Talk:Apple Inc.

Apple does not manufacture its own devices

Apple doesn't manufacture its own laptops, mp3 players and so forth, nearly no major laptop company does anymore. It's too expensive so they hire out OEMs. This is basic knowledge of anyone involved in the industry. Even the old G4 was made by Quanta (http://www.wired.com/gadgets/wireless/magazine/17-03/mf_netbooks?currentPage=2). We saw from the Unibody Apple video that the unibody was made in Taiwan (all the machines were labeled in Chinese Traditional), even the background factory had Traditional Chinese characters. It may not matter much to the layman (or some of the more rabid Apple fans here), but to experts doesn't that make the quality of this article deceiving and less believable? --24.193.80.232 (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK Apple still manufactures in its plant in Cork, Ireland. Lars T. (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You're joking right? When is the last time you have seen any of the Apple internal equipment saying "Made in Ireland"? Looks like the processor is made from Malaysia, Ram from Korea, mobo from Taiwan, and assembled in China. --24.193.80.232 (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Turns out back in 1999 some G3's were made in Ireland. They have long ago stopped. (http://hardware.silicon.com/desktops/0,39024645,11008262,00.htm) --24.193.80.232 (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

So manufacturing there in 1999 proves they don't manufacture there anymore? Oh, BTW They still manufactured there in 2007 Lars T. (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)Lars T. (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

There are no photos in your link and in the comments they seem to be talking about seeing the assembly (not manufacture) of really old macs, color G3's and such. Plus the tax heaven in Cork is long gone, I don't see why Apple would continue to operate there to assemble machinery. Go ahead and ask your techy, when was the last time s/he saw a 'Made in Ireland' label on any Apple part? --24.193.80.232 (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

So in your desperation you now claim somebody, even if just for a short time, put up old images of long discontinued Macs being assembled in Cork? Okay, fine, I will be interesting to see what you will have to complain about the next link: Apple locations

Cork (Ireland) Campus You'll find Apple's European Operations Headquarters in the beautiful, verdant city of Cork, Ireland. The campus hosts a range of divisions including [...] Manufacturing,

Lars T. (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem, Lars, no one has ever found a product actually made there, and we've already established that its the last ever possible place that Apple may be making anything. Even HP has a laptop manufacturing division, but everyone knows they don't actually make any laptops, certainly not any that are sold. I just had a simple request, find recent any Apple product, open it up, check inside for a "Made by Ireland" chip or part. Take a pic and post it here and this argument is over. The problem is no one has seen it in the last 5-6 years (this is being safe, we could probably go a few more years back). 1999 is a loooong time ago. Some of the major players in the tech industry didn't even exist then. Heck generations come every 3-6 months now in the tech-manufacturing industry. I'm simply saying, is it right to call all these tech companies manufacturers when they simply have the back end chip design and actual manufacturing work done by OEM's/ODM's? Those in the industry don't think so, so why do some Wikipedians disagree? What next? We'll label chocolate makers and chocolatiers interchangeably? It's like saying "Who needs accuracy when layman comforts will do? Lets all lower the bar for Wikipedia." --24.193.80.232 (talk) 06:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but Apple still designs all of the parts. Jabbafett (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind that Apple spec's the parts, they are a design company after all. I take issue that this article says they manufacture, which is different from assembly, and different from design. Don't we want this article to be completely accurate not just "accurate enough for end users"? I have more Macs around the house than most people out there, heck I used to help people fix their Macs, but I'd be silly to ignore the labels and think that Apple actually manufactures all the parts except the screws. The days when Apple did that are long gone. They have long spec'ed then outsourced the manufacturing, at most participating in some final assembly: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_20/b3933011.htm http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,368763,00.html http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/28/foxconn-wins-3g-iphone-contract-3-million-units-shipping-in-jun/ The solution to this is just removal of the "manufacture" word in the first paragraph. I think that's reasonable. --24.193.80.232 (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Folks, read Apple's most recent 10K from 11/2008 here. In it, you'll find this statement:

Final assembly of the Company’s products is currently performed in the Company’s manufacturing facility in Ireland, and by external vendors in California, the Republic of Korea (“Korea”), the People’s Republic of China (“China”) and the Czech Republic. Currently, the supply and manufacture of many critical components is performed by sole-sourced third-party vendors in the U.S., China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, and Singapore. Sole-sourced third-party vendors in China perform final assembly of substantially all of the Company’s portable products, including MacBook Pro, MacBook, MacBook Air, iPods, iPhone, and most of the Company’s iMacs.

They do still have manufacturing in Ireland. Done. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If that sentence said "Manufacturing is performed..." instead of "Final Assembly" then I'd say its a rested case. However the lingo shouldn't fool anyone, the last sentence indicates that "substantially all" of their products are pretty much assembled in China with the exception of the Mac Pro's. I owned a couple of Mac Pro's and none of them say they weren't made in some place in Asia. The rest of Apple's line simply says Made in China. Anyone can take a trip to their local Apple store and read the bottom of the boxes and all their devices. So all I see is at best a downplaying of it, like how Coach downplays the fact that their bags are made in China in the same factories that make purses for Target and Walmart. There are hurt feelings here but Wikipedia should not be based on feelings but on fact. So far we've found out that out there is a possibility that Apple may still be manufacturing in Ireland, a facility that Apple calls a manufacturing facility, but oddly no one can find a single Apple product in the last 5-10 years that says Made in Ireland. Even my employer's Apple servers say Made in China, where Apple owns no factories. --24.193.80.232 (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC) (I've revised this statement to be clearer)

I emailed the famous iFixit guys (whom take apart new Apple devices all the time) and asked them if they had any parts that were made in Ireland. Here is the response: "We have not noticed any. Jonathan Dow iFixit". The fact that its so much trouble just to find any evidence that Apple even manufactures anything in the last possible manufacturing plant it has left over from a bygone era, settles it. As it says Apple still does final assembly, but does not manufacture any of its own devices. I move that we remove manufacturer from that line. --24.193.80.232 (talk) 14:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The machines pictured here are cnc milling machines. Used for manufacturing. It never says in the article that they manufacture all of their computers, just that they design and manufacture computers, which they do, they manufacture prototypes, which makes them a manufacturer even if no one actually gets to touch the prototypes IMO.--Terrillja _talk 15:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

And why exactly should "the famous iFixit guys" ever see a machine made in Europe? As you so rightly point out, they never noticed one, despite Apple once building almost all machines for the European market in Cork. Lars T. (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

