Jump to content

Talk:Apple Inc./Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

A "snapshot" of its own data center (moved section)

I brought the following section out of the page because it's an arguably specific info in an already quite long page. Maybe there's a better place for this? BTW, what's Fried?--Chealer 01:32, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)

Fried refers to CNet reporter Ina Fried, I believe this piece in particular: Apple Drinks Its Own Juice.--jsnell 2005, Jun 1

On January 8, 2004 at the Macworld Conference & Expo in San Francisco, Apple revealed information about its own internal data center with which it runs the company. The following is a partial list of products it used as revealed during the 2004 Expo, with each product followed by its applications, according to D. Rally, who at that time was Apple's senior IT director (as cited in Fried, 2004). It should be noted that such information could change constantly, and judging from Apple's past information-disclosure practices (Fried, 2004), it is possible that a similar public revelation will never occur again.

  • Apple Xserve servers and Apple Xserve RAID systems
    • Serving web pages, applications, and other data
    • Data storage
    • Authentication and security
  • Servers from Sun Microsystems
    • "Powering" its email systems
  • Servers running the IBM AIX operating system
  • Microsoft Office (for the Mac platform)
  • PeopleSoft 8
    • Customer relationship management
  • Software from i2
    • Forecasting
  • Products and/or services from SAP (which Apple has used for a long time)
    • Warranty and Service Management - SAP R/3

Furthermore, according to Fried (2004), Apple "[used] its own products for most desktop tasks, including e-mail, instant messaging and Web browsing." Presumably, these products were Apple Mail, iChat, and Safari, respectively.

For data storage, Apple over the years has used servers from EMC, then IBM, and by 2005, it plans to use mostly Xserve servers.

Ambiguity about "award-winning releases"

Nothing important, but what releases does the article talk about with "This reversed the earlier trend within Microsoft that resulted in poor Mac versions of their software and resulted in several award-winning releases." Releases of Mac OS?--Chealer 01:52, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)

Releases of MS Office for the Mac.--RicardoC 01:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Marketshare

I've pulled this couple of sentences.

By 2003 Apple's share of the personal computer market had dwindled to around 5%. In 2004, Apple lost second place in marketshare around the world (estimated 3%) to Linux which will rised to control 5.1% of the desktop market, worldwide.

Does anyone have a reliable source for any of these numbers? AlistairMcMillan 14:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Apple_Computer article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Apple_Computer}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:30, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Carl Sagan

The article on Carl Sagan doesn't include information on the Sagan/Apple disagreement anymore

Mac OS X and "stability, reliabilty and security"

From the article "In 2001, Apple introduced Mac OS X, an operating system based on NeXT's NeXTstep, that finally marries the stability, reliability and security of Unix with the ease of use of the Macintosh interface in an OS targeted at professionals and consumers alike."

Isn’t the above statement to much POV? I type this on a Powerbook, but its stability, reliability, security and ease of use is still a POV, not a fact. Of course you can support that POV with good arguments, i.e. statistics of how often a OS X computer is attacked compared with how often a Windows machine is attacked, or semi-professional studies of people preferences on ease of use, but it is still POV. If nobody has any objections, I will soon change the above statement. M4c 15:35, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have chagned this, said Apple Claims "Stability, Reliability and Security", also added that there is lots of third party evidence to back the point up Eraserhead1 15:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)Eraserhead1

Recent history

The recent history section is incomplete, and pretty random on the things it does cover. So I've made it my mission to clean it up and improve the coverage. I have split it in two, 1984-1997 and 1998-present, because they really are two eras. I've also added a paragraph on the Apple IIc and Apple IIgs.

