was there more to it? Is it because of the stolen QuickTime code? Who benefitted more? The $150 mill wasn't worth much to Apple. The IE default wasn't worth much to MS (they didn't need IE on Macs to gain browser dominance). MS got out of the lawsuits. Apple got Office. How likely was the Office cancellation? Maybe they both won, and both lost (the definition of compromise?). Only Bill and Steve know.

--Jason C.K. 05:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Added some info on this yesterday. Hope that helps. --Brucethemoose 18:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Greenpeace

Is the part on Greenpeace (the whole section "Environmental Issues" is on Greenpeace's criticism) relevant? Checking Google, Greenpeace has similarly criticized every major computer manufacturer I could think of. I think that it should be removed from this article, the Hewlett-Packard article and every other article that has a Greenpeace section. If a company has a serious problem, it will be noted by other organizations than Greenpeace. Also, if the majority of computer manufacturers are behaving similarly, criticism about the industry's should be placed in a generic article, like computer or an article on computer manufacturing or environmental issues, if there is one. A mention in the Greenpeace article may also be appropriate. Finally, in my experience, Greenpeace is not a reliable source. First, they are biased. Getting environmental information from them is like getting gun violence statistics from the National Rifle Association or global warming information from the coal industry. Bias affecting results or information need not be intentional. Second, like most political organizations, they are inept when it comes to logic, committing logical fallacies regularly (some of their (political organizations) favorites are guilt by association, straw man and false dilemma). Third, they do not understand technical issues, like the safety of a substance or technology. -- Kjkolb 12:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe the Greenpeace, as a current event, belongs in a secion marked "Controversy and Criticism". I *do* believe it is relevant but it is not appropriate in the current place (under "Hardware") as this section should be considered part of the story that explains Apple's relationship to other entities. Jasonfb 00:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Apple 1 picture caption

"The Apple I, Apple's first attempt at computer hardware, sold for $666.66. It lacked basic features such as a keyboard and a monitor." However, the picture clearly has a built-in keyboard. Caption should be changed. 24.57.195.9 23:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The caption isn't quite accurate for the image, but the Apple I was sold initially as just a motherboard, so technically the facts are right. However, the article text adjoining the picture notes that the Apple I motherboard was sold for $500 ... so where does the $666.66 come from? salamurai 00:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. I've heard the urban legend about the $666.66 but can't recall ever seeing actual proof of it. Caption should probably just be changed to "Photo of the Apple I in wood housing with keyboard" or something similar. 24.57.195.9 03:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not an urban ledgend. So Far, a book Apple published on its 10th aniversary (it's cited in the Apple I article) says, on page 38, the original price for the board was $666.66. It also reproduces on the same page Apple's first ad, published in the September 1976 edition of Interface Age on page 13, which also give the price as $666.66. The caption should add that the hobbiest who purchased this unit added his own keyboard and wooden case.--agr 05:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Apple Inc (no comma)

Should be Apple Inc (no comma) due to the screenshot of the slide from today's announcement here, no? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

We have a bigger dilemma: Wikipedia pretty much never includes "Inc"-type suffixes in company names. -/- Warren 19:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

But in this case it serves as the disambiguation. Are you saying it should be "Apple (company)"? -- Renesis (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's my vote -- but gawd, what a mess. Thanks a million, Steve. ;) —GGreeneVa 20:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

OTOH, we can spell out the abbreviation -- as AP style calls for in the first mention of a proper name -- and title the article 'Apple Incorporated'. That goes easier on the eyes, and does a better job of disambiguating b/c it makes clear that the article discusses a corporate enterprise. —GGreeneVa 20:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Apple (company) is most conformant with MOS guidelines, but the guidelines can be bent around a bit if the result is still accurate. Personally, I think Apple Incorporated looks good. Another thing: the name of the company is still officially Apple Computer as of today, and Apple hasn't issued a press release or changed their trade dress about the name change. -/- Warren 21:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I definitely vote against "Apple Incorporated" since it doesn't look like they themselves are going to spell it out. Apple (company), if anything. -- Renesis (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be changed to "Apple (company)". — Wackymacs 18:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

For people who are not clear about what a lead section is for:

The lead section of this article is not the place to talk about the new iPhone. Okay? The Wikipedia:Lead section is intended to provide a concise overview of the article that follows. I understand that Mac afficionados presently suffering from the effects of the reality distortion field will try to conflate the importance of a newly-announced product which won't even be released for another half a year, but in terms of summarising the totality of the subject of Apple, it has absolutely no relevance. The name change, however, is very important, because it directly relates to defining the subject. -/- Warren 19:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer my version of the last sentence of the lead paragraph:

The company was known as Apple Computer, Inc. for its first 30 years of existence, but announced that it would be dropping the word "Computer" from its name at the Macworld conference on 9 January, 2007 when it debuted the much-anticipated iPhone and Apple TV.

I can part with the Apple TV link, but I think a link to the iPhone is critical because the product is such a hotly anticipated item (2200 google news hits and the keynote ended less than half an hour ago [2]) that most readers in the next few days will be visiting this page BECAUSE of the iPhone. Further, discussing the iPhone helps explain Apple's decision to drop the word "computer" from its name. GabrielF 19:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Further, I think that talking about the iPhone is important to defining Apple. As Steve said during the keynote, Apple revolutionized the computer, than it revolutionized music and now its attempting to revolutionize phones and to a lesser extent TV. What we saw was a big shift from being a computer company that makes one line of consumer electronics products to a company that focuses on many different aspects of a user's experience with technology. Digital convergence and all that. GabrielF 19:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with GabrielF - at least for the short term, mention of the iPhone seems appropriate. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The current linked reference for the name change,[3] doesn't say anything about it. In fact, that article begins "Apple Computer CEO Steve Jobs confirmed..." Gimmetrow 19:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the reference for the name change. --Muchness 20:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Being "hotly anticipated" doesn't mean it belongs in the lead section. If you want to write news, the folks at Wikinews will always appreicate the help. Apple introduces major new products every year, but it's only the test of time that determines whether any one specific product belongs in a concise, encyclopedic description of a company. When the iPhone is released, yes, it will merit two or three words in the lead as part of the list of categories of products the company produces. -/- Warren 21:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Name change official?

I'm a bit of a stickler for accuracy so: Has the legal name actually changed yet? Most of the time shareholder approval is required for a corporate name change, so this might be just an announcement of a planned change. Jobs's quote only says "we are changing...", not "we have changed", while so far the copyright notices at apple.com still read "Apple Computer, Inc." — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 21:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I just checked EDGAR, and the legal name is still "Apple Computer, Inc.", at least as far as the SEC is concerned. schi ^talk 22:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The key event, I think, is either when the corporate articles of incorporation are amended by a vote of the Board of Directors to indicate the new name of the corporate entity, or when those documents are officially filed with the state of Delaware or wherever Apple is incorporated. As far as I know, neither has happened yet. I'm sure they'll do a press release when it happens in a few days. So the article should stay at Apple Computer for now. --Coolcaesar 22:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. They are incorporated in California; I just bounced around the California Business Portal and couldn't find any evidence of a name change (yet), although the Certificates of Amendment aren't online. schi ^talk 22:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, the name change is NOT official yet, Jobs only announced it as a plan, thus it should stay as "Apple Computers Inc" until it changes on NASDAQ etc. Greengiraffe 00:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The copyright notice on its home page (http://www.apple.com) says "Apple Inc." --Nelson Ricardo 01:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article be named something like "Apple (company)"? "Incorporated" and "Inc." are not supposed to be part of article titles (otherwise Rare (company) would be at "Rare Ltd."). TJ Spyke 02:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) At this point, we should wait a couple days to sort things out. First, we need to wait until Apple officially has the name changed in its listings. Then, we need consensus on how to name the article (and fix the Talk page link). I'm leaning towards Apple (company), though it seems Apple is making the Inc. a part of their logo. So, it may be appropriate to leave the article as-is.