They never seen it just like why I never seen it during my time in London fixing Apple laptops. Perhaps we might have seen it say... 15-20 years ago but not now. Yeah Apple was once a manufacturer, sure they call that last plant in Cork a manufacturing plant (but only say that final assembly goes on there), but like many other major brands, they currently are not manufacturing anything on their own, its not cost effective to do so. No one can even produce a single picture of any current Apple products in the last 5 years made in Ireland. I can't find it and I've serviced or own an example of almost all of Apple's line including their servers. The only possible part that could be made by Apple right now that I can find is what people call the "DRM Chip" inside the earphones for the new third generation iPod Shuffle. Even then its just a possibility. Same goes for HP and possibly Dell, they don't seem to have any products that they produce themselves either. They all definitely don't produce any laptops. Seriously, I propose simply removing Manufacturer from the HP (laptops specifically), Dell or other pages that don't have any recent evidence of manufacturing anything. None of the layman will notice, and it will appease nearly-OCD sticklers for details like me. --24.193.80.232 (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

So the cnc machines in Apple's HQ, in the US are for what exactly? The question is, do they manufacture computers or not. Not if they make all of them, but if they do. And the answer is yes, they make prototypes, like any large engineering/design firm does. Therefore they are a (small scale) manufacturer of computers.--Terrillja _talk 06:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The logo

simularities of the logo's theme/design

I am the one who have made this post on this discussion, and I'd like to share with you the simularities more visually...

• 
  The Rainbow theme
• 
  Plain, could've wished they used it on the infobox of the the main article.

in addition to logo similarities, I've also come up with this...

• 
  The rainbow theme, the first Apple logo.
• 
  The plain logo, used in advertising and marketing, preceded after the rainbow theme.
• 
  The aqua theme.
• 
  The glass theme.

There I think it makes more sense now...

Thanks

original post

I assume that this logo has the same shape and design as this logo

• Image:Apple-logo.png
• Image:Apple Computer Logo.svg

end result: these two logos use the same shape and design, it's just they use a different color or theme

put that on your article and edit it. baby

70.181.106.241 (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: I propose this original post to be deleted. I am the one who made this post. I made this post.

Use of a monochrome logo is not new, it goes all the way back to Apple II and II keyboards, and indeed was on the first Mac keyboard, and included in the fonts. In fact the logo designer, Rob Janoff, included monochrome versions in his presentation to Jobs in 1976. http://www.neowin.net/news/main/03/09/27/apple-doin-the-logo-motion?sub=q_reply&cid=145279&num=5.2

The stripey one is very 70s, versus the clean cut 90s image of the monochrome. The impact on the iMac would not have been as great if it had been a huge 6 colour affair. But there is another reason: cost. All that paint costs money, and as it happens, the colours chosen do not print well in standard 4 colour CYMK printing, so all the early Apple stationery and manuals (at least the covers, internal they were usually black only) were in expensive custom 7 colour printing (6 logo colours plus black for the body text). I can't find an online reference to that, but it's in an Apple book, maybe one of Stephen Levy's, or even perhaps Sculley's Odyssey: from Pepsi to Apple. When Jobs came back, he simplified everything, from the cluttered Mac range down to four simple products: 2 consumer and 2 pro, 2 laptop and 2 desktop which helped take Apple from loss to profit (not that they were that much on their knees still having $1bn in cash, and biggest annual loss was only $250 million odd). The logo was no exception, and monochrome looked very cool against black on the Powerbook, and also on the iMac. The shape was always more important than the colours.

The PowerBook G3 Series aka Wallstreet released in April 1998 (I have one from new bought 4 days after the opening of the UK Apple Online store - I'd been looking at the 3400, and logged on to the store to discover brand new G3 models) is unique as the first Mac with a monochrome logo (on the lid) and as the last Mac with a 6 colour logo (on the inside above the keyboard on the bottom of the screen).

Tony Spencer (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Environmental Record needs more citations

Currently, The Enviromental Record section has only two websites for citation, apple.com and macobserver.com both which seem rather questionable and biased sources. We should seek out more unbiased third-party sources for this section. Also, the section sounds non-NPOV, but I want someone else to verify my concerns. Walksonwalls (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Similar to this i think the following section needs revising, and possibly deleting; at the very least the year in which the comments from 'Climate Counts' were made needs to be stated. By the use of the now dated term 'Macintosh' over 'Mac' it would appear that these comments were made some time ago, but we can't be sure.

"Climate Counts, a nonprofit organization dedicated to directing consumers toward the greenest companies, gave Macintosh an 11 points out of a possible 100 which places the company last among electronic corporations. Climate counts also labeled Macintosh with a "stuck icon," and the environmental group added that Macintosh was, "a choice to avoid for the climate conscious consumer."[99] Macintosh CEO Steve Jobs, stated to the environmentalists, "get out of the computer business (and) go save some whales."[98]</ref>" 90.53.5.167 (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: having looked at the ref given it would appear these comments were made in 2008 and also that most of this was simply copied and pasted from Information Week- i'm not sure how many words have to be exactly the same before there is some sort of copyright infringement on here, I hope someone more knowledgeable can sort this out. :) 90.53.5.167 (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

criticism section

Ok i know this particular topic has been done to death, but i believe its an important one, and at the moment is not well written, unbiased or clear.

Firstly, the whole criticism section lacks structure, almost unreadable with huge paragraphs, no sub headings etc

Now my overall opinion on this particular criticism article is that most criticisms relate to Apples products, and NOT Apple as a whole. Product criticisms such as this one:

"Longtime Apple consumers have claimed to observe a marked decline in the reliability and durability of the company's computing and iPod lines, particularly since Apple's migration to Intel processors in 2006...."

Not just that sentence but the whole entire paragraph is pointless and needs to be removed and placed in its respective appropriate sections, ipods, Macbook Pro's etc I think criticism needs to be limited to general statements which dont target specific products if its to REMAIN in the Apple.inc section.

One such general statement could be "Apple consumers have noted a decrease in the quality and reliability of Revision A Apple products." This encompasses everything,while not going into specifics which dont belong.

Its DEFINETLY a needed part of this article, but as it stands, its too product specific. What do people think. Adderz91 (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it probably rubbish. Macs are well known for longevity, many companies keeping them for 8 years. My PowerBook G3 Series is still serviceable after 10 years, even though it has been around the world on a 14 month world tour, has a cracked case, the batteries have long died, the screen dimmed a bit, and one power supply burnt out. We have yet to see computers from 2006 match that. Ask again in 8 years time. The odd rogue one is bound to hit people from time to time, and the longer you've been a Mac user, the more that will arrive one day. My PB G3 was nearly declared DOA because the floppy module was bad even though the laptop itself worked fine, because it was so new there were no spares for it, but the engineer checked and there were two floppy modules in country, so I didn't have to get a new one and redo 14 hours of transfering data and installing apps. But in 18 years of working freelance in hundreds of places with Macs, I've only ever encountered one that failed (Classic whose power supply went up in a puff of white smoke).