There's lots more to do. The major problem is that it's disjointed: it jumps from one random little thing to another, rather than working through the important trends. I'll continue working on it when I have the time. But in the meantime, please help if you can. —RadRafe 09:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Progress report: '84-'97 improves ever more, but we still have to add a paragraph about what a royal mess Apple's product line and strategy were in the early to mid '90s, the Spindler-Amelio era. I figure that once we've done that, we've finished the essentials of the section. Again, help is appreciated. —RadRafe | t 19:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Apple naming

OK, I know this subject has been beaten to death, but I was looking at the article Apple Bonjour, and the naming for the article is just wrong. The phrase "apple bonjour" does not appear anywhere as a phrase on apple's site [1]. If anything, it shows up as "Apple - Bonjour" in the title or "Apple's Bonjour". If we were to follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions, the title would be Bonjour (protocol). Similar reasoning stands to change the names for Apple Automator, Apple Darwin, Apple Dashboard and Apple Spotlight. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:23, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think you are welcome to rename articles according to the naming conventions. I will go ahead moves. -- Taku 23:53, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Apple logo myth?

I have heard someone talking about the apple logo (the apple with a bite out of it) being based on the great mathemetician, code breaker and pioneer in computing, Alan Turing, commiting suicide by poisoning and apple and then eating it. Is this true? Any comments greatly appreciated.

Well, you are free to associate the logo with it in your mind, but I'm not certain Rob Janoff (who designed it) would even have heard of Turing. A lot of works are open to a wide range of interpretations that their creators didn't even intend, and I think this is the case with Apple's logo. I have read that Janoff took the bite out of the apple so that it wouldn't be mistaken for a tomato. That may be all there is to it. —RadRafe
And the colors were supposed to be arranged like a rainbow, but Steve Jobs rearranged them.
They are arranged like a rainbow still. Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Violet... excluding Indigo. Unless you mean that they are offset towards the middle.
Before I saw the original logotype with Newton in it I also thought that this was a bizarre homage to Turing. The fact is, Turing has a lot more to do with computers than Newton, and in particular the missing bite, which would be the one Turing took out of it to poison himself right before dying, fits so much better with Turing than with Newton. (Turing's apple is also real, as opposed to Newton's.) All in all I think it is a much better explanation than the real one. :-) Just the fact apparently many people have had this theory independently makes it interesting. Kronocide 15:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I have mailed Rob Janoff and asked him about the connection with Alan Turing and here is a snippet of his reply:
The Alan Turing story is fascinating, but I'm afraid it is just a legend. I didn't know anything about Alan Turing and his contribution to computer science or his gayness or his suicide. There are some interesting coincidences, however, in that I am a gay man but my design pre-dated the rainbow flag, which has become one of the international gay symbols. The colors in the logo were designed to give the logo a more fun and approachable image plus it represented the color capabilities of the Apple 2 computer which at the time far exceeded the other home/hobby computers out there.

Opteron first?

A user put in the article about how the AMD Opteron was actually the first 64 bit processor avalible in personal machines... I was under the impression that the Opteron at that time was limited to the server segment. Comments please? --CoolFox 15:53, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

True, Opteron was only for the servers, and even in that, it was not the first 64-bit chip. And, even if Opterons were for personal machines, G5 was shipped before Opteron (Although the Opteron name was announced first). SO, G5 is the first ever 64-bit processsor on a personal machine, not Opteron. That line should be changed

Wow... Intel inside an Apple.

Well, it happend folks... hell has practically frozen over. Apple officialy stated in today's keynote that they will begin using Intel x86 chips as soon as early next year. Personaly, I find this a very bi-latteral move on Apple's part. It can help them immensly by wedging into the Microsoft Windows market, but it leaves many hardcore mac fans somewhat betrayed. I also question the furtherablity of the Pentium 4... hopefully Apple will be using a different chip that Intel is producing by then. Pentium M [Yona], anyone? Comments please! --CoolFox 19:33, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