Either way, we should wait until the dust settles a bit. There is no deadline and The World Will Not End Tomorrow. -- Kesh 04:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Does a Form 8-K filed with the SEC, saying

On January 9, 2007, Apple Computer, Inc. (the “Company”) amended Article I of its Restated Articles of Incorporation solely to change the corporate name from “Apple Computer, Inc.” to “Apple Inc.” The name change and amendment were completed pursuant to Section 1110(d) of the California Corporations Code through a merger of the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Apple Inc., with and into the Company. A copy of the Company’s Certificate of Ownership, as filed with the Secretary of State of the State of California, amending Article I of the Company’s Restated Articles of Incorporation solely to reflect the Company’s new corporate name, is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.1 and is incorporated herein by reference.

count as "official"? If so, I guess the name change is official, given that this is the Form 8-K in question. And, according to EDGAR, it's "Apple Inc.". Guy Harris 10:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is official, but since the old article was not at Apple Computer Inc., why shoudl this one be at Apple Inc.? I think a move is in order, but I'm not sure to where. --Brucethemoose 22:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The article name should be "Apple (company)", not "Apple Inc". As for their name change, it looks official - Apple have replaced 'Apple Computer' on their site with 'Apple Inc' in the Copyright strings and elsewhere. NASDAQ also list it as 'Apple Inc', not 'Apple Computer' anymore. — Wackymacs 11:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Guy Harris that a Form 8-K is official evidence that the company has completed its name change to Apple Inc. Under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, American corporations have to be very honest with the federal government. I was surprised to learn from the form that both the old and new corporations were California corporations, Most American corporations prefer to incorporate in Delaware where the board of directors has much more power vis-a-vis the shareholders. As for whether this article should be titled Apple Inc. or Apple (company), I believe there are valid arguments on both sides, so I am neutral on that issue. --Coolcaesar 03:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

References to Beatles at 2007 Macworld?

I quickly wrote something about the references to the Beatles at the keynote, which I found odd due to the previous legal problems, and because I cannot find any Beatles songs on the iTMS. I'm not sure if a song played, but I distinctively remember seeing the Abbey Road album cover on the iPhone at least once. If someone can clean up what I wrote, maybe add some references, that'd be great, thanks! - Dave.

EDIT: They deleted it already... thanks for that.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.150.130.214 (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

That was me that removed it, I apologize. It was in the middle of another series of edits that screwed up the page. Why don't we figure it out here and then add it to the article. Do you have any sources? Has anyone mentioned the significance of this? -- Renesis (talk) 06:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's what the San Jose Mercury News had to say. -Adjusting 08:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep this?

Does this change [4] want to be kept? →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 10:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say, not as it was written. For one thing, the link was created incorrectly. Second, it wasn't clear what relevance it had to that section. I'd have to look into the iPhobe article to see if that's even notable and verifiable enough to keep. -- Kesh 22:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is no iPhobe article, so the statement is totally invalid. -- Kesh 22:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

DELETE -- Bboyskidz 03:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The IBM PC wasn't an open hardware model

In the History/Early years section, the following appears: "In the early 1980s, IBM and Microsoft continued to gain market share at Apple's expense in the personal computer industry. Using a fundamentally different business model, IBM marketed an open hardware standard created with the IBM PC [...]".

It seems to me that the IBM PC was very much a closed hardware system, until Compaq managed to clone the PC (remember the fuss about PC clones back in the mid-80s?). Also, in the early 1980s, Microsoft was a bit player, just a contractor to IBM. And IBM could hardly "continue" to gain market share as it was just starting out in the PC business. IBM *began* to gain market share at Apple's expense.

I'm writing this here on the talk page rather than editing the article because I would prefer that someone who knows the history better do the actual revision. But please someone change these sentences; they're unclear and misleading. Justinbb 06:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The IBM PC used off-the-shelf hardware parts to keep the cost down and profits high. The hardware was very open, but the software including the BIOS was not. That's where Compaq had problems when cloning, so they had to use reverse engineering. — Wackymacs 11:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• And the early reverse-engineered BIOSes weren't COMPLETELY reliable...so buying a clone was some risk...but I believe cheaper. Eventually the BIOSes got very good, but for a while it was marketing FUD that it was dangerous to buy a clone because they were unreliable. I don't think they were ever THAT unreliable...and eventually they were fine. But the FUD continued to be useful...for a while. I think that history is why "Intel inside" got started, and resonates with the scary old past of unreliable clones. But good ole' Intel, they're reliable.

--Jason C.K. 03:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Industry is wrong

Ok, It says that it makes computer hardware and software, but now Apple makes iPods and they just introduced iPhone, so it should say: Industry: Computer hardware, Software and Consumer Products. So perhaps we should change it to that, does anyone Agree? Gumbos 18:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Added Consumer electronics. — Wackymacs 18:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Should it also include mobile phones, or should that wait until iPhone is actually shipping? Guy Harris 04:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Mobile phones are consumer electronics. — Wackymacs 07:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Article needs renamed... again

As pointed out in Name change official? above, the company's name has officially changed. Unfortunately, this means we need to move the article again. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies), the legal status of the company (Inc. in this case) is not normally part of the article name. Since removing that would leave us with Apple, which is ripe for disambiguation, the article needs renamed to Apple (company).

I'd make the change myself, but I've yet to deal with double-redirects, so I'll let someone else make sure the move goes properly. -- Kesh 03:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:NAME: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature."

The rule for companies is "The legal status of the company (Corp., plc or LLC), is not normally included, i.e. Microsoft or Wal-Mart. When disambiguation is needed, legal status, main company interest or "(company)" can be used to disambiguate: for example, Halifax (bank) or Converse (company). When the legal status is used, it is abbreviated in the article title. In the article itself, the title sentence of the article should include the abbreviated legal status. For example: Generic Corp. Ltd. is largest provider of widgets in the world."

Under the circumstances, legal status seems the better way to disambiguate, i.e. leave the name as is.--agr 04:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

My point being, how many people are going to actually refer to the company as "Apple Inc."? The vast majority of folks simply refer to it as "Apple." Per your first quote, I would think "Apple (company)" would be more clear. Heck, even when the company was named Apple Computer, most folks just called them Apple. Hence, I think it's more accurate to use Apple (company) for the pagename. -- Kesh 04:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more I am siding with Kesh's argument. Very few people referred to them, in ordinary speech or formal writing, as Apple Computer Inc., and I think Kesh is right that very few people would actually say Apple Inc. when it's clear which "Apple" they're referring to from the context. Therefore, Apple (company) is probably the superior article title. --Coolcaesar 04:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of how we name this article, someone typing in "Apple" is going to the fruit article. There they will see "For the technology corporation, see Apple Inc." No one, outside Wikipedia editors, is going to type in "Apple (company)" when they are looking for this article. They might use Apple Inc., especially as Apple starts using that name more. Also consider links. A link to [ [Apple Inc.] ] won't need a pipe, but if the article is named Apple (computer), every link will need a pipe. There is nothing in WP:NAME that says (company) is the preferred disambiguation approach. In this case, it's unnecessary and would just make the article ugly.--agr 05:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur merely for aesthetics. • Shadowhillway 00:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If you wanted to get really picky, you could go all the way to say that the name should have a comma. It's true, no one calls Apple Inc. by its real name, but then did anyone call it "Apple Computer Inc" before CES 07? I don't think so. The name should remain as it is or (if anything) add a comma - "Apple, Inc." -- Bboyskidz 02:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Apple doesn't use a comma (see e.g. the copyright notice at http://www.apple.com) so we shouldn't either.--agr 02:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Kesh is right, the article should be at "Apple (company)", if no one else makes the request soon, I will. TJ Spyke 00:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make changes without a consensus on this page. --agr 18:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the article is best left here, since most people will just type "Apple" and hit the link there, so it doesn't matter which is used - giving preference to the existing name because of convenience. - Davidjk _{RC Patrol} 19:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Aren't Apple inc and Apple Corps both companies? That's why Apple Corps is denoted to differentiate. --EXV // + @ 20:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should leave it as is, for simplicity, easy-of-use to non-Wikipedians, and aesthetics. We don't know yet; maybe people will call them "Apple Inc.".--HereToHelp 03:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It should be "Apple (company)". By the way, the media call Apple by 'Apple Inc' a lot now (all the biggest newspapers, etc). — Wackymacs 14:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I suspect people will just call them "Apple" as they always have, so my vote is for "Apple (company)". Sticking Inc., Ltd., Plc., or whatever onto the name of each company with an article in Wikipedia would obviously be silly, so I don't see why Apple should be an exception (given that very few people will actually search for 'Apple Inc.') 163.1.68.139 17:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies). Legal status is a common and appropriate way to disambiguate, e.g. Nike, Inc.. And there are two well known companies commonly called Apple, so Apple (company) does not work.--agr 23:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's best to leave it as Apple Inc. Most people do call the company as simply "Apple", but as stated, it could potentially refer to Apple Corps as well, so the "Inc" is a good way to differentiate the two. Also, 163.1.68.139, this isn't really a vote - it's more of a discussion. :) –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 07:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Article on "Apple tax" to be deleted