I think the perception is bias, both against Made in China (I have the last non-Intel iMac, the G5 iSight, working perfectly 2 and a half years later and Chinese and a 1st gen iPod Nano, also Made in China) and the Intel from the Motorola purists. This has often been said on the Apple web site discussion boards, people only complain, but as many point out, people never post good stuff, you just see the problems there, that's what they are for. It's unverified bias/opinion and should be excluded in its entirety unless it can be backed up with actual data.

Tony Spencer (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't noticed a decrease of anything in apple products, they only thing I've noticed is that who ever put the lock on this article is doing a TERRIBLE job of maintaining it (the article)! --68.102.118.231 (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There has been much speculation and suspicion of extreme over pricing of apple products. When one looks at the hard ware of an average macbook and does some research, it becomes clear that all the components don't warrant the price. While the preloaded OS does represent a percentage of the cost it still seems like too much of a cost. In another example the Microsoft Zune and iPod (while still a quality product) are similar function and while the Zune includes a wifi receiver, FM tuner, and larger screen the price of the iPod can exceed that of the Zune. The price of production of Apple products may in fact be higher then tech experts speculate, but the fact that an Apple notebook can cost over $1,000 while a PC notebook with similar (if not faster) hardware can be as low as $600 begs to differ. There are two possibilities;Apple is pricing their products too high or, for some reason, it costs more to produce a Mac due to unique hardware. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxtrot MGS (talk • contribs) 00:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

PRICE IS NOT LEGITIMATE CRITICISM Pricing is due to a number of factors, and should most definetly NOT be included in the criticism section. I dont see a "price" criticism section in the Audi page do you? Its the same, its just a car based of regular Volkswagon parts, why does it cost more. You have to take in design, included software etc. This topic has been done to death and is simply not criticism.

Im going to edit the criticism section soon. Delete criticism that is too related to its products. Apple Inc is about the Company, product criticism should remain on its respective product pages. Adderz91 (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Could someone also add to the criticism section information about Apple refusing users to shop "cross borders" within the European Union. As the European Union is a single market it is anticompetitive to restrict sales based on location and is illegal. Despite this a user in the UK for example cannot buy a track from the German iTunes store. In addition they have kept the prices higher in some countries (UK$DK) without good reason. See http://www.pcworld.com/article/130384/www.idgconnect.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delta-NC (talk • contribs) 00:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

But don't forget to add that Apple is forced to do so by he Music Industry.Lars T. (talk) 10:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there any proof of that, i.e. a source you can cite? The disparity in pricing is an important issue and should be mentioned in the article, especially as it was/is the subject of an EU investigation (http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jan2008/gb2008019_323239.htm?chan=globalbiz_europe+index+page_top+stories).Mojo-chan (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Apples claim that they where "forced into it" is like someone saying they robbed ECB because they had no food. It was an excuse, an attempt to shift the blame and the EC have said as much themselves. If this was truly the case then why did Apple not simply report the recoding industry to the European Commission in the first place? Apple are good at using their "consumer friendly" image dissipate blame, but in this case it wont wash. --Delta-NC (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to advise pcworld that they were wrong to say "It appears the Commission's main target is not Apple but the music companies and music rights agencies, which work on a national basis and give Apple very little choice but to offer national stores." Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add the following criticism of the criticism section: "Apple has received criticism for not notifying users of Mac OS X system vulnerabilities until a fix is released, [118] meaning users are vulnerable to known security flaws until the fix is released." This sentence is simply a non-sequitur. Regardless of whether Apple notifies consumers of vulnerabilities most users are still vulnerable to known security flaws! Candy (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeh but your less vulnerable when your told "don't go to that website" than if your not. Right? I don't think this section needs much review as it is fairly complete and I don't think its unfair. Your bound to get people who say "well my mac hasn't failed" and complain but you have to look beyond that. I've never had a virus but I know others have so I reckognise that viruses are a problem. 86.130.241.63 (talk) 08:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The "others" are Mac users? Exactly which "viruses are a problem"?Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume by Yeh you agree with me?? As to whether your (sic) less vulnerable when your (sic) told "don't go to that website" than if you are not, seems to be off the subject. Vulnerabilities come in different types and so do exploits. I think it is beyond the scope of this article to decide whether announcing a vulnerability is more or less dangerous than not announcing a vulnerability. Of course, if Apple come under critisism from reputable sources for doing this or not then then can be some justification for including this in this article. --Candy (talk) 15:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

How do you write a criticism section that isn't unbiased. 69.142.233.248 (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Correct this

In this sentence "Ultimately, all of this proved be too-little-too-late for Apple as their market share and stock prices continued to slide" you need to add a "to" in between "proved" and "be," I almost didn't even post this here as it is SO much more of a pain to do this and have you fix it, than allow us to do it. But whatever. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosmicwizard (talk • contribs) 22:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

the bit under software , it talks about .Mac, surely its time to update that to MobileMe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.186.110 (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Done, good call. I don't know why it took this long to fix. Joshuagross (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

environment and Criticism sections.

How do people feel about merging the Environmental record into the criticism section?

I have read the article, and i feel it is too product specific. If it it to be in the Apple Inc. section should it not affect Apple as a whole? If its merely one or two products, it should be in the individual product wiki pages. Also i dont think Steve Jobs letter should be included. Its his personal opinions, not facts, and is obviously going to be Pro Apple, not neutral.

Also its not terribly well sourced, and as the whole Apple article needs to be shortened, i think it would be an excellent section that should be removed.

All that needs to be really noted is that Greenpeace has protested against Apple, but Apple has been making grounds.

Environment Apples products have been criticized by such groups as Greenpeace[1], and ranked lowest on its "Green Electronics Guide" in December 2006. However it should be noted that since August 2006 to June 2008 Apple has risen from 2.7 to 4.6 (out of 10) with a high of 6 in December 2007.

I think that paragraph describes perfectly that Apple HAS been targeted on its Environment record, but it IS improving. There is no need to list every little thing Apple has done, because the score shows they have improved. Therefore i have effectively summarized a pointless rambling article into one or 2 sentences. I will change this soon unless someone can provide valid arguments against it.

You have done some pretty extensive editing of the article. I appreciate that you are discussing it here. However, editorial decisions are made by consensus. Extensive changes are usually discussed on the talk page and agreed to before they are made. BTW, some of the changes you made were not all that stellar. That is why I reverted. Sunray (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok well finally some people come here to discuss it. The problem was, especially with my criticism article above, was no one replied, no one with any sensible solutions. If you have a look at the current state of things, especially the criticism article, it is all over the place, its hardly readable. I want to discuss it, thats why i placed articles on here BEFORE i did anything. The problem was no one else cared to discuss it, im not going to wait 6 months before someone finally says something. I thank you for joining though.