    • ::Shakes thermostat:: Yep, pretty close to freezing. Let's see, deep throat revealed, check. Apple using intel processors, check. Hmm, I am just waiting on the opening of a lemondae stand at area 51. --Ctrl buildtalk 15px| 19:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I would prefer that they use IA-64 instead of x86. x86 is outdated and no longer has any room for extension. Itanium is flexible enough to be used not only in workstations and servers, but for mobiles as well (Itanium 2's low power variants are getting better). Intel will benefit because of the design win from Apple, and Apple will benefit by getting a superior design that can be produced in huge quantities. With Itanium, Apple will dominate both the desktop and server markets in price/performance. Also, they avoid the x86 and CISC world, and go beyond their old RISC chips. C'mon, Apple, please use IA-64 instead! EPIC beats CISC and RISC. Think different! Think in the long term! Otherwise, Apple will change again in 2015!
If Apple used the IA-64, they might have a hard time with overhead, just like with the G4 fiassco we had in the late ninties... the Itanium is not a high yeild processor, and it is a very pricey chip to put in mainstream equipment, but I agree that the Itanium is a very powerful, very flexible platform to use. If the bugs can be worked out, by all means, I'm sure that Apple will migrate to that chip. Besides, Apple said nothing about using the Pentium line exclusively, and I haven't seen much release as to if they are going to use the Pentium at all, but it is the most likely the course that Apple will take. I have read several reports that Apple will NOT use the Prescott [late Pentium 4] architecture found in the aluminum development boxes that are currently being distributed (thank goodness), they will be using a new line of "beefcaked" Pentium M based chips [yes, the Pentium M, Intel's Centrino processor], including the dual core chips [Pentium D] are currently in the development pipeline. Coupled with HyperThreading, dual core chips would have a total of 4 logical processors, that is if Intel allows Apple to put 2 processors in their machines. Anyway, if Apple is going to use the newer souped up "M", then this expains why Steve was talking about performance per watt, as the Pentium M is extremely effecient in that respect, unlike the incredilby hot running, inefficient Prescott, that can run even hotter thatn a G5. Futhermore, Intel has announced that they will migrate all of their chips [sans the Celeron] to a 64 bit achitecture, so there is little reason to worry that Apple will back themselfs into a corner. But for saftey's sake, I really hope they don't. Peace folks. --CoolFox 18:39, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

It's only good IF they put OSX on x86... Otherwise it's going to be the same ole 5% market share for Apple with a bunch of angry software devs.--66.25.63.245 15:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They will. --Ihope127 18:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Deleted mission statement

I deleted the mission statement ("to make the power of computing available and accessible to everyone") because it is no longer current. The new one is here, but I would suggest we leave it out of the article -- or at least the lead -- because it would be redundant. Bbpen 21:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Notable Litigation

I split out the Litigation into its own section, leaving everything that had been in "Apple as a Corporation" intact. I added two of the most notable cases in Apple legal history, Apple v. Franklin and Apple v. Microsoft, both of which have extensive articles but were not mentioned in the main Apple article. I also added the current iPod battery class-action settlement.

I feel that the two domain-squatting cases are beneath notice for encyclopedic content. Apple has sued or been sued thousands of times, and these two cybersquatting cases don't affect consumers, didn't set precedents, and didn't materially affect the operations or reputation of the firm. I recommend they be removed. cde 05:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The section on the Does/ThinkSecret cases is horribly out of date and factually inaccurate (the judge specifically mentioned in the Does case that the question of whether journalists are bloggers is not at issue). Will update if/when I get time, but if anyone wants to do it before me, feel free. [User:ianbetteridge|ianbetteridge]]

The date for the latest Apple v. Apple litigation has been set for March 27, 2006 in the UK. The source of this information is (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/06/apple_vs_apple_trial_date/). Article edited. Basseq 23:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Intel Apple

I'm removing the Wiki at the top of this article. Intel Apple is not an article, it is a poorly written non-encyclopedic stub which should not have been made into a separate Wikipedia entry, especially with a title like that. Furthermore, that Apple will adopt Intel chips is already stated in the Apple Computer article in more depth and more proper English than the contents of that stub. Ramallite (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

A proposal about the History section

I propose to split off the bulk of the sections on Apple's history into a main article, History of Apple Computer, and leave summaries in their place. That may get Apple Computer down to preferred article size. In fact, I'm planning a major copyedit of the history sections, but I want to get some approval first, to make sure that I won't be disrupting something inconsiderately. —RadRafe 00:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not a key editor, so I couldn't answer that. However, if you want people to read your comment, give it a title that descibes it; "A proposal" is too general. Not like it's a bad thing though, but I still expanded the title a bit. I think you'll get more responses now :) HereToHelp 22:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The Apple Computer Sidebar

