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

Fourth paragraph under Criticism

The paragraph starting "Apple has used industry-standard hardware technologies for many years" doesn't seem to contain any criticism, and almost just seems like a promotional paragraph. With all of the other problems and iffy NPOV with that section, should the whole section be flagged as non-NPOV? There seems to be a whole lot more effort put into defense of criticisms, in general. Smeggysmeg 01:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

One radical idea would be to remove everything without a reference in the whole article and make a HTML comment to look at the talk page for pointers, which is where the old content would be. I think this would encourage people to try again in this area - the writing wouldn't be as good initially but fixing writing for the crowd of this article may be easier then waiting for someone to reference stuff here.

While we are on the subject, the three references I put at the end were suggestions and may not actually back up much - so it still could be basically 90% unreferenced...

Hopefully I'll have time to nail a few of these points down anyway :\. RN 22:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Some other, offbeat criticism

I came across some other criticism here[1]. I don't know how common this POV is among Christian parents.

Citations

What is up with all these "citation required" and the numereous citations??? So as long as someone cites any publication, then it is all good nevermind that the people who write those articles might not be any more knowledgable than a Wiki writer? The number of citations included just for the list of Apple Fellows is ridiculous. So is requiring a citation describing the length of the crowds at the NYC and Tokyo openings; if I was there and I witnessed it, it doesn't count until someone quotes me in the NY Times? Is there some pedant demanding a citation for everything? There is almost as many citations here as there is in the Homosexuality article; and Apple Computer is a far less controversial topic ... but I guess I would need a citation for that statement too right? 66.171.76.241 04:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia core policies to understand why citations are necessary. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Verifiability in particular answers nearly all of your questions. If you have an issue with that policy, raise it there.--Coolcaesar 04:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed it and it still does not answer my concerns. Check out how citations are almost nonexistant in articles for mathematics, physics, philosophy (even Communism), and biography of famous musicians. My point is that there are so many citations and citations requirements of petty facts in the sections "User Culture" and "Criticism" that it degrades the overall quality of the article. Anyway that's all I have to say on this.66.171.76.241 03:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The general rule is that the less controversial the subject, the less need for citations. For example, pure mathematics is relatively uncontroversial (except for certain obscure cutting-edge areas). But other controversial areas, like law and business, need more citations. For example, when I first drafted the article on Roger J. Traynor, I was immediately challenged on the issue of whether he was notable. I dug up some citations and no one has brought up the issue again. That is how Wikipedia works.--Coolcaesar 17:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"The general rule is that the less controversial the subject, the less need for citations" - not if you are planning on FACing it... you generelly need every claim cited. These kind of articles are more difficult then books and such because the references are generally more numerous. Microsoft is an article I contributed a lot to and I think is a good example of this kind of article and the referencing requirements. RN 22:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Deleted "Analysis"

This section was nothing but unreferenced criticisms and has been for a long time. -  Mike | trick or treat  13:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well done! Mushroom (Talk) 13:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this article is back up to GA standards

I've done a little cleanup on it, and removed that awful "Analysis" POV section. Now there are only a few things in need of a citation in the article. The article is well-written and a good timeline. Does anybody object to me nominating this for GA? -  Mike | trick or treat  16:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Now nominted. Let's see how this goes! -  Mike | trick or treat  01:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Green my Apple" campaign

Does this really belong here? I understand that this is a notable enviornmental group, but it seems so out of place with the rest of the article simply being about the history of the company. Thoughs? -  Mike | trick or treat  23:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: Looks like it's been moved to criticism section of Apple Macintosh by User:HereToHelp. Seems like a good solution to me. -  Mike | trick or treat  00:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a bad solution to me, as the campaign is against the use of toxic chemicals in all Apple products, including iPods, not just Macs. Note that the Microsoft page has a "Criticism" section, the Nestlé page has a "Criticisms of Nestlé's business practices" section, the Google page has a "Criticism and controversy" subsection of the "History" section (and the History of Google section has a more detailed "Criticism and controversy" section), and the AT&T page has a "Privacy controversy" section, so it's not as if descriptions of criticisms of corporations are otherwise absent from the Wikipedia pages for corporations.

Furthermore, the Apple Computer page isn't simply about the history of Apple; it also has "Current products", "Corporate affairs", "Corporate culture", "User culture", and "Notable litigation" sections. Guy Harris 00:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I generally think that "criticisms" sections should be avoided, because many users take them as a dumping ground for every little "Apple sucks" thing they see. While some very notable criticisms may be worth noting (such as criticisms of Internet Explorer), I'm not sure that there's any reason to include that here. -  Mike | trick or treat  00:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Presumably you meant "because many users take them as a dumping ground for every little "XXX corporation sucks" thing they see; Apple doesn't deserve than other companies when it comes to having, or not having, a criticism section. Guy Harris 01:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Right. I think "criticisms" sections should generally be avoided, and that "criticisms" articles go way too far and should not even exist ;-) -  Mike | trick or treat  01:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The fatal flaw of "integrated criticism" is that, given enough criticism (and counter-points) on a subject, the whole article would end up looking like the goal is to air dirty laundry, not to be precise and informative on the subject itself. Having a separate section helps maintain reader focus through the article. "Criticism" is just an aspect of a subject, anyhow, just like history, cultural impact, etc. are, and those other aspects tend to get sections, too, right? By extension, criticism articles in computing exist as a natural outcome of following Wikipedia:Summary style guidelines for when articles get lengthy... not because they're criticisms.