Ok now do you agree that specific product criticisms should NOT be placed in the Apple Inc article? They have their respective wiki articles. The Apple Inc article should only contain information relating to Apple Inc in general, Macbook Pro criticism should stay on the Macbook Pro page should it not? Not only are they making this article excessively long, but they dont belong here.

OK next point, i know im terrible with citations. I dont know how to put them in properly, ive written down all the numbers, some articles shouldnt even be referenced. Im going to find out now how to put the citations as little numbers. Currently im putting them as whole words

I will add more information on what exactly Rev A products are. Adderz91 (talk) 06:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Adderz, had to resubmit this as it took me a while to write. Sorry, I'm not a one-edit kind of guy... especially not at 2:44 am.

"Apple has received criticism for not notifying users of system vulnerabilities until a fix is released,[104] meaning users are vulnerable to known security flaws until the fix is released. Longtime Apple consumers have claimed to observe a marked decline in the reliability and durability of the company's computing and iPod lines, particularly since Apple's migration to Intel processors in 2006.[105] The MacBook and MacBook Pro series of laptop computers in particular drew considerable criticism for problems associated with malfunctioning fans, surface discolouration, excessive heat production (up to 80 degrees celsius), and warping cases and batteries, particularly among "revision A" models. The Dublin office of the European Consumer Centre (ECC) consumer body has reported a rise in complaints about products made by Apple, many of which relate to an alleged design fault in some Apple laptops that causes the computer to break down after a year's usage, just outside the company's warranty period. ECC Dublin claims there is a problem with "built-in obsolescence" in some well-known Apple products such as laptops and iPods.[106] It is difficult to estimate the proportion of faults per unit shipped due to the naturally self-selecting tendency of the sample of a consumer base reporting faults.however, the existence of a now abandoned website (it's last update was June 2007)t, AppleDefects.com, dedicatedsolely to the discussion of faults with Apple's post-Intel transition product portfolio would appear to vindicate some of the claims being made.[107][108] In conjunction with the above, Apple has been criticised for treating early adopters of new hardware like "guinea pigs" - in effect using their experiences to iron out bugs in subsequent revisions. One website states that "The conventional wisdom is to not buy "Rev A" Apple hardware".[109] The iPhone was particularly subject to this accusation after the price of the phone was reduced by $200 just two months after its release, resulting in a flood of complaints to Apple.[110] Apple did however attempt to rectify complaints by offering $100 store credit to early iPhone customers. Apple has been accused of pressuring journalists to release their sources, with regards to leaked information about new Apple products, going as far as filing lawsuits against "John Does".[111] In particular, Apple fought a protracted battle against the Think Secret web site, eventually ending in a settlement that closed the web site but maintained the anonymity of its sources. Apple also has received criticism for its iPhone and iPod integration with iTunes for not facilitating creation of software to run and maintain those devices using different applications tools besides iTunes.[112] Similarly, Apple has not licensed its Fairplay DRM system to any other company, preventing users to listening to DRM protected music bought from sources other than the iTunes Store. By not allowing other companies or individuals to interoperate with its DRM system, Apple prevents competition and divides the market. For that reason, most other online music stores which use DRM use the Windows Media format, which is incompatible with Apple products.[citation needed] Apple has been criticized for possible sweatshop conditions in factories in China where contract manufacturers make its iPod.[113] Immediately after the allegations, Apple launched an extensive investigation and worked with their manufacturers to remove all sweatshop unacceptable conditions found.[114] Apple also has received criticism and two class-action lawsuits at both state and federal level about its iPhone product only being allowed service through a single mobile service provider in each country it has been released in (AT&T in the US, O2 in the UK), citing monopolistic and antitrust allegations between the two companies.[115] Software updates (maliciously or not) initially made unlocked iPhones unusable ("bricked"), however the most recent update revives the phone. Currently there is no official way to unlock an iPhone, and it cannot be bought unlocked for use on any network. Another common criticism of Apple is that its products are often not user serviceable, instead requiring they be returned to Apple for repairs and upgrades.[citation needed] Typical examples include the batteries in the iPod, iPhone and MacBook Air which are non-user replaceable, and the difficulty of installing simple upgrades (e.g. replacing the hard drive) in MacBook Pros. In the past it was possible for consumers to replace iPod batteries themselves following instructions on popular websites, but more recently Apple has opted to solder batteries to the casing, forcing owners to pay a premium to Apple for the service.

Rational (in order): 1. The section on the DRM alternative is misleading because it makes it seem that the other companies use windows DRM in retaliation to itunes, which doesn't make sense because they do not have the option to follow itunes. The fact about the incompatability of windows DRM is useful, but since there is no source i opted to drop it.
2. Grammatical issues
3. iphone issues are probably not relevant even though some criticized apple's decision to go with cingular (not at&t, which should probably be explained if it didn't make this section even more inappropriate). Also, this section references "current" conditions of the iphone, which is relative to the time of writing and not a good habit for wikipedia (unless the date is written). There is a way to jailbreak the iphone right now, and there will never be an "official" way
4. "forcing owners to pay a premium to apple for the service" is biased and can easily be concluded by the reader at any rate.

As for merging environmental concerns, i think that it should be merged under another heading, separately from the other criticisms, or not at all. At any rate, an ongoing criticism by environmentalists / Green Peace is extensive enough to warrant a division of some kind. No offense to any authors, i know that finding a balance when it comes to criticizing apple (or Microsoft for that matter) is touchy. Taftgod (talk) 07:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have checked all the other companies listed on the greenpeace "meter" and they each have seperate environment sections so it will have to stay, but i still believe it and the criticism section need to be cleaned up. If Bold does not fit in well with the style of wikipedia articles, how do people feel about bullet points?

Here are the reasons for the RED
Reference 105 is just a blogger on a rant, no factual information
Reference 106 is dead
Apple Defects wiki articles are updated regularly, therefore it has not been abandoned
Apple defects deals with Emacs and Powerbooks, which are not post Intel transition
Reference 109 is simply a forum, not factual AT ALL therefore that entire comment holds no validity. Plus that comment has an awfully negative tone and is never mentioned in all 3 references
I also have a problem with the comments after ECC Dublin bit (the one with the dead link). It says "alleged design fault in some Apple laptops that causes the computer to break down after a year's usage, just outside the company's warranty period." The problem i have with that is Apple offer the optional Applecare warranty, thus extending it further than one year. Plus it also alludes to the fact that this is a deliberate act by Apple, yet has no sources to say so which simply means is pure speculation. The word "alleged" proves my point.

I dont think i can rewrite any of this, most of it in my opinion, is just not factual at all.