Hello- Could I ask for your opinion on the justification of the following article: (Apple tax).

It's slated for deletion as an informal term/neologism/joke. It's a real phenomenon to me; IMHO.

Thanks.

PochWiki 23:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Litigation

I'd like to see the Litigation section in this article sharply trimmed, with just a sentence or two on each case. The details should be left to the main litigation articles. --agr 14:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding IDG Publishing statement

There appears to be no citations or evidence for the statement "An exception to this is IDG Publishing, whose line of popular books were banned from Apple stores because Steve Jobs disagreed with their editorial policy." A search for the particular event does not return anything significant other than this article, and I think we should remove it until adequate and accurate verification can be found for this statement. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 07:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The publisher that was banned was John Wiley & Sons, which had previously purchased IDG Books and the For Dummies series from IDG Publishing. A search on "Wiley Steve Jobs" will produce plenty of references including this one from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/30/technology/30apple.html. Perhaps you can restore the sentence with the correction and cite. I'm reluctant to edit the article on this issue because I write for Wiley.--agr 04:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the citation. I recalled that Steve Jobs was not happy about the publisher who published iCon, and had banned the publisher's books from Apple stores - I didn't know that they were one and the same. The new sentence reads: A notable exeption are books published by John Wiley & Sons. The publisher's line of books were banned from Apple Stores in 2005 because Steve Jobs disagreed with their editorial policy. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 04:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

References!

The article requires a major cleanup with references and unencyclopedic statements. I went through the history section and cleaned a little bit, but I didn't fix everything (the refs are at least all in good shape though). The templates should always be used. Tomhormby 16:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

does not work --Sjefen6 17:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section Needed

The article needs to have a critism sectoin, as there is alot of Apple critism out there, with little/none of it being listed on this page (unlike almost all corperate wiki pages).--Zeeboid 22:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I mean there isn't anything even about the whole stock options scandal --71.163.74.97 22:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, a lot of what passes for "criticism" of Apple out there belongs under fanboy (as does some of the praise, of course). A lot of forums get filled with "Windows Rules, Macs Drool!" nonsense as soon as anyone mentions Apple or the Mac. That said: an actual balanced collection of reasoned criticisms (as opposed to "Apple tax" and other such slams) is an appropriate concept. --Orange Mike 16:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I spent a few mn looking this stuff up. here is a start:

Apple 'falsified' share documents[5]

Apple options review claims Anderson's scalp[6]

Apple may need to restate last 15 quarters[7]

Apple, CA investigate share option grants[8]

Unpatched bug bites Apple Mac OS X[9]

Month of Apple bugs planned for January[10]

Apple to delay quarterly results filing[11]

Apple takes $84 million charge, defends Jobs[12]

Steve Jobs on Microsoft "They have no taste"[13]

Steve Jobs talking about Microsoft, and how Internet Explorer is "we believe IE is a realy good internet browser"[14]

Quicktime Bugs[15]--Zeeboid 02:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

At this point, that's just a random collection of links, many of them redundant, or inappropriate (youtube, etc.). I also don't see how Jobs pointing out that Microsoft has no taste constitutes a criticism of Apple. --Orange Mike 18:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I know, its something to work on, not intended as a section at all, feel free to edit/alter or whatever as you wish, as I have a feeleng that when a critism section is added, it will not go up quitetly. its just a list of critism I located in my 20mn of searching. The youtube isn't needed, as a quote from the apple confrence is all thats needed there.--Zeeboid 18:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree there should be a room for critism. Especially since Apple is now chosen as least 'green' company in the electronics industry. [16] There is even an petition on it atm [17] 145.46.220.6 12:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

A criticism section in an encylopedia is completely obsurd. I am no Apple advocate, but one does not appear for Linux nor Windows, so seems to be a bit stupid appearing here, or in my view in any article.

Recommend "Macintosh" nomenclature be transitioned to "Mac"

Clarification: Just as "Apple Computer, Inc." recently became "Apple, Inc." according to the company itself, "Macintosh" was modernized to simply "Mac" several years ago, circa the release of the G4 -- and following the abstraction of the Mac OS as a distinct product.

I think this is a model article, and I only wish to freshen it by suggesting that the term Macintosh be updated to Mac when used generically -- it should remain "Macintosh" for historical accuracy. As example, I recommend the following as basic guidelines:

1. The "Macintosh Plus" was an early Mac computer. At the time, the entire series of related computers were known collectively as Macintoshes.
2. The current line of personal computers offered by Apple Inc. are now collectively known as Macs.
3. Any computer that runs any version of the Mac OS can be referred to as a "Mac" generically. (Servers notwithstanding.) However...
4. ...If it was manufactured before ca. 2001, it might have "Macintosh XXX" as its model name.

I already made changes in the lead of the article to reflect this. I would/will do more if I have time.

Keep up the great work on the article(s). And please feel free to discuss further clarifications here on the talk page.

Thanks.

--

ManfrenjenStJohn 21:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that a Macintosh runs classic OS and a Mac runs OS X.--HereToHelp 01:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

HereToHelp, I've been a Mac user for 22 years, and attend my local Mac User Group meetings regularly, subscribe to the zines, etc.; I've never heard any such distinction made. Mac users have always shortened the term. --Orange Mike 16:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Apple Inc. shortens the term. If one is using a Mac, the "About this Mac" screen displays "Mac OSX". In the past however, yes, it was Macintosh OS and Power Macintosh computers. However, I think it is erroneous to say "the Macintosh Plus was an early Mac computer" - it was an early Apple computer. Apple is the brand, Macintosh/Mac is the name of the software/machines. Demosthenes X 18:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Tiger Crashing

I'm wondering if image is worth keeping. I just glanced at the Windows and Microsoft articles and there is no photo of a Blue Screen of Death. The inclusion of this photo here (to me) is someone's subtle way of saying "Macs crash too". This is an article about Apple Inc., not one of its software titles. Thoughts? Demosthenes X 02:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs here. Especially if there's no BSOD in the microsoft article. Maybe in the OSX article. Maybe. steventity 06:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, in light of this and the complaint below about too many images in the article, I've removed the Tiger Crashing image. If someone has an objection, feel free to raise it, but I don't think this shot has a place in this article. Demosthenes X 19:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

This image has been discussed in the talk page here. The Microsoft does include the BOSD image, and text around it, but mainly is included here because of Apple's advertising claims that Macs don't crash, as refrenced in the article and in the talk page above.--Zeeboid 13:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, shoulda checked out the Microsoft page for the BSOD myself. steventity 14:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

That's strange: I looked at the Microsoft page and would have sworn there was no BSOD there. Alas, there is. My mistake. That said, I do not feel that this image serves a purpose on this page (nor does the BSOD on the MS page). They belong in the respective articles about Windows and OSX. Demosthenes X 21:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

too many images

I can't speak for any other user here, but does anybody notice the slow loading time for this article? It may be a bit long, but there are so many images on this article that I don't think need to be present. Specifically, the digital camera and iPhone images are unecessary. Thoughts?  Scrumshus ^{Talk to me}→ 17:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree there are a lot of images, and I think some of the ones that are in the article could be better. Here's a rundown, imo:

Apple 1: keep
1984 ad: drop
Macintosh Portable: keep
Camera: drop
Sign: drop
iMac: replace with a better photo of the iMac
Company HQ: drop
MacBook Pro: keep
Intel iMac: keep
Mac Mini: drop
iPod: keep
iPhone: keep
Tiger: drop
Logos: keep
Demosthenes X 19:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Demosthenes X, I disagree with one suggestion of yours. I took the photo of Apple headquarters and it should stay. Relatively few corporations have such a grandiose headquarters structure, and it's important to see where all those interesting Apple products are actually invented. Indeed, that photo was included in Steve Wozniak's book! Also, it's one of the better photos on Wikipedia in general, since most Wikipedians have no idea of how to take photographs properly (proper framing/lighting of the subject, focus, color saturation).

