Talk:Apple Inc.

Revise Histroy Section Names?

It seems to me that the last 4-5 years shouldn't all be stuck under the Intel transition. After all Macintosh models were updated to Intel, Apple moved on to focus more on consumer devices, bringing about the name change to Apple, Inc. Maybe that section could be restructured to reflect that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.173.52.23 (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Finished :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumpat01 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

iPod Touch 16 gB

The iPod Touch section reads only 8, 32 and 64 gB. I believe it is still available in 16 gB format which is not addressed. Can it please be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.16.75 (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The iPod Touch section is correct. It is now only available in 8, 32, and 64 GB flavors. Swanduck (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the 16gb model is no longer in production. Nathanl1192 (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Actual financial numbers

Would someone please add or update the financial numbers? The FY 2008 is outdated now (Apple Inc. FY starts with the last quarter of the year therefore the FY 2009 is already known for over 2 months now). Thanks. And maybe the Non-GAAP numbers could also be included. This would give a more accurate picture of the financial performance of the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.128.51 (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added the new data for FY2009 that Apple gave on Monday. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

just for layout: normally it's "net income" instead of "profit" examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.217.58.211 (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Speculation about the logo

Now there's confirmation from a primary source about the origin of the logo, should the speculation about Alan Turing etc be removed? Etrigan (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Mushroom (Talk) 13:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done - hope you all approve. Etrigan (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Expected Products/ Speculated Products Section?

Apple takes a lot of effort in order to spread speculation about up and coming products. Maybe this article should include a section (Part of Products section maybe?) that talks about what the market thinks Apple is coming out with. For now it can be stuff about the percieved iSlate and iPhone 4G, But it can be updated to talk about everything Apple MAY be coming out with. Just an Idea. What do you people think? Utkarshshah007 (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That it's pure crystalballery and speculation based on rumors. Oppose --Terrillja _talk 20:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose – This article really doesn't need speculation as per WP:SPECULATION, just like any other article. There have been some ridiculous rumors surrounding Apple around. You say that Apple takes a lot of effort to spread speculation for upcoming product but is there any proof of this? Could be because of the way Apple works, not releasing info, which leads to impatient people making stuff up. _Xeworlebi ^(t•c) 20:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose -- WP:RS? man with one red shoe 21:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose -- Encyclopedias are recorders of verifiable fact. Guessing, or reporting others' guesses, is not what this thing is about. Etrigan (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Update to Environmental Record

--Ecoscience (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Hi. I noticed a number of papers and reports on Apple's transition to toxic free products. Below is a summary of this milestone with links to the reports

In October 2009 Apple completes its transition to mercury free LED displays across its entire Mac product line with the introduction of new MacBook and iMac models. In 2009 Apple became the first in the industry to ship all portables, desktops and handhelds free of toxic brominated flame retardants and mercury. In October 2009 Environmental NGOs, Clean Production Action and ChemSec announce Apple as a leader in having successfully banned families of toxic compounds, brominated flame retardants, mercury, arsenic, chlorinated flame retardants, phthalates and PVC. Apple introduces an innovative method by restricting compounds by looking for toxic elements bromine and chlorine. http://www.cleanproduction.org/Electronics.GreeningConsumer.php http://www.cleanproduction.org/library/GCE_Release_FINAL.pdf http://goodelectronics.org/news-en/new-report-on-the-greening-of-electronic-products http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2010/01/07/239853/IT-companies-still-dragging-feet-on-removal-of-toxic.htm

 Done but sourced from Apple's website. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Update actual numbers of open Apple Stores

Would someone please update the number of actual open Apple Stores? In the last quarter (Q1 of FY2010) the average number was 278. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.63.66.14 (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

OK the iPad announcements included information on the current number of stores, so I've updated the page with the new figure. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The number of stores can be found on Apple Store.