I'm not a one edit type of guy either, which makes it really difficult sometimes.

Hey Adderz!

For the most part i completely agree with you. One point, I'd include the part about the danish but rewrite it to better reflect the subject of this article: http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/05/04/danes-prove-apple-ibook-g4-has-a-defect With all these edits in mind, here is the article:

Apple has received criticism for not notifying users of system vulnerabilities until a fix is released,[104] meaning users are vulnerable to known security flaws until the fix is released. Longtime Apple consumers have claimed to observe a marked decline in the reliability and durability of the company's computing and iPod lines, particularly since Apple's migration to Intel processors in 2006. The MacBook and MacBook Pro series of laptop computers in particular drew considerable criticism for problems associated with malfunctioning fans, surface discolouration, excessive heat production (up to 80 degrees celsius), and warping cases and batteries, particularly among "revision A" models. The Dublin office of the European Consumer Centre (ECC) consumer body has reported complaints about products made by Apple, many of which relate to an alleged design fault in some Apple laptops that causes the computer to break down after a certain number of computer restarts, usually outside of the company's warranty period. ECC Dublin claims there is a problem with a soldering connection in some well-known Apple products such as laptops and iPods. The existence of AppleDefects.com, a site dedicated solely to the discussion of faults within Apple's product portfolio, would appear to vindicate some of the claims being made.[107][108] Apple has been criticized for post-launch product changes. The iPhone was particularly subject to this criticism after the price of the phone was reduced by $200 just two months after its release, resulting in a flood of complaints to Apple.[110] Apple did however attempt to rectify complaints by offering $100 store credit to early iPhone customers. Apple has been accused of pressuring journalists to release their sources, with regards to leaked information about new Apple products, going as far as filing lawsuits against "John Does".[111] In particular, Apple fought a protracted battle against the Think Secret web site, eventually ending in a settlement that closed the web site but maintained the anonymity of its sources. Apple also has received criticism for its iPhone and iPod integration with iTunes for not facilitating creation of software to run and maintain those devices using different applications tools besides iTunes.[112]Similarly, Apple has not licensed its Fairplay DRM system to any other company, preventing users to listening to DRM protected music bought from sources other than the iTunes Store. By not allowing other companies or individuals to interoperate with its DRM system, Apple prevents competition and divides the market. iTunes does, however, play non-DRM protected music. Apple has been criticized for possible sweatshop conditions in factories in China where contract manufacturers make its iPod.[113] Immediately after the allegations, Apple launched an extensive investigation and worked with their manufacturers to remove all unacceptable conditions.[114] Another common criticism of Apple is that its products are often not user serviceable, instead requiring they be returned to Apple for repairs and upgrades.[citation needed] Typical examples include the batteries in the iPod, iPhone and MacBook Air which are non-user replaceable, and the difficulty of installing simple fixes (e.g. replacing the hard drive) in MacBook Pros. In the past it was possible for consumers to replace iPod batteries themselves following instructions on popular websites, but more recently Apple has opted to solder batteries to the casing.

Much improved, in my opinion. It's not ready to be dropped in, though, because the references are messed up. Also, the paragraph should be reworked to be more cohesive or there should be bullet points. Any criticism is welcome. Taftgod 76.197.230.127 (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, what do you think of this, anything missing, anything still not factual, well sourced etc? I have rewritten the ECC Dublin section and added the source you retrieved. I dont know if the refrence links are working atm, but when its readded to the main article they should work. The paragraph in red still needs sources, its all unsubstantiated. I also added another source for the "think secret" saga. If youd like to check that for appropriateness. More sources are still needed for the other paragraphs too. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/20/apple_closes_thinksecret/ I also dont like the iphone paragraph. It simply relates to ONE Apple product, where as the start of the paragraph alludes to mutiple Apple products. Shouldnt this then be on the iphone page?

• Apple has received criticism for not notifying users of system vulnerabilities until a fix is released, meaning users are vulnerable to known security flaws until the fix is released

• The MacBook and MacBook Pro series of laptop computers drew considerable criticism [citation needed] for problems associated with malfunctioning fans, surface discolouration, excessive heat production (up to 80 degrees celsius), and warping cases and batteries, particularly among "revision A" models.[citation needed]

• The Danish Consumer Complaints Board reported a fault with Apples ibook line and detailed Apples lackluster response to the issue . The ibook had a fault that caused the computer to break down after a certain number of computer restarts, usually outside of Apples standard one year warranty period. Websites such as AppleDefects.com have been set up detailing issues on Apples product portfolio.

• Apple has been criticized for post-launch product changes [citation needed]. The iPhone was particularly subject to this criticism after the price of the phone was reduced by $200 just two months after its release, resulting in a flood of complaints to Apple. Apple did however attempt to rectify complaints by offering $100 store credit to early iPhone customers.

• Apple has been accused of pressuring journalists to release their sources, with regards to leaked information about new Apple products, going as far as filing lawsuits against "John Does". In particular, Apple fought a protracted battle against the Think Secret web site, no sources were revealed and resulted in a "positive solution for both sides".

• Apple also has received criticism for its iPhone and iPod integration with iTunes for not facilitating creation of software to run and maintain those devices using different applications tools besides iTunes.Similarly, Apple has not licensed its Fairplay DRM system to any other company, preventing users from listening to DRM protected music bought from sources other than the iTunes Store. By not allowing other companies or individuals to interoperate with its DRM system, Apple prevents competition and divides the market. iTunes does, however, play non-DRM protected music.

• Apple has been criticized for possible sweatshop conditions in factories in China where contract manufacturers make its iPod. Immediately after the allegations, Apple launched an extensive investigation and worked with their manufacturers to remove all unacceptable conditions.

• Another common criticism of Apple is that its products are often not user serviceable, instead requiring they be returned to Apple for repairs and upgrades.[citation needed] Typical examples include the batteries in the iPod, iPhone and MacBook Air which are non-user replaceable, and the difficulty of installing simple fixes (e.g. replacing the hard drive) in MacBook Pros. In the past it was possible for consumers to replace iPod batteries themselves following instructions on popular websites, but more recently Apple has opted to solder batteries to the casing. [citation needed]

Adderz91 (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph about decreased product quality seems opinionated to me. Even if there are sources on the matter it would be hard to prove with increasingly complicated technology. The early adopter abuse seems noteworthy but another example would be helpful. I think that what we have now is necessary for the time being. We need someone with better apple experience to point out another abusive launch. Otherwise the issue is specific to the iphone and thereby not suitable for this article. The bullet-points are great, the revisions are great. I'd say just put it in the official article. Thanks 76.197.238.164 (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

OK it has been added, with a few more sources it should be quite fine. Im a rather active Apple supporter, and know quite alot about its history, but as far as i am aware, they have not "substantially changed their products after launch" apart from the iphone. Im not sure "product change is the correct wording" it should be "price changes". I will change the wording to price changes, but that paragraph still needs other examples of when they have done this...i just cant think of any.

