Jump to content

Talk:Apple supply chain

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2001:569:7d81:3000:9ced:1d34:64d7:603c (talk) at 08:29, 17 December 2020 (→MacBook: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This page seems to be a criticism of Apple, not an article about them

This article seems to be somewhat biased. I don't know much about this field, so I won't do anything myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MathematicsIsFun (talk • contribs) 05:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. It's only a list of real facts. And many of them are not in the list.. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.73.135 (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, this article suffers from a lack of neutrality, is poorly written and is really unclear. It reads as very one sided, and several of the sources seems to be interpreted in the worst light (against Apple). For instance the case of F.lux seems like a minor disagreement. And the "App store compensation conflict" is just a random lawsuit against Apple? Why is it even in the article? If these things are ment to be taken seriously, it needs to be fleshed out with who specifically criticized Apple because of this, WHAT was criticized and WHY. These things seems really insignificant and ill-placed compared to things like the sweatshop ordeal. For now, the article reads as a whole general random lump of criticism, where big well placed cases of criticism is mixed with a single mans grief. This makes it really difficult for the reader to understand what is appropriate criticism and what is just "hate". Things don't necessarily needs to be deleted, but the scale and magnitude should be clearly stated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.251.234.36 (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above comments are still the case with this article. The first paragraph lists a large number of grievances, which is then followed by... a second bullet list of grievances so vague that they could be relevant to any large business. As an example of the lack of neutrality, the discussion of Foxconn labor practices uses emotional language that makes it look like Apple is the sole offender, and Foxconn the innocent party. And likewise, the discussion of Apple stealing innovation instead of inventing, includes references to Google's claims -- again in positive terms for Google -- that Apple continually copies their innovations, completely ignoring the irony of Android, along with Google's long history of copying of innovation. This is how the tech industry works, and is not a specific criticism of Apple. Other claims have also been framed as Apple's evil intentions, instead of what is often just their conformance to the same laws and regulatory statutes as most other tech companies. Just because the author disagrees with the law, doesn't mean that Apple is acting in bad faith. The entire article reads like a checklist for Apple haters, with minimal balance of where Apple made good or came out well on many of these claims. Richard BF (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Criticism of Apple Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Criticism of Apple Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apple sued after bottlenecking Qualcomm chips in iPhone 7

I thought this contribution was needed, considering the fact that what Apple has done may not seem good, but their reasoning is justifiable.

"Apple has been criticized on bottlenecking Qualcomm chips in iPhone 7 model to be on par with Intel chips. Qualcomm sued Apple for the act as it showed a false display of the power of Qualcomm's chips.[1] Apple claimed they wanted their phones to be streamlined across all devices. Apple later countersued as Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, said they had no choice but to sue Qualcomm for unwarranted royalties on things it did not have, i.e. fingerprint reader and camera. Recent reports even say that Apple will now exclusively use Intel chips in their phones, and not Qualcomm’s, due the recent events.[2]"

Tike22 (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/11/15255318/qualcomm-sues-apple-iphone-countersue-intel
  2. ^ https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/5/16973232/iphone-2018-intel-apple-modem-kgi-report

Planned Obsolescence

This is meant as an addition to the existing subcategory since I believe it is not totally up-to-date.

"Apple has also been heavily criticized and under investigation and lawsuits for slowing down older iPhone models. Benchmarks from individual surfaced when iPhones (such as the 6 and 6s) were tested when on the previous update compared to the latest iOS 11 update and found dramatic decreases in performance on updated models. Apple claims that only in the latest iOS 11 update, it slowed down iPhone 6, 6+, 6s, 6s+, SE, and 7 models to ensure the battery life stayed consistent to how the owners have been accustomed too. Backlash came towards Apple as many claimed they had no right to slow down their phones without their consent and many thought Apple did this nudged those people on older phones to buy their latest products that conveniently released with the update (the iPhone 8 and iPhone X).[1] They later sent out a statement saying they will send out an update to allow customers to choose whether they want their smartphones to be slowed or perform the best it can at all times, but in until that happens they will issue out a batery replacement program reducing the price to replace batteries of affected phones. The company is also under investigation over the incident by the US Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Apple is also dealing with lawsuits from individuals in New York, Israel, and even France is looking into Apple if the violated their laws.[2][3][4]"

Tike22 (talk) 02:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/28/16827248/apple-iphone-battery-replacement-price-slow-down-apology
  2. ^ https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/30/16951328/apple-iphone-battery-slow-down-software-update-department-of-justice-sec-investigation-probe
  3. ^ https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/12/28/16826530/apple-sued-iphone-battery-slowdown-france-planned-obsolescence-illegal
  4. ^ https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2017/12/27/16822736/apple-battery-slowdown-iphone-6-6s-se-lawsuit

Why not go hard

There's no hard criticism of general practice by Apple (those done to all of their customers) and that bugs me. How does the free encyclopedia work if there is no hard criticism on a page CALLED criticism? I guess the only place to put this hard criticism would be here on the discuss page and somebody else for the sake of humanity could put it on the main page for me.

On top of the allegations of immoralities and illegalities and failure of management denying consumers warranty, some claim that Apple is simply a criminal gang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.112.240.232 (talk) 16:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"App£e" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect App£e should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 25#App£e until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MacBook

The very recent MacBooks have no USB-A hubs, SD card slot & integrated SuperDrive.
--2001:569:7D81:3000:9CED:1D34:64D7:603C (talk) 08:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apple_supply_chain&oldid=994738899"