The photo of the sign should go, though. It's terrible because it was clearly shot at night with a weak flash.

Also, I'm on a dial-up line at home with 44 to 46 kbps connection speeds and the loading time of the images in the article is fine for me. Scrumshus, you might need to upgrade your modem from 28.8! --Coolcaesar 21:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Coolcaesar, I have a wireless internet connection, so no modem is needed. I agree with your stance that the headquarters should be kep, just based on the fact that extremely few articls on corporations on Wikipedia have a photo of where the business happens, although the sign i believe should stay under the "Headquarters" section where it currently is.  Scrumshus ^{Talk to me}→ 23:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the 1984 ad image should stay. It is one of the most famous commercials ever, and pretty defining of the company's public image. steventity 00:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I can agree about the headquarters shot. I'm not entirely sure about the 1984 ad, even though I do love it and agree it was an important ad. I definately think the sign, the Mini, and the camera can go. This is a general page about the company, we don't need to include all of their current products. There are respective product pages for that... I think the iMac, iPod, and iPhone, being their most notable and recognizable products, should stay. Demosthenes X 01:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just reverted a gratuitious insertion of another image (apparently placed as a "Nyah, nyah!"). I concur we need to trim the images, and with Steventity that 1984 should stay. I say dump MacBook Pro and Intel iMac (you can't tell from the pic what's inside). --Orange Mike 02:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Mac Crashing image is discussed at length here [18] and even with it, you have the same number of images as in the Microsoft article for compairison. 17 images should be good, no?--Zeeboid 02:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Tiger Crashing (Part Deux)

Some people are having an edit war about the picture and the accompanying text. I am a bit disappointed that people keep reverting back and forth despite this being discussed on the talk page, which normally means that people should lay off the disputed content and talk about it. Zeeboid has pointed out that there has already been a discussion about this and, as far as I can see, there were two keeps. Would it be possible/agreeable to have a vote about keeping the image and text? I am a little bit new to wikipedia and maybe this should be done somewhere else or more formally, but if not, why don't people just register their vote below with a short precis regarding their reasoning and that will be the end of it? (Conflicting interests: Mmoneypenny owns 2 macs, 1 airport express, 1 airport extreme and 4 iPods (I know, I know...)) All the best.Mmoneypenny 20:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep well, the most recent user (ArnoldReinhold) removed the image and the text claiming that AppleMatters.com and Apple.com] "unsourced POV text too. Websites are not reliable sources and this one hardly supports the claim"[19] though other users have removed the image claiming the there is no text supporting it, though there was[20] or that it was a "Pointless slam by a windows uer"[21] however even though I prefer my two PCs to my iMac, I believe that its actions like these, the removal of sourced, factual information that may not support the view that the stereotypical "Cultish" user does nothing but support the stereotype. Wikipedia isn’t about supporting limited views. Its here to display the info, and let people make of it as they wish. This image met resistance when added earlier, and it was supported. It has been removed many times by many anonymous users or altered with “yea but…” statements. I’m sorry that this isn’t something that the “cultish” ones want to hear, but it is factual, and referenced, just like the BOSD on the Microsoft page.--Zeeboid 21:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Conditional Keep- It needs a better source than AppleMatters. There has to be one out there. The link to apple's own claim is great, but AppleMatters is hardly a notable source. Ah, and my reasoning... It's a claim made by apple that Tiger doesn't crash. This is an explicit comparison to windows ("Are you just a tad too well acquainted with the notorious “blue screen of death”?"). As such, the fact that it does crash should be in there. I've had it KP a couple times, as have others, however this, along with the Apple Matters article, is anecdotal evidence. We need a better source. Hell, a PC World or even a MacLife or MacWorld article would do. There's got to be something out there about it not from a rumors site. It just needs to be found if we're going to keep it. -steventity 21:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Conditional remove - Find a reliable source before including this material. The BSOD inclusion in the Microsoft article cites CNN and the New York Times. Something comparably reliable is required that says the kernel panic screen is a notable problem. Not only is AppleMatters unsuitable as a source, the cited discussion attributes most of the observed crashes to hardware problems or improper removeal of a storage device. There is a call for addtitional reports that has 1 vote. --agr 23:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please explain to me how AppleMatters is not worthy of being a source in this respect while it seams to be a "notable source" here[22], and here[23], and here[24], and here[25], and here[26], and here[27], and here[28]? It would appear that it is a good enough source, but if you need another source that is also in the WIkipedia then you have an addational source here[29]. --Zeeboid 18 April 2007 (UTC)

AppleMatters probably shouldn't be used as a source in those articles either. But even if we assume it meets the criteria for a reliable source, the examples you cite are fundamentally different from the reference for KPing. The first example is a historical recap of an already well reported event, the second a review listing, the third a link by AppleMatters to another source, the fourth an opinion piece (probably shouldn't be there), the fifth an interview with the subject, the sixth a review, and the seventh a broken link. The link about KPs [30] is a reader question from the fourms[31], answered by three other fourm readers, with a poll answered by exactly one person. As stated here, forums are not good sources. The Reg is a better source, but the article is from January 3, 2002, before the release of Jaguar (10.2), and before Apple made the claim that Macs don't crash. Just because other articles have poor sources doesn't mean that poor sources are acceptable. -steventity 05:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Love it or hate it, AppleMatters is currently being used as an acceptable source, and is thus acceptable in this case. Under your reliable sources examples, by the way, it also states that blogs shouldn't be used, but they are used as well. If you take issue with AppleMatters not being acceptable, then take issue with it, and get it removed from , but until it is cited as not being appropriate and removed from the 7 examples I have given you, from what I understand, it is used as an acceptable source in several places, and thus can also be used here. It is a dark and difficult road when you start to say "Well, this source works fine for everything, except what your trying to do here..." Based on your expl, see no reason this source is deemed unacceptable. Also, as wikipedia encourages users to add or fix what other editors add, does it not? I would expect you to help me find other sources that you deem acceptable, But fortunately to make this easier for all of us, the link that is referenced from AppleMatters is not a forum.[32] it is a "Ask Apple Matters Article" which fits under news.--Zeeboid 14:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