The Powerbook Aluminum had Rev A issues, ill have to find some sources backing it up though.Adderz91 (talk) 05:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I wrote product changes because I'm pretty sure they've been accused of changing the components that go into the product after launch without making notice of it. I'm not sure, though, so price changes is better. I'll be moving on. Thanks 76.197.200.144 (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Environment and Criticism sections...continued

Moving onto the Environment section

Here is the original version:

Apple has a track record of being an environmentally conscious company. Four areas of particular attention are product and packaging design, responsible manufacturing, energy efficiency, and recycling. Design dictates the quantity of raw materials, type and recyclability of materials, energy consumption required for manufacturing and use, and the ease of recycling. Like other flat panel displays and Apple's displays eliminate more than two pounds of lead, consume up to 80% less energy in sleep mode. Apple plans to completely eliminate the use of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) in its products, and arsenic in the glass of flat-panel displays by the end of 2008.[88] The EPA rates Apple Computer highest amongst producers of notebook computers, and fairly well compared to producers of desktop computers and LCD displays.[89] Since 2004, Greenpeace has confronted Apple for not setting a timeline to remove PVC and BFRs, which still exist in recent products such as the iPod nano and MacBook; and for not promoting a global end-of-life take back plan for Apple hardware (although it does within Europe and Japan where this is required by law); as well as for not having reusable components.[90] As of December 2006, Greenpeace ranked Apple last out of ten electronics companies in dealing with toxic substances in their products, mostly due to a lack of relevant documentation and timelines.[91] On May 2, 2007, Steve Jobs released an open letter named A Greener Apple,[92] responding to some of the allegations. In his letter, Jobs stated: In one environmental group’s recent scorecard, Dell, HP and Lenovo all scored higher than Apple because of their plans (or “plans for releasing plans” in the case of HP). Apple claims to be ahead of all of these companies in eliminating toxic chemicals from its products.[92] A study in January 2006 by the United States Environmental Protection Agency found that Apple's hardware compares favorably with that of its major competitors on environmental friendliness.[93] On June 5, 2007, Apple updated their MacBook Pro product line. This hardware update is environmentally notable because LEDs fully replaced cold cathode lamps in the 15 inch MacBook Pro's display backlighting,[94] a first for Apple laptops (the iPod has had LED backlighting since its creation in 2001). This ameliorates Apple's environmental stance, as cold cathode lamps contain mercury, whereas LEDs do not. In addition to the 2007 update, in 2008 Apple released its first MacBook Pro with arsenic free LCD.[95] At the 2007 Macworld Expo, environmentalists such as Greenpeace presented a critique of Apple. Rick Hind, the legislative director of Greenpeace's toxics campaign, said, "(The company) is getting greener, but not green enough." Hind commented further, "The Macbook Air has less toxic PVC plastic and less toxic BFRs, but it could have zero and that would make Apple an eco-leader."[96] Climate Counts, a nonprofit organization dedicated to directing consumers toward the greenest companies, gave Macintosh an 11 points out of a possible 100 which places the company last among electronic corporations. Climate counts also labeled Macintosh with a "stuck icon," and the environmental group added that Macintosh was, "a choice to avoid for the climate conscious consumer."[97] On the other hand, Macintosh CEO Steve Jobs, stated to the environmentalists, "get out of the computer business (and) go save some whales."[96]

And here is my proposed rewrite, if youd like to alter it, criticize it, obviously that will be fine. I have deleted the first paragraph as i feel it does not have a neutral point of view. The first sentence says it all "Apple has a track record of being an environmentally conscious company.". The source was taken from Apples own website and therefore not neutral. I have also deleted the excerpt from "The greener Apple" as, again, it is not neutral and taken from Apples own website. Also i dont think it can hold much validty because it states "One environments scorecard" but fails to mention that source. I have changed some paragraphs around. I feel its necessary to group together the criticisms AGAINST Apple first and THEN detail what they have done or "said" in response. I have also added more sources for the Greenpeace paragraph. Just so you know, the Greenpeace scores arent finished yet

Also something fun to note, two paragraphs BOTH reference the same source, its simply worded differently. If you read the original one above, the bits in red are about the SAME study by the EPA.

Greenpeace, an environmental organization, have confronted Apple on various environmental issues including not promoting a global end-of-life take back plan (Other than Europe and Japan where it is requires by law), non reusable components and toxins within the iphone hardware. . Since 2003 they have campaigned against Apple on areas including their chemical policies, in particular the inclusion of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and brominated flame retardants (BFR's). On 2nd May 2007 Steve Jobs released a report (A Greener Apple) detailing that they plan to completely eliminate PVC and BFR's by the end of 2008. with Greenpeace responding to the report that same day.

Greenpeace also run a "Guide to Greener Electronics", released once every 3 months, in which Apple feature. The First Edition, released in August 2006 place Apple fourth last at 2.7 out of ten . In subsequent 3 month editions Apple have scored 2.7 , 2.7 , 5.3 , 4.1, 6

At the 2007 Macworld Expo, Greenpeace presented a critique of Apple. Rick Hind, the legislative director of Greenpeace's toxics campaign, said, "(The company) is getting greener, but not green enough." Hind commented further, "The Macbook Air has less toxic PVC plastic and less toxic BFRs, but it could have zero and that would make Apple an eco-leader."[96]

Climate Counts, a nonprofit organization dedicated to directing consumers toward the greenest companies, gave Macintosh an 11 points out of a possible 100 which places the company last among electronic corporations. Climate counts also labeled Macintosh with a "stuck icon," and the environmental group added that Macintosh was, "a choice to avoid for the climate conscious consumer."[97] On the other hand, Macintosh CEO Steve Jobs, stated to the environmentalists, "get out of the computer business (and) go save some whales."[96]

The United States Environmental Protection Agency rates Apple Computer highest amongst producers of notebook computers, and fairly well compared to producers of desktop computers and LCD displays.[89] [93]

In 2007 [94] and 2008 [95], Apple updated the Macbook Pro's backlighting and LCD screens, updating from cold cathode lamps to mercury-free LED's and arsenic free LCD's respectively.

Adderz91 (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit needed

Not quite sure why I can't make this edit myself since I'm a registered user and logged in, but anyway...

Missing from the Apple Fellows list is Al Alcorn. I know this first-hand since I worked with Al while at Apple. Numerous other sources for this including Al's Wikipedia entry, Googling "Al Alcorn Apple Fellow", and the Wired article at http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.10/atari.html.

