Talk:History of Apple Inc.

Quality

This entry is poorly written. Far too many anecdotal stories, and a generally amateur feel. This article is pointless. I'm just sorry that I spent 45 minutes editing it before realizing there's another Apple article that covers all these points in a much more succinct fashion.

Broken links

Reference #19 is broken. Might want to check other links as well. 174.1.36.72 (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)rei

Explanation

This is a copy of the history sections from Apple Computer. It's going to form the main article about the company's past; the original sections will be shortened to summaries. That way, the article on Apple will be a manageable size and will be able to focus more on non-historical things. —RadRafe 20:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Name

Does anyone know why Apple is called Apple?

Yes, it's because it was Steve Jobs' favorite fruit as his diet was purely fruit at the time. Woz couldn't think of a better name, and Jobs joked that it got Apple ahead of Atari in the phonebook. I'm sure this is covered in the article. — Wackymacs 19:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the first edition of MacWorld Macintosh Secrets by David Pogue, Apple was named after the apple that inspired Isaac Newton. That's why Apple's first logo depicts Newton under the apple tree. JHP 18:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

And how come there was no lawsuit ever over the name from the Apple Corporation (Apple Corps.), the entertainment company, started by The Beatles in 1968? And if there is (was) one, how come it's not in the article? - Ronnie S.217.132.251.50 (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason is quite funny. Steve Jobs' own words:

"I was actually a fruitarian at that point in time. I ate only fruit. Now I'm a garbage can like everyone else. And we were about three months late in filing a fictitious business name so I threatened to call the company Apple Computer unless someone suggested a more interesting name by five o'clock that day. Hoping to stimulate creativity. And it stuck. And that's why we're called Apple."

Source: Fire in the Valley -- Stormwatch (talk) 19:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

CEOs

This article should have a complete listing of every Apple CEO, right now the subject is barely touched. Paul^C/_T+ 01:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The section titled, "1985-1997: Sculley, Spindler, Amelio" doesn't even mention these CEOs (except for the single sentence referring to Gil Amelio getting fired.) Who was Michael Spindler? The article doesn't say. This article seems to be more of a product history, rather than a corporate history. JHP 18:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes to Xylit (talk)'s redirects.

First thanks Xylit (talk) for redirecting. I re-redirected those only to reflect the consistent corporate name "Apple Inc." (without comma) as it was shown in the root article. I also diverted the History of Apple back to History of Apple Inc., since the fruit, an apple, shouldn't have a separted main page for its history as everything about it is already contained in its root article. Thanks Godric/^Talk 07:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Article name

Wouldn't it make sense for this article to be History of Apple? Normally we don't use "Inc." in the names of businesses; the only reason we have to in Apple's case is because Apple is already in use by the fruit and it's more desirable than something like Apple (company). Right now, History of Apple already redirects here anyway. —Cleared as filed. 16:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It should be "History of Apple". — Wackymacs 17:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Organization of Article

the 2002-present section should be organized better perhaps add some more titles/sections? And the iPod section should either be moved to the section in the timeline where the iPod is introduced, orn it should be shortened or made into a completely diffrent article.Evanemak 05:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of that section, the wording "all variations have a graphics processor the has 256-bit power or can be expanded to 512-bit for ultimate performance" strikes me as a bit too similar to "hit its weak point for massive damage". I'm not familiar with technical details of Macs, so I've no idea what the heck that's supposed to mean to correct it. 85.216.229.175 22:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That whole section seems to get into very minute details about this time period. Why is a specific PowerMac G5 model mentioned with such detail? And yet then it quickly brushes over everything that has happened since 2005, all under the title of "The Intel transition" (which officially ended ~2 years ago IIRC), leaving out some major developments (ex. Leopard, Unibody design, possibly controversy surrounding Steve Jobs health?). Also, does the iPod/iTunes need its own section? Some of that information seems way too specific. Ferg (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Undos

Sorry about the mess; I was trying to clean up the vandalism and I decided (unwisely) to try a feature I'd never used before. I didn't mean any harm. -lee 03:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Tone and improving references

This article reads like a story book. The tone needs to be fixed to make it more encyclopedic. Also, there definitely needs to be more references. I am certain that there are plenty of books that can be used as references for the paragraphs in this article, so if someone has the time, please do so. Thanks. Gary King (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Quibble about credit

Re: "the Apple II was released in 1977 and became the computer generally credited with creating the home computer market."

Generally there are 3 machines that pretty much captured the "mindshare" of the time: Commodore PET, Apple, and TRS-80. Apple was not the top seller of the three until the Visicalc era. This needs a rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tablizer (talk • contribs) 05:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Net Sales

The net sales should be using commas NOT periods. While this may be alright for others, this is not alright for Americans. Does wikipedia have a generic to enter currency which will display depending on your locale? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrisonmetz (talk • contribs) 23:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

→Closed discussion as do not merge. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The iPod and iTunes Store section should be divided up and merged into the iPod and iTunes Store articles. This article is about the history of Apple; having a separate section solely for the iPod and iTunes Store doesn’t seem to fit well the overall organization of the article, which chronologically goes over the history of the company as a whole. Furrybeagle (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose iPod is an important part on Apple's history. --Fixman^{Praise me} 06:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support Oppose It makes sense that apple's history should be all in one place, and separating the ipod history out of its context loses something from both articles. There isn't a strong argument that the pages have grown too long. Separating them helps emphasize "Apple's history", and I see no reasons given otherwise. Shadowjams (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support I support the Merger.

--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose I don't see a case for this, How is it not part of the history of Apple? and i don't get the argument that it doesnt fit well when there is a similar section for every other development. Granted some of the more trivial aspects could be dropped. --neon white talk 16:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose iPod should be included in History of Apple, but is a product and should have a separate wikipedia article. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.99.5 (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.