But the discussion is taken verbatum from the forum here. This use is fundamentally different from the other uses of AppleMatters. As for finding other sources, I've looked. I found the Reg article, but noted the date on it. I'm still looking. I'll keep looking. Also, this isn't me that's deeming the source acceptable, it's a pretty clear wikipedia policy not to use forums as sources. If you disagree with it, I suggest you try to get the policy changed. As far as other articles using AppleMatters, if in each case it's not an acceptable source, hopefully someone will take it out or find better sources. Even if they don't, I would hate to think that just because other articles use poor sources that somehow makes them acceptable sources. -steventity 15:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the discussion is not taken verbatim from the forum. It refrences it, but the text is not a duplication of the forum.[33], this link[34] is not a forum. The link I gave origiaonlly and list here 3 times now is NOT a forum. As such, it is acceptable, not only because its not a forum, but because there is a standing history of that being acceptable in use in wikipedia. It should be added back, and if you don't think its acceptable, then fight to have AppleMatters.com listed as an unaccaptable source and removed from all articles including this one.--Zeeboid 15:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, but my point is that the discussion in that link is quoted directly from the forum. Let's take a minute and see what other people have to say. If the general consensus is that the AppleMatters link is a reliable source, fine. But in the mean time, let's keep looking for another source. For instance, The Apple article on KPs which would seem to debunk the "never crashes" statement by its very existence. I'm sure there's more out there, I'll keep looking. -steventity 15:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No it is not. Article:[35] Forum:[36]. The question braught up is quoted, but the article itself is just an answering of a question. I can't believe that we even have to go through this. AppleMatters has not been questioned as a source until the moment it lists something about apple in a negative context, this is insane.--Zeeboid 15:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm walking away for a while after this, but all three answers are also directly quoted from the forum. Also, thank you for fixing the small text. I couldn't for the life of me get it to go away. -steventity 15:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The regester may be from 2002, but it applies to Apple OSX and the advertisements that continues to this day. The big deal, that I mentioned above, was that Apple calims in multiple places that their machines "Don't Crash" which is a flat out lie. Every computer crashes, however, there is a misconseption that Apples don't crash, and that is what the Regester and AppleMatters bring up, then to be fair, the text about it and the image are listed, just like the Image being used on the Microsoft page for the same reason. Also, when the image is removed multiple times for multiple reasons, you can understand the frustration. Even the link to Apple's own website Claiming that "it doesn't crash" allong with the picture of the KP should be enough to illustrate.--Zeeboid 16:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's clear from the above that you are trying to make an argument in this article that Apple lies. That is a serious allegation. To include it in Wikipedia you have to find a reliable source that makes that claim. And it has to be the full claim, that Apple's ads are materially false. To quote WP:NPOV:

"If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." --agr 17:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm slightly nervous about wading into this discussion again, but what makes me most nervous is the suggestion that Apple still makes the claim. As far as I can see, it was part of the previous "Switch" campaign, but nowhere is it made in the current "Get a Mac" series. The link Zeeboid gave above, when investigated, points to a part of the website that is no longer accessible except by specifically typing its address (and what country is 'lae'?). Again, is it the role of Wikipedia to attempt to counter every possible misunderstanding that a reader may have? --Walafrid 17:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's "Latin America English" version. The copyright is from 2003, so it does look old. Looks like the current claim is the occasional hiccup with your Mac, or almost never, both copyright 2007. I think the switch page saying macs don't crash is an orphaned page, as the Get a mac link at apple.com/lae leads to the apple.com/getamac link. Just FYI. -steventity 18:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to ammend my above vote of Conditional Keep. A current claim by Apple that macs don't crash is needed as well, or it has to made very clear in the mention in the article that Apple no longer uses this claim. -steventity 18:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Remove I am trying to be as NPOV as I can and I know Apple aren't perfect but this little piece of add-on to the software section, with the image almost as big as the blurb explaining it and the fact that Apple no longer claim this to be true just does not sit well with me. I was originally going to say keep in the interests of a balanced article, but the arguments above have swayed me. Having said all this, if Zeeboid (or someone) could come up with a Criticisms section a la Microsoft article I would be happy to endorse it. At the moment this article, in my opinion, is still too Apple-worshipping and this too is not encyclopaedic, at least the Microsoft editors have a Criticism section which quickly allows people who read the article to have a look and see what's "wrong" with Microsoft, instead of having to trudge through reams of paragraphs here on the Apple article. I do think it's funny that in the link above [37] Apple say that the Mac crashes as much as a paperback book, that is to say "almost never", because none of my paperback books have ever ever ever crashed... but my Mac has. Some more NPOV is needed here. Thanks for reading the rant. All the best. Mmoneypenny 20:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Here apple makes the same claim[38] To quote them:

Your toaster doesn’t crash. Your kitchen sink doesn’t crash. Why should your computer?

Beneath the surface of Mac OS X lies an industrial-strength UNIX foundation hard at work to ensure that your computing experience remains free of system crashes and compromised performance.

When you add the sources listed from Regester and AppleMatters, thats quite a few. Could someone point out to me how the statement "It doesn't crash" for ANY computer is not a lie? this was not even an issue before some wanted the image gone. The image it self is factually correct. to quote an editor above:

Think about which standard we should apply as a Wikipedia rule of thumb. Leave the crash picture up because it is both a fact about the subject and in accordance with other articles in the same field. Take the crash picture down because not many people know about its existance. Imagine how much information we will have to remove from Wikipedia pages simply because they are not known in pop-culture?

Or is it the real reason for the double-standard application that leaving the image up for Microsoft is exactly a "jab at Microsoft" and, knowing the insane passions by the followers, consequently viewing a similar image for Apple as an equally vindictive "jab at Apple"--which simply is not permissible?

Regardless of the reason for anyone wanting to leave the BSOD image on Microsoft while fighting the very existance of a crash screen for Apple, the truly NPOV position is to leave it up here...or take down ALL negative information on all Wikipedia articles and take down ALL information on all Wikipedia articles that is not 'commonly known'. (Say good-bye to a lot of the scientific, mathematic and historical content!!)

So, here is what I propose. It is factual (yes, Apples do crash), and sourced (as discussed above) by multiple sources (including apple's claims). So, what I think should happen, is it should be left there, then moved to a Criticisms section as soon as one becomes available. I agree it belongs in a critism section, but as none exists, and it is indeed factual, it should not just be removed. the article would be imporved however, with it in the critism section.--Zeeboid 20:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You've made it very clear that the reason you want to include this image is to prove your theory that Apple lies. That is highly POV and an improper use of Wikipedia. Information here must be sourced, particularly negative information. I have no problem with a criticism section if the information comes from reliable sources. That should not be difficult. There is plenty negative written about Apple. If you think the existance of a crash screen in OS X proves Apple is engaged in false advertising take it up with the FTC. Here is a link to their on-line consumer complaint form [39]. Or write an article and get it published. Wikipedia is not the place to pursue your cause. --agr 00:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Nope, Thats not what I said. I said that there is a misconception that Apple's don't crash, based by their advertising. Between this and the sources I've listed giving apple flack for this, it is notable critism. This is not my cause, as listed by AppleMatters and The Regester. This is factual sourced information written in a neutral way, Correct?--Zeeboid 12:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on opinion earlier in this discussion, I have moved this information to a Critism section, and have also included the link to Apple's website showing the KP and the Regester. If you take issue with the AppleMatters source, then I would question why no one has had an issue with AppleMatters as a source until now.--Zeeboid 13:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on opinion in this discussion, I have removed AppleMatters, since it quotes both answer and question directly from forums. Please reread why I am taking issue with the use of AppleMatters in this case. I have added a verify tag. I have also Added some wikilinks and clarified the language surrounding the Reg's article. -steventity 14:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the entire section. You need a reliable source for the statement "Some of Apple Inc's past advertising claims have come under fire for claiming (or in some cases just implying) that Mac OS X doesn't crash." Wikipedia is not a courtroom where you get to make an allegation and then martial evidence to support you position. To quote WP:OR "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."--agr 16:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not making an allegation. The section is sourced, or you may add a (Fact) tag onto it, or add to it. I'm just going by what others have written. do you feel this is inaccurate? Correct the section then. But the "It doesn't Crash" statement is accuratly stated by apple and STILL IN USE[40] or apple would change their website.--Zeeboid 17:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That page is outdated and of historical relevance only, not "in use" in any meaningful sense of the term; it's part of Apple's history, like the old Newton logo. There is no way to get to that page without deliberately looking for it. Don't try to make the situation look worse than it is. --Orange Mike 18:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