Done Joshuagross (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Apple's Future

There has been talk from Apple CEO of a gaming console to show up in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RupertApple (talk • contribs) 04:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia isnt a rumour site, once it become officially announced and preferably released, then it will be added to the article. Adderz91 (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but, at the same time, there should be a mention of it once it becomes widespread enough, even if its just a small section. KP317 22:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course the iPhone and iPod touch are now one of the most widely distributed gaming consoles

The iPhone is a Gaming Console

With one billion apps soon to be downloaded from the Apple iPhone Store it would be interesting to get some credible analysis of where Apple is in the gaming market either by application share or console share. Until then though, we shouldn't be speculating even if there are rumo(u)rs or implications. --Candy (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Corporate Affairs

I just attempted to improve the Corporate Affairs intro and would appreciate comments and help. It needs to be reorganized and more concise, and it still has several unsourced claims. Joshuagross (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Slogans

"think different" should be mentioned as the most important and recognized slogan, don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.47.179.145 (talk) 05:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

According to List of Apple Inc. slogans, the more recent slogan is "It just works", and there's a link to the list of slogans in the article. Joshuagross (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No other slogan identifies Apple better than "Think different.", more than 16 years of this slogan can explain why.

Is "It just works" an Apple slogan (or the name of the advertising campaign as that page claims? I just added a [citation needed], 'cause the only people using it as a slogan seem to be Apple haters with an obsession for the "Mac vs. PC" ads.Lars T. (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I looked yesterday and couldn't find any articles mentioning either of them. Maybe I didn't look hard enough, but we just need to find articles to cite about the slogans before making any more changes. Joshuagross (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I think 16 years of "Think different." slongan are enough to consider it a very important slogan to report, much more the first "Byte into an Apple" one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.47.179.145 (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It hasn't been 16 years, it was 5 years before they discontinued it in 2002, but I think it's notable because of the effect it had on the company according to Think Different. Joshuagross (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

History

Is there any reason that most or all of the History section shouldn't be moved to History_of_Apple? Joshuagross (talk) 07:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, every company has history on there main page. Microsoft does, Dell does, Asus does etc It is only generalized history information, so should stay. It COULD be shortened perhaps. If youd like to pick sections you think are unnecessary, we could discuss them here and come to a consensus. Joshua, would you like to help me overhaul this article, youve made some good changed, and i think the Apple article needs an overhaul, its too long in parts, and some parts are missing. I think we need to take cues from the Microsoft article. Its been a featured article so is well written etc. What do you think. Adderz91 (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Good changes so far. When I'm around later I'll start trimming it down too. I agree, we can mimic the Microsoft article. It definitely needs a lot of trimming, no need to duplicate all the info on he dedicated history page. Joshuagross (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

OK im going to remove bits of the history section that arent necessary. Im going to write what i removed here. Im going to write the things its about, WHY i removed it and the bit i removed underneath. Any bits you remove please add them here so people can easily see what you have removed. Adderz91

Apple I - too much techy information about it

The user was required to provide two different AC input voltages (the manual recommended specific transformers), to wire an ASCII keyboard (not provided with the computer) to a DIP connector (providing logic inverter and alpha lock chips in some cases), and to wire the video output pins to a monitor or to an RF modulator if a TV set was used.

About Tandy TRS 80 - This is about Apple, not how many Radio Shack stores tandys were in.

whose sales were helped by the large number of Radio Shack stores.

Commodore - Too much info on the commodore

Commodore later regained the lead for a while with the Commodore 64 in the mid 80s, the best selling specific model of computer to date.

uncited pointless comment

The initial conquest of education environments was critical to Apple's acceptance in the home where the earliest purchases of computers by parents was in support of children's continued learning experience.[citation needed]

Next - too much info about next and its not cited.

Although powerful, NeXT computers never caught on with buyers, due in part to their high purchase price.

Removed piece of information relating to Newton and Quicktake in the "golden age" bit. It was already mentioned in the next section. They were also released in 93..NOT in 89-91 so it didnt belong in that section anyway. Adderz91

Something else to be mindful of - if text is removed from the main article, we should make sure (if it's relevant) that it's on the history page. Joshuagross (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed the current information from "the early years" section:

Jobs approached a local computer store, The Byte Shop, which ordered fifty units and paid US$500 for each unit after much persuasion. He then ordered components from Cramer Electronics, a national electronic parts distributor. Using a variety of methods, including borrowing space from friends and family and selling various items including a Volkswagen Type 2 bus, Jobs managed to secure the parts needed while Wozniak and Ronald Wayne assembled the Apple I.

VisiCalc was first released on Apple II because Commodore and Tandy computers were tied up in VisiCalc's software development office due to their popularity. VisiCalc's association with Apple was thus pure happenstance, not a technical decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuagross (talk • contribs) 05:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This information is covered in other articles. Joshuagross (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Other removals:

Wozniak says he came up with the price because he liked repeating digits.

Even after VisiCalc, Apple II did not surpass the Tandy TRS-80, whose sales were helped by the large number of Radio Shack stores. However, VisiCalc put Apple ahead of Commodore's PET in the U.S..

The Apple III was shipped without a cooling fan, which resulted in thousands of units recalled due to overheating.

Irrelevant. Joshuagross (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with the first section now, and I'm improving the second section. Removed text:

1984 used an unnamed heroine to represent the coming of the Macintosh (indicated by her white tank top with a Picasso-style picture of Apple’s Macintosh computer on it) as a means of saving humanity from "conformity" (Big Brother).

These images were an allusion to George Orwell's noted novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, which described a dystopian future ruled by a televised "Big Brother."

This is irrelevant to Apple and should be on different pages. Joshuagross (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't the origins of Apple's name (as a tribute to the Beatles) mentioned in the article? The reference to Alan's Turing's apple is bizarre and obviously false. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97064,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.114.31 (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Illustration on the Timeline of Apple Products section

Can the size of that illustration on the Timeline of Apple Products section be increased, so that the text is about the same size as the text in the article? It's difficult to read for the visually impaired, but need not be. Yes. I am visually impaired.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Or, maybe it can have a little box in the right hand bottom corner which can be clicked to expand the illustration to full width of the article. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Are there any timeline boxes on Wikipedia that operate how you describe? I think all the timelines act the same way. I think it's something built into wikipedia that the developers would have to fix. Not out of the question, but I don't think it's something that can (or should) be changed on just this page. Joshuagross (talk) 04:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the timeline. It was already linked to in the "current hardware" section which seemed fitting. When you click on that link it IS bigger. So problem solved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adderz91 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Joshuagross (talk) 06:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Gotta tell ya, I don't agree with removing the timeline. It is a graphical representation of the history of the company and belongs on this page as an illustration. Many articles feature these, because they quickly communicate information and to eliminate it based on the fact a link already exists, or for those who are vision impaired is simply ridiculous, no offense. It would be like not printing pie charts in the USA Today because some of their readers won't be able to read them, or because there is a reference to see more detail on page 15 in the article. Timeline's going back until a greater consensus is reached. FYI, the timeline text increases like the rest of the text on a page using your browsers text "zooming" option. --Mac128 (talk) 06:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Good article status

I want to renominate this article for good article status within the next few days, so I'd appreciate advice before I do so. The To-do list only has four items left, the first three of which I think can be ignored. The only thing left should be adding info about Pystar, right? Joshuagross (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

No i dont think Psytar should be added.