As for the Greenpeace bit: criticisim of Apple's environmental record is probably noteworthy enough for Wikipedia. It really has been one of their weak points... iSight was withdrawn from the European market earlier this year for related concerns, e.g. -/- Warren 12:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, but is that more usefully listed here or at Apple Macintosh as HereToHelp has done? -  Mike | trick or treat  01:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Given that Greenpeace is criticizing Apple as a whole - among other things, they're complaining about iPods as well as Macs - I'd say it's more usefully listed here, not at Apple Macintosh. Guy Harris 09:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This article doesn't have a criticism section like Macintosh does. If you can find a good place for it, move it back here. But bear in mind a one paragraph criticism section will not look very good.--HereToHelp 11:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Alexa ranking

Is it reall necessary to include it? Lots of major computer corporations have hight Alexa rankings...to me it goes without saying. If it should be listed, it certainly doesn't deserve its own section, so I have moved it to the lead, although I'm not sure that's the best place for it either. -  Mike | trick or treat  16:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

GA Status

Per nomination, GA status has been granted and tags applied appropriately. Sourcing looks good, however my major piece of advice would be to shrink this article -- lots of good info, but sometimes we gotta pick and choose what to include. That being said, I think this is a pretty good article. Side note -- I do not own any apple products, and have not contributed to (or, before last night, even read) this article. Good job, guys! /Blaxthos 18:08, 19 October 2006 (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[2]. 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)

Financial Information

Should there be financial infirmation $ sales, profits, number of employeesXSebX 03:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC) etc. Apple is a publicly traded company. XSebX 03:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, which is why that information is in the infobox. Guy Harris 23:19, 31 October 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 [mnyanko 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.--75.134.134.160 04:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Currently-Used Logo

I just viewed this page, and saw Apple's 2 previous logos instead of the computer-rendered Apple logo. Shouldn't the logo have stayed as the computer-rendered version? Moronicles 21:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes - I've put that back. The infobox should have the current logo; the older logos are in a history section, where they belong. Guy Harris 21:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Reference cleanup

Although not a requirement, I think that standardizing the cite tags would be a big improvement for this article. A lot of the references are of the external-link variety, whereas some ref name="foo" and cite templates would really improve the readability of the article. /Blaxthos 09:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversial claim of no viruses

I think that the fact that apple claims to have no viruses on their computers at the current time yet there are known viruses should be added. I recently discovered after reading on apple.com that there are zero known viruses on apple computers running OS X that this is false. There are infact upwards of 44,000 according to one study. I can even provide where I read this. As well, a computer repair man in my local area has also confirmed that this IS true, and he is certified by apple. Crashedata 09:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a citation for your claim that there are functioning viruses for a patched copy of Mac OS X? While there have been a number of "scares", and there are indeed many thousands of viruses for "Classic" Mac OS, the current version of Mac OS X has no functioning viruses currently known. Thanks, Davidjk ^(msg+edits) 18:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

There currently is no "virus" in the wild. Some have claimed that there are, but so far, those are simply malicious applications that can't really replicate on their own; each installation needs the user to provide an administrator password. If there is anything else out there showing otherwise, I'd really like to see it! -- Tim D 18:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can provide where you read that there are "upwards of 44,000 viruses" on OS X, please do so. There might well be viruses, but that seems like a bit of a high number. (Note: viruses that require Virtual PC, Parallels Workstation, or VMWare don't count. :-)) Guy Harris 20:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd have guessed that the average square cm of any computer contains a lot more than 44,000 virions. But as for software viruses, those happen to the PCs at work, not my Macs or Solaris systems at home.

Atlant 20:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

He's talking about viruses on OS X, not on the computer - but there's probably a lot more than 44,000 virions per square cm of an OS X DVD. Guy Harris 21:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Why would anyone develop a virus for a Mac? You'd hit almost no computers.

There's a lot to be gained in reputation for being the "first" to hit OS X with a legitimate virus. And although it seems like a relatively small target compared to Windows, it's a target that is almost completely unprotected by virus software. A well-written virus on a Mac has a lot of potential for heavy effects. -- Tim D 02:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Shhhhhhhh!!!! Don't give them any ideas!--HereToHelp 02:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Aw crap. REVERT! REVERT! -- Tim D 02:11, 24 November 2006 (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)

new Article to merge

Someone please merge, delete or something to Apple PenLite. --meatclerk 11:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not see any reason to merge the Penlite article. Sorry I just started it lastnight but just because it has very little info due to it being a new article doesn't mean it should be deleted or merged right away. There is plenty of info not on there yet to warrant it being an article of its own. --Borisborf 23:36, 29 November 2006 (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)

iPhone

there's been a lot of buzz about the upcoming iPhone, I've seen several articles on news sites... should it be mentioned? (I would do it, but I have no idea how) -- will200557 Dec. 4, 2006

Let's wait for something official, or directly from the U.S. Patent Office.--HereToHelp 00:27, 5 December 2006 (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 [3]) 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,[4] 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 [5] 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)

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)