How can you say something that is currently on Apple's website is "not in use?" Also, I have corrected the ref that was asked for and re-added it. you see how difficult it is to fix something if people keep taking it off.--Zeeboid 18:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you not understand the concept of archiving? The old advertising is part of the archives. It is not in use because none of that stuff has been used in Apple ads for some time. It's part of history, like the rainbow logo. Do you not understand that you are hurting your own case by these over-reaching allegations? --Orange Mike 18:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I do, and I know that when something is in an archive, it is noted, like here in Wikipedia. Could you show us on the page or in the URL where it refers to it as an Archive?--Zeeboid 19:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

ArnoldReinhold, Whats with the removal of the section here[41] when the regester article says:

"Apple is accused of offences including: breach of contract, false advertising, fraud, trade libel, defamation and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage." You removed the entire section because you say the link "does not support statement" of "Some of Apple Inc's past advertising claims have come under fire" Should the first line be re-worded to state "Apple has been accused of offences including False Advertising"?--Zeeboid 19:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The full sentence you wrote is: 'Some of Apple Inc's past advertising claims have come under fire for claiming that Mac OS X “doesn't crash”.' There is not a word in the Register article you cite TheRegister; Apple resellers are revolting about crashes, kernel panics or anything of the sort. The Register is writing about a group or resellers unhappy about their treatment by Apple. The Register article simply does not support your "come under fire for claiming that Mac OS X “doesn't crash” assertion. If you want to mention this law suit, it belongs under litigation, probably in the Notable litigation article, not here. --agr 20:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

a mn ago you were arguing about it being me claiming about apple lies, now you say that even though I point out its not me saying that, its the wording of the sentance. Ok. How abotut then, the first sentance be fixed to say:

"Some of Apple Inc's Advertising claims have been the subject of lawsuites including false advertising and fraud[42]. Apple's past claims "it doesn't crash"[43] and current claims of being "Crash Free"[44] are refuted by The Regester[45] and AppleMatters[46]. This was featured as..." Oh, and the apple matters site link, is an article that refrences a forum, not a forum. Wiki rules don't state that a news article can't refrence a forum, only that you can not refrence a forum. Add onto this Apple Matters being used in 7 other places without being balked until now, it[47], and it is backed up by The Regester, I don't see why it doesn't work.--Zeeboid 20:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

You are undercutting your own case by insisting that an old ad archived on the Apple website constitutes a "current claim"! --Orange Mike 20:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Only if you can point out to all of us, Like I asked before, where it says on the page or in the URL that this[48] is an archive. You can't show us because it is not an archive. Otherwise, just like anyother website that is an Archive, you could tell by the URL or on the page itself. If its not an archive, its a "Current Claim" unless, of corse, you can point out to all of us, like I asked before, where it says on the page or in the URL that it is an archive... How is it, Orangemike, that you KNOW it is an Archive?--Zeeboid 20:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

So I guess Apple is still selling Panther, as the Mac OS X link from that page leads to this. -steventity 20:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thats correct, if you call AppleCare at 800-275-2277, All I had to do to get to the point where I could buy it was give them my mac's serial number.--Zeeboid 13:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

So how exactly would you go about getting it if you were a switching user without a mac and therefore a serial number? -steventity 16:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Any Problems with this one: "Some of Apple Inc's Advertising claims have been the subject of lawsuites including false advertising and fraud[49]. Apple's past claims "it doesn't crash"[50] and current claims of being "Crash Free"[51] are refuted by The Register[52] and AppleMatters[53]. This was featured as..." --Zeeboid 16:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That Register article is talking about apple getting sued for false advertising by apple retailers. It says nowhere what particular advertising by apple they are reffering to. Therefore, to put it up as a reference for apple being criticised for this specific no crash claim is not acceptable. Also, the register article refers to a version of the mac os (10.1) crashing that was out before either of those claims were made by apple (v10.2). And I've already spoken ad nauseum about why AppleMatters doesn't work in this case. -steventity 16:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, everybody slow down, take the long view and mind the three revert rule. We should wait for more people to voice opinions. steventity 19:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I initially proposed the removal of the image on two grounds. One was that the Microsoft article does not include the BDOD, which was an error on my part. I checked but did not see the image. The other, however, was that it's not really relevant to Apple Inc. This article discusses the company: the image refers to a rare occurrence in one of their many products. This image belongs on the OSX page, not on the Apple Inc. page. For the record, I do not think the BSOD belongs on the Microsoft page, either, but rather on the Windows page.

Further, I just looked at TheRegister's linked article, which apparently is the justification of the criticisms section, and it mentions false advertising in passing, with no specifics. It does not mention crashes, and it certainly does not mention the Get a Mac or Switch campaign: the way the article is written, it makes it out as though TheRegister directly attacked those campaigns, which is not the case judging by the linked sources. The link from TheRegister article leads to a dead URL. If this section is to stay, it needs a better reference for the criticisms... if this is the best we can do, then the entire bit about crashing should go. Demosthenes X 22:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

One final thought: Kernel Panics in Tiger are generally caused by hardware problems (logic boards and bad RAM most commonly). Can anyone provide a source showing Kernel Panics as a result of a buggy OS, since every KP I've seen was a hardware problem. If not, I would suggest that claiming the OS crashes is unfair. If a hardware problem is causing these Kernel Panics, than it's beyond the control of the OS and unfair to say that "Tiger crashes". So in the search for references, then, we need two things: a reliable reference of Tiger crashing due to software problems, as well as a reputable critism of the ad campaign. Demosthenes X 22:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You've also got to sift out those crashes caused by third-party device drivers. The only KP I've seen in years seemed to be attributable to a third-party SCSI device driver that I was using to host a scanner.

Atlant 00:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Logo gallery

• Image:Apple first logo.png The original Apple logo featuring Isaac Newton under the fabled apple tree.]]
• Image:Apple Computer Logo.svg The rainbow Apple logo, used from late 1976 to early 1999.]]
• Image:Apple-logo.png The current Apple logo. On products, a simple gray version of the Apple is used, without embellishing it as has been done to computerized images.]]

Does anybody think a gallery-style layout for the logos would be more aesthetically pleasing? I think it is a better layout for the article style, plus they use the same format in the FA Microsoft article. Thoughts?  Scrumshus ^{Talk to me}→ 00:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This has to stop

Zeeboid make it clear above that he is intent on demonstrating that Apple is lying about Macs not crashing in its ads. That is a serious allegation of unethical and possibly illegal conduct. Such an allegation can only be included in Wikipedia if it comes for a reliable source that made that specific allegation, i.e. that Apple is lying about Macs not crashing in its ads. According to WP:RS "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." It goes on to say "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people."

Neither of the sources he cites meet the reliable sources test. The Register article has nothing whatsoever to do with crashes. It is reporting on a lawsuit filed by Apple resellers. The Register does not say Apple is engaged in false advertising, it merely reports that false advertising is one item in the laundry list of allegations in the law suit. Lawyers routinely include every colorable accusation they can come up with in a complaint. And if you look at the actual complaint, the resellers are talking about advertisements of Apple's product support plan, AppleCare. There is nothing there about crashes.

The AppleMatters cite is not much better. It's an on-line forum, with three people discussing crash problems, two of which turn out to be hardware related. The 2002 Register article is also not applicable since it talks about an earlier release of OS X, before the improvements that led to the ad campaign in question.