There have been previous companies who have stolen Apples property wether it be OSX or designs. Two stole the imac G3 design. They have not been mentioned and i feel its not nessesary. It should be added to the seperate "litigation" page.

Everything needs to be better sourced. Its one of the worst jobs...finding sources argh. - unsigned comment by User:Adderz91

Why shouldn't Pystar be added, and what badly needs sourcing now? Joshuagross (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Its just not that important, stealing Apples intellectual property has been done before, Pystar arent the first, so i dont think it should be placed on this page, but the separate litigation page. I cant think of any off the top of my head but some sections are totally void of sources. Ill have to have a read through it again. Ok i just did and "Apple TV" "Corp Affairs" "Logos" and "Software" all need sources. Adderz91 (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. I agree about Pystar, especially since the situation isn't resolved yet. If anything important happens, it should be in the article. Otherwise, litigation page. Regarding citations, you can go ahead and add cites to the article. I'll try to add some over the next few days too. Joshuagross (talk) 05:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Will add those sources later tonight, will have to look up Apples spec pages etc etc, sourcing is my least favourite part :-P but i would like this to become a featured article.

I hadn't done any sourcing (any) until a few weeks ago - it's very easy. And, very fun once you get used to it :) My goal is also FA, once we get to GA we can work on that. Thanks for the help. Joshuagross (talk) 06:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

removed sentence

I removed the following sentence from the section "Corporate affairs":

A PS/2 port was replaced with the ADB, the Parallel port was replaced with a largely identical but proprietary SCSI port and DVI with the Apple Display Connector<ref>http://lawlor.cs.uaf.edu/~olawlor/ref/mac_ports/index.html</ref>

Not only is the ADB older than PS/2 (which also is less versatile because not a bus) but comparing the parallel port with SCSI is even sillier. Lars T. (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I was simply going off what the source gave me. Read it. I'm more than happy for you to delete that sentence though, i wasnt happy with it myself.Adderz91 (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Ronald Wayne

This individual is listed as a founder of Apple, but the "history of Apple" books do not mention him. What's the deal? George415 (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The book citation given (Apple Confidential: The Real Story of Apple Computer, Inc.) specifically mentions Ronald Wayne. Markkula is mentioned in the next paragraph as providing financing later on. Alanraywiki (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

THE LOGO

Something needs to be done with the Logo. The current one is almost NEVER seen on any current Mac products. No startup logos, no documentation and no products.

I think, although the current logo is pretty, its not representative of the current company.

I switched it to the black one, but it almost hurt your eyes to look at it. I think we need to find the grey version. What do people think? Adderz91 (talk) 17:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This page appears to have been vandalized:

"Apple Inc., (NASDAQ: AAPL) formerly Apple Computer, Inc., is an American multinational corporation with a focus on designing and manufacturing useless consumer electronics and software products for overly high prices. "

Is there anything to be done about this? Aleceiffel1066 (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the vandalism and will try to keep an eye on the page.--Terrillja (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning "Apple threatens lawsuit against New York City for copyright infringement of Apple logo"?

http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/16883/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.253.68 (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

New citation for the origin of the logo

www.zlok.net I Invented … the Apple Logo 29-Mar-09

"Name: Rob Janoff Age: 57 Invention: The Apple Logo"

Coolest citation: "What thanks did Janoff, now the owner of his own Chicago-based graphic design firm, get for all his hard work? “Not even a holiday card.”"

[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvlx (talk • contribs) 08:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

If we were to cite that, I'd want a citation from the original magazine publication, not what claims to be transcription, in a location that would fail our standards for reliable sources.

Image copyright problem with File:IPod Touch 2.0.png

The image File:IPod Touch 2.0.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

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

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Naming Conventions for iPod

This article (and nearly every other article in Wikipedia that touches on this subject) viiolates Apple's trademark naming conventions, as regards its iPod models. Apple is very clear about capitalization, e.g., "iPod touch"; not "iPod Touch"; iPod nano, not iPod Nano, etc. I can start fixing these, but have to be very cautious about what I change, as changing capitalization breaks links to filenames. I'll start fixing these, but I want to bring it up publically, as I expect, otherwise, some more "senior" editor might take it upon him/herself to go around behind me and "fix" my corrections. This is not a trivial matter, and is not a matter of Wikipedia guidelines or naming conventions. As things stand, by not acknowledging Apple's policies in the naming of its products, Wikipedia is guilty of spreading misinformation. Since Wikipedia is used as a usage standard, it's important to us to get this right. rowley (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see the Wikipedia Manual of Style for trademarks. If you disagree with this guideline, take it up at either WT:MOSTM or WT:MOS. _TalkIslander 21:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It is wrong! Someone please fix.

The last sentence in the Criticism section says "Apple products - particularly its computers - are criticized as being overpriced in comparison to competitor products of similar specification". That is not what the reference says. It says Apple's 'high end' products are often deemed overpriced . There is no mention of comparisons with competitor products. Someone please fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.165.220 (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed to to reflect that the pro computers have been seen as overpriced.--Terrillja _talk 21:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for trying Terrillja, but it is little better. The reference does not specify that "Apple products" are criticised, which is what the article says. "Apple products" include the iPod, iPhone, desktop macs etc. The reference says -- "The depressed economy hurt iPhone and Mac desktop sales but high-end products that are often deemed as overpriced, didn't falter amid decreased consumer spending and a gloomy economy outlook." It clearly specifies high-end products are often deemed overpriced, but no way in the world does it say Apple products per se are deemed overpriced. Furthermore, nowhere does it mention comparison with competitor products. To be accurate and NPOV, that sentence should say no more than "Apple's higher end "pro" computers are often criticised as being overpriced." It is blatant POV to include anything that is not stated in the reference.

I think the quote needs to be struck out. It is an opinion and the writer fails to produce any evidence to support this. Therefore, I would say that it was an unreliable source at best. Even as it stands though, it is a strange source for the criticisms section! --Candy (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I phone is back but for a lower price so is the 2G network

I heard on the news that they are bring back the i phone with the 2G to sell for a lower priceTj1224 (talk) 13:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)