→ Kind Regards, Lppa ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

Can the detail in the criticism section not be worked into the stuff on the AppStore and possibly the History section for the ThinkSecret stuff? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Aperture

I suggest that the software "Aperture" be added to the opening paragraph, as it is the professional equivalent of "Final Cut Studio" and "Logic Studio" for the photographers. Yantougas (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Mac 128 is NOT the first Macintosh

The image caption refers to "The first Macintosh, also known as the Macintosh 128K." In fact, the first Macintosh was just Macintosh. It wasn't named the 128 until there was a choice between 128 and 512. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.27.40 (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you suggest changing the caption too? I can't think of anything better, though you're right it isn't that clear. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest "The first Macintosh, known simply as the Macintosh" or "The first Macintosh, released in 1984" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.27.40 (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done with "The first Macintosh, released in 1984." -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Add MacBook

I think the MacBook should be added to the list. 76.170.165.95 (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Apple admits using child labour

Moore, Malcolm (27 Feb 2010). "Apple admits using child labour". Telegraph.co.uk.

This should be included in the Criticism summary section here, since that section's content so far is not a remotely truthful summary of the criticism point of view fork "article". It clearly suggests to readers that basically all criticism of Apple is related to product management in some way or other.

Now that Apple Inc. has admitted that they did in fact use child labour, this is clearly a far, far more serious type of criticism than everything currently mentioned in this main article's criticism summary section. The explicit word "child labor" should be mentioned in this article. --78.34.240.197 (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I'll add this when I get around to it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Some commentary on the sustainability report should be included in the article, but it absolutely should not be included in the criticism section as Apple have actually been pro-active in looking through their suppliers to find this. And all of the child labour is past tense and doesn't apply to their current situation. See Apple's supplier responsibility page and especially Apple's 2009 report on the matter -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, makes sense I guess. --78.34.240.197 (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I was aggressive about this, I don't think a company should be criticised for doing the right thing :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Nah, no worries. I'm often a tad overeager when it comes to corporate criticism. --78.34.249.140 (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Windows copying habits

Windows has a habit of copying apple. (Example: apple comes out with new software, windows does the same shortly following. ) Tj1224 (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any source examples? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This looks like original research, to put something like this into the article you need to do some research and bring some reliable sources that claim such thing. man with one red shoe 21:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I just found out that windows is making a phone too. See apple comes out with a phone, then microsoft does too. Tj1224 (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Microsoft have made a phone operating system since at least June 2003 -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I mean they are coming out with their own phone not just an operating system Tj1224 (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless there are reliable sources that claim that Microsoft is copying Apple, then, unfortunately, what is being proposed would be considered Original Research as stated above by man with one red shoe. If you would like, you can do some more research of the subject and propose adding this section in with reliable sources. Thank You --Fumitol (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

For anybody older than 25, it's in the "water is wet" category ("Windows is to a Mac as a drag queen is to a woman", as a columnist once wrote); but given our rules, it must still be documented. However, the entity doing the copying is Microsoft, of course, not Windows. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Lawsuits point

What exactly was wrong with it? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong here? Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 19:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems like a legitimate edit - it certainly wasn't vandalism and you provided no explanation for removing it. At worst it was in the wrong place in the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It was unsourced. And I made small the semi-protect because put the exactly date of unprotection just only do IPs still vandalazing. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 04:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Its uncontroversial so sourcing doesn't matter. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

PS Putting the exact expiry date/big box doesn't increase vandalism, if it did there would have been a huge quantity on the 13th/14th and it was limited then. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know it. And when the protection run there will be vandalism (at first low but it will increase). Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 16:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Meh, maybe you're right. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Semi protection

Why is this page semi-protected? There hasn't been any vandalism since November 2009... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what? There has been no vandalism since September, when it was protected, which is the whole point of protection. I think you are misunderstanding how page protection works.--Terrillja _talk 14:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I got confused by the recent protection change :o. But still why does it need to be protected for 6 months at a time? That seems frankly unnecessary. The edit in November was the last one I saw reverted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Repeated, predictable vandalism. People seem to enjoy adding things about how macs suck x as soon as protection lapses and there is a limit to how many people should have to be dealing with it as this page is not particularly active. --Terrillja _talk 16:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering this further I think if its still significantly vandalised after this latest protection expires indefinite semi-protection should be requested. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Auto archive

Is it OK to auto-archive on 90 days/5 threads minimum? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)