Apple's ads are among the most widely seen and remembered by the general public. Apple has some 22 million OS X users. [54] If even a small fraction of those users felt they were misled by the ads about crashing, there should be plenty of well sourced material out there that can be cited. If such a source cannot be found, Zeeboid's allegation does not belong in Wikipedia. --agr 14:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not the one who wrote the stuff from The Regester or Apple Matters. I'm not the one who told Apple to maintain an advertising campaign that states "It Doesn't Crash" and I'm not the one who, as noted in The Regester, has filed suit because of "False Advertising" The sources I cite are either listed in Wikipedia as a reliable news souce (the register) or are used many many many other places as a source (apple matters) as a news article that refrences an online forum ocassionally. the information is factual. Apple Matters never even came up as a "invalid source" until this discussion where AppleMatters said something about apple that you don't like. It is not my allegation, it is sourced and refrenced. all of your claims are dealt with in the above discussion.--Zeeboid 16:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I have posted an alternate opening line that addresses your complaints. You have not commented on this, but you have made it clear by your posting here, that even my attempts to work with you to add to this article are balked. You were arguing about it being me claiming apple lies, then you moved to say that even though I point out its not me saying that, its sourced (and I list the sources), its now how the sentance is worded, RV'ing the critism section instead of repairing what you list as being inaccurate, Now your back to claiming its me claiming Apple lies and the sources don't matter for one reason or another. It doesn't sound like you would be open to this being added no matter what anyone does. If you would work with the editors, you would have commented on my proposed alteration to the sentance that you claim is inaccurate (though it is sourced) in the section above.--Zeeboid 16:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna post a request for the mediation cabal to look at this, as I feel we have reached an impasse. Any objections? -steventity 16:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

None here, I will take anyone's reasonable comments into advisement. Remember however, they can not "judge who is right," but only assist us in our discussion. --Zeeboid 16:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my comments above directly address Zeeboid's proposed wording. I felt the response needed to be in separate section to bring this matter to a head. I have no problem with mediation, but the current criticism section should be editied to reflect what the Register article actually says. Right now the reference does not support the sentence to which it is attached. I'm happy to let someone else do that. --agr 16:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello, I am offering to help as a mediator in this case after seeing the notice posted up on Mediation Cabal. I will wait for the involved parties to accept the offer before we proceed with the discussion, but I do look forward to helping you all reach an agreeable conclusion to this matter. I will be posting a notice on the talk pages of the parties listed as participants to the dispute. Arkyan • ^(talk) 17:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay by me. --Orange Mike 17:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Okeydokey.Mmoneypenny 17:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Me three -steventity 17:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Me Four. --Zeeboid 17:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I accept. Thanks for offering to help.--agr 18:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Me as well. --Walafrid 10:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

All right, thank you all for accepting the offer. Now to get down to business! First of all we just need to reiterate, that this is just an informal mediation attempt - I'm not here to say who is right and who is wrong, just try to provide a neutral point of view and try to help you all reach a consensus on the matter. This is an open discussion and any editors are encouraged to participate, whether or not you were listed as an involved party on the original request. To that end I would like to keep the discussion here on the article talk page.

I am going to ask that, for the time being, all parties refrain from making edits to the parts of the article in dispute. To that end I am putting a {{ActiveDiscuss}} tag on the section to discourage substantial edits.

I've read over the discussion on the talk page here thus far and believe I have a pretty good grasp on the debate, but I would like to start this largely fresh - so let's start from the beginning. I'd like involved parties to summarize, in their own words, what this debate is about. This is to make sure we are all on the same page, and that we are all discussing the same issue! Please try to keep from refuting one anothers' viewpoints at this time - we'll dive into that shortly - right now I would just like everyone to make it clear what the problem is, in their own mind. Arkyan • ^(talk) 19:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Statements : Nature of the dispute

• Please indicate here a summary of the problem in your own words

Mmoneypenny: Okay, never done this before so if my formatting is off, please feel free to amend it. I think the problem is that we all (maybe?) possibly agree that Apple did at one stage make claims about macs not crashing (ever) and that they still claim to this day that macs crash less (almost never) than PCs, but that macs have and still do crash in our and others' experience. Where the parties cannot agree is:

a) Is the fact that Apple once claimed this, but no longer does, worthy of mention in the article (i.e. not disagreeing over the actual content but over the fact that this is old news)

and more importantly:

b) Is the AppleMatters website article good enough to quote as a source (and pretty much the only source despite quite intense searching for a better one by myself and others) i.e. we don't disagree about the claim, nor do we disagree about the fact that macs do sometimes crash, but we cannot "get" a good enough source to quote

There is also perhaps a feeling that some editors do not want any criticism on the Apple page, while some don't mind having criticism as long as it is well-sourced and relevant, and lastly that some editors want criticism no matter what. Hope I haven't offended anybody and hope I've stuck to the remit. All the best.Mmoneypenny 20:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

agr: Thanks, Mmoneypenny, but I have to take issue with one thing you said. I don't agree that "Apple did at one stage make claims about macs not crashing (ever)." At least that is not how I interpret a statement like "With Mac OS X, you’ll become accustomed instead to industry-leading stability." But my opinion of what the ads mean doesn't matter. I don't think it is a proper role for Wikipedia editors to make judgements about a company's ad campaign and then try to correct the record. The section we are talking about, currently marked Criticism, begins "Some of Apple Inc's past advertising claims have come under fire for claiming that Mac OS X 'doesn't crash'." That is a very serious allegation. Per Wikipedia policy, it requires a relaible source, perhaps more than one. A single discussion thread on a fan web site doesn't justify the inclusion of the section. --agr 21:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Zeeboid:

A) It is a current claim, this has been gone over. The compairison to a mac crashing as much as a toaster and the statement "remains free of system crashes" are both listed and refrenced.

B) The AppleMatters website article is used in multiple locations above and has not gotten flack until this came up.

C) The "Serious allegation" ARG talks about is not my allegation. it is also refrenced where this allegation comes from as multiple sources including a lawsuit (one of the sources listed under ), which itself is a serous event, which ARG forgot to mention in his statement. He also doesn't mention that the "Discussion thread on a fan website" is not a) A discussion thread, but an article that refrences a discussion thread b) is not exactly an Anti-Apple website.

ARG has been quoted as calling the source reliable, yet just not wanting it on this page (above in the POV Section

"All operating systems can crash. That does not mean every computer company article has to have a picture of its crash screen. Most reviewers credit OS X with being very stable. Absent some reliable source that says this crash screen is commonly enountered by OS X users, it's not notable and doesn't belong in this article. Whether BSOD belongs in the Microsoft artilcle should be discussed there, not here.--agr 20:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)" of which here, its not even worded correctly, as the website does not say the crash screen "is commonly encountered"

This removal of the small details you see with is statements is why we are at the impas that we are in. the critism section is well refrenced by multiple sources and yet the reasons for its removal keep changing:

1. it was that Wikipedia:No original research applied, or there was no refrence in the text. This was solved by addeding text to refrence with sources.[55] (Voted, two keeps zero deletes also)
2. Then There are too many images, it needs to be trimmed[56]
3. Image was removed claiming there is no text to support it, though there was[57]
4. There is no BOSD in the Microsoft article[58] though the user who said this recanted their statement after reading further down the article.
5. Apple matters is "unsuitable as a source". This is refuted by its use here[59], and here[60], and here[61], and here[62], and here[63], and here[64], and here[65], and by it being an article not a forum link. an addational source to the Register was given at this time.
6. One of the sources to the Register (from 2002) was too old. An addational source to the Register was added
7. The current claim is "the occasional hiccup with your Mac" or "allmost never crashes" dispite apple listing as quoted above "free of system crashes" and compairing it as crashing as much as a toaster or a kitchen sink[66], which we all can agree that a kitchen sink or toaster don't crash unless you push them off of something.
8. its POV, dispite it being sourced by sources that qualify under wikipedia as news sources, or in the case of AppleMatters, an pro-apple source.
9. A Request from AGR for me to take this to the Federal Trade Commission instead. I don't even have to explain this one.
10. Apple getting suid for Fraud and False Advertising doesn't count as a complaint against apple's advertising (which claims apple's don't crash as much as a kitchen sink or are "Free of system crashes"[67]) addational source to the Register (again) added
11. Then we just resort to "this has to stop" [68] when AGR starts a section titled "This has to stop" where I am (according to him) "intent on demonstrating that Apple is lying about Macs not crashing in its ads"
12. Now, The Register doesn't count as a "Reliable source by ARG: "Neither of the sources he cites meet the reliable sources test"

I have included my proposed article here [69]--Zeeboid 14:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Orangemike:

• Zeeboid's goal here is not a bad one, but his methods weaken his case:

1. Zeeboid argues that anything he can find on the Apple website constitutes a "current claim" even if it refers to prior versions of software and is clearly a relic from a prior advertising campaign.
2. Zeeboid continues to insist on including any material about claims of Apple advertising falsely, as "proof" that Apple is falsely advertising no-crash computers. "falsum in uno, falsum in omnes" (sp?) is not Wikipedia policy. --Orange Mike 18:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

agr: I don't think another debate is wanted, but I wish to clarify my position here. I am not saying that the Register is not a reliable source, just that the articles cited by Zeeboid are not pertinent to the crashing ads. There are two register articles in question. One is from 2002, before Apple released the versions of OS X that are the basis of the ad campaign in question. So it can hardly refute the ads as claimed in Zeeboid's proposed wording linked above.

The second Register article says absolutely nothing about crashing. It merely describes a lawsuit by aggrieved Apple resellers. Their complaint does not mention crashing. According to Apple's 2006 10K, all the suits in question have been settled, however the prior owner of one of the resellers is appealing a bankruptcy judge's approval of the settlement. If this lawsuit belongs in Wikipedia at all, it would be in the Notable litigation of Apple Inc. article, with an explanation of the issues raised and the suit's current status. This suit has nothing to do with the crashing ads, unless we accept the notion that once a company has been accused of false advertising in some law suit, any of their ads is subject to review for truthfulness by Wikipedia editors, who may then respond in the article about the company.

While I have not intention of editing the Apple Inc article as long as the mediation proceeds, I do wish to object to the disputed text remaining in the article during the process. If, as I claim, the current version violates Wikipedia policy, more damage is done every day the text appears and the disputed tag merely draws attention to it.--agr 20:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

steventity Pretty much what Orangemike and Mmoneypenny said, but I'll lay it out in my own words, just in case we differ somewhere.

1. Is this significant enough to merit mention on Apple's main page? Or is it better suited for the OS X page?
2. The current Apple page never actually says doesn't crash. Yeah, it implies it, but does that = "doesn't crash"?
3. The Register article about crashing refers to OS 10.1, before Apple made the doesn't crash claim.
4. The Apple page that says doesn't crash is old. It's buried on the Latin American English site, you have to google to get to it, it lists a 2003 copyright, and it links to an old version of of the OS when you follow the "Mac OS X" tab from it. Which is fine to use as a place where Apple states "doesn't crash," but not as evidence that Apple currently claims it doesn't crash.
5. The Register article about apple being sued for false advertising states nowhere that it was for their "doesn't crash" claim. Indeed, as it's about apple retailers suing them, not users who have experienced crashing. It currently serves as the reference for Apple coming under fire for claiming that OS X doesn't crash. The retailers revolting should get a mention on the main page. It's a pretty significant event, and an interesting commentary on Apple deciding to open its own outlets. But it should not be used here as it doesn't refer to OS X crashing.
6. The current title of the active link to apple's page reads "Apple switch crash free" in the refs section. The article says the UNIX foundation is "hard at work to ensure that your computing experience remains free of system crashes and compromised performance," which doesn't say "crash free," and the word Switch appears nowhere on the page.
7. The AppleMatters source quotes both question and answer directly from the AppleMatters forum. Other uses of AppleMatters as a source in wikipedia are reviews, interviews, a broken link, an opinion piece, and a historical event.

-steventity 01:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

walafrid: I think the main points of debate have been laid down fairly clearly already, so I don't have much to add. The main facts here as I see them:

1. Apple at one time claimed in its switch campaign that Mac OS X doesn't crash (and I agree with Steventity's assessment that the apple.com/lae pages are very much not current), now strongly implies the same, but does not state it.
2. That Mac OS X does crash.

The difficulty as far as I can see it, however, is that there has not been notable criticism of Apple in the media for these claims (or at least they're appearing hard to find!). The result is that this article's criticism section is less reporting actual criticism of Apple (surely its real role) and more making its own criticism of Apple in this regard, fundamentally challenging the article's impartial nature.

In addition—and I think I've said this before—it doesn't seem like the proper role of a wikipedia article to exist as a means to pre-empt misunderstandings about whether OS X crashes or not, since it is a fact that it does. And it is surely not a criticism of Apple that its operating system does crash, for it is widely expected that operating systems will, and one might even class it as a feature!

I also wanted to echo orangemike's concerns about methodology. For instance, it has been stated here before that the Apple page should have the Kernel Panic image because the Microsoft page has one for the 'BSOD'; it seems to be in the same spirit that the Kernel Panic image is annotated 'the equivalent of a BSOD'. This may be in the genuine pursuit of understanding for the reader, but it makes me feel uneasy—is it really the article's job to be 'fair' in this kind of way? I think this is more equivalence than fairness, and the two companies are not equivalent. I hope we are able to reach a consensus on this matter, and thank you Arkyan for stepping to mediate here.--Walafrid 09:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposals and Compromises

Ok, now that all the involved partise have had a chance to express their view on what the problem is, let's work toward finding a solution! Based on what everyone has said I'm going to make an attempt to summarize here - feel free to point out if I have made any incorrect assumptions.

Points we can all agree on

1. At one point or another, Apple advertisments have stated or implied that their computers do not crash, or at least made statements that can be interpreted that way.
2. It has been demonstrated that Mac OSX can crash, and has been reported in at least once source.
3. There are or have been lawsuits against Apple alleging false advertising.

Points we do not all agree on

1. Whether the "does not crash" claim is current or historical
2. Whether the sources in question are satisfactory, reliable, secondary sources
3. Whether the fact that OSX crashes is relevant to the Apple article
4. Whether the lawsuits claiming Apple engages in false advertising are relevant to the claim about crashing
5. Whether this critisicm is even notable

I believe that if we can come to a consensus regarding these questions then we are well on our way toward resolving this issue. In considering possible solutions and compromises I would ask that everyone consider the following questions :

• Are "criticisms of" sections appropriate in articles about well-known companies, ideas, organizations and people? Does it help to establish a balanced, NPOV perspective? If so, is there a point when a critique of the subject becomes "historic" and no longer relevant to the subject, or does it remain relevant as historic information?
• Lawsuits claiming false advertising certainly qualify as criticism of a company. However, if the suits in question do not support the existing claims of criticism, what is the best way to deal with it? Should the information be removed all together? Should it remain in a "criticisms" section to provide a broader viewpoint?
• How do we determine when a criticism is notable and appropriate? Is criticism of a company's product the same as criticism of the company? WP:N tells us the primary requirement for notability is coverage by multiple, independent, secondary sources. However WP:N is about notability of encyclopedic topics, not sub-topics of an already notable topic. How, then, should we determine when and if a criticism is notable and appropriate?

At this point I am intentionally avoiding answering any of these questions. I do have my own opinions, of course, but as a mediator I will make every attempt to simply assist you with reaching a consensus and not making one for you! If a request for additional opinions are made then we can see about getting that, but for now, I am optimistic that a consensus can be reached here.

Zeeboid as been kind enough to write up a proposed version of the "Criticisms" section over here and I would ask that everyone read it over and offer suggestions on how it can be improved to meet everyone's concerns. Additionally, if you have a proposed compromise or rewording that you would like to suggest, please feel free to post it up.

Let me make clear at this point we are not voting on a proposal but merely trying to get some ideas out there for everyone to consider as the next step to building consensus. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Have added my possible compromise to Zeeboid's page (needs some work, formatting and maybe even total rewrite.)Mmoneypenny 22:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added mine as well.--agr 02:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Continuation on case page

Just a friendly notice to interested editors that the majority of the conversation seems to have shifted over to the case talk page Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-20 Apple Inc.. I am confident that we are narrowing in on a solution and encourage anyone and everyone to take a peek over there and add your voice. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Re Reference of iPod sentences

Over 100 million units have been sold even though it was not originally perceived to be a successful product.

The ref doesn't state the bolded part. And even the 100 million units sold. I deleted the former and retained the latter. Frequent editors might want to take notice and place the right reference for the units sold, and to keep the deleted part, find a source. Berserkerz Crit 10:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)