Apple Computer, Inc.
Company typePublic (NASDAQ: AAPL)
IndustryComputer hardware and software
FoundedCalifornia (April 1, 1976)
HeadquartersCupertino, California, USA
Key people
Steve Jobs, CEO
Timothy D. Cook, COO
Peter Oppenheimer, CFO
Philip W. Schiller, SVP Marketing
Jonathan Ive, VP Industrial Design
ProductsMac OS X
iMac
Power Mac
PowerBook
iBook
iPod
Apple Cinema Display
Mac mini
Xserve
AirPort
QuickTime
iLife
iTunes
iWork
Mighty Mouse
Revenue$8.279 billion USD ($2.1B FY 2004)
Number of employees
13,426 (2004)
Websitewww.apple.com

I'm not sure exactly what it's called, but I mean the thing on the left at the beginning of the article. This is currently only on this page, should it be used for all the Apple products? I think that it's a good idea, providing basic info and all the links needed to get to all the other major Apple pages. Anyone else have a veiw?

It could just be extra info someone added on. Microsoft has a similar one as well. Kenny M.

Then why waste that effort? I think it should be on all the Apple pages.

Random Sidebar stuff: Note that Jon Rubenstein is retiring as of 3/31/06, being replaced by Tony Fadell. I'd suggest limiting the products on the sidebar, because they seem to be fairly arbitrary. Note that Final Cut Pro is missing from the list, but Aperture, which Apple hasn't really even shipped yet, is listed there.
What relevance do Rubenstein/Fadell have regarding the sidebar as displayed here? Is there something somewhere else that I have missed? Moriori 08:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm just mentioning it now so that the main Apple page gets updated when Rubenstein officially steps down.Boomeringue 08:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
You're talking about the Infobox Company template. Please do not put that thing on all the Apple product pages---you will probably be reverted. The Infobox Company template is controversial enough as is just on company pages! Its content changes practically every other month as editors fight over what the fields in it should be. --Coolcaesar 22:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Apple Computer HQ picture

Hello everyone:

I took a picture of the Apple Computer HQ in Cupertino a few months ago. It was shown as a thumbnail in the history section, but went off to another article along with most of the history section. Does anyone object to having it also appear in this article?

--Coolcaesar 22:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

microsoft ownership

you guys should insert something about how microsoft use to own a small percentage of apple just to dispel the rumours that microsoft own half of apple--Whywhywhy 14:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Apple-owned properties

JUST because a company has a different name does not sever it from Apple. FileMaker is an umbilical of Apple, just as Claris was. For clarification: Apple MADE Claris, Apple controls them; the company makes the decisions for them. The ONLY reason a seperate name exists is to enhance brand recognition. For all intents and purpose, just as MacWrite and Hypercard were still considered Apple products, so is Filemaker. This is why, when *Apple* dissolved Claris, Apple *retained all the rights to Filemaker*, and Apple *created* FileMaker corp to clarify its position in that market. For more information, one is free to consult the Wiki regarding it. But, in conclusion, to say that Filemaker, just like all the previous Claris products, isn't an Apple creation is just absurd. Next thing you know, we'll hear someone say that Hypercard wasn't an Apple product either... - Doom127

Xcode?

Should Xcode be listed in the Products section? It is included with Mac OS X. Macintosh User 13:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

IDrive-Comments

While this article was nominated on WP:IDRIVE the following suggestions were made there:

Comments
  • Oh please, this company gave us the Apple II, the Apple Macintosh and most recently the iPod and you're telling me this article is a bunch of lists and far from featured status!? — Wackymacs 19:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm an appleoholic and know a whole lot about the company. Still, I think it is adequately covered in Wikipedia. There are dozens if not hundreds of related articles, so even if the main article on the corporation isn't that meaty, it's not a great problem. I think Apple Computer is in the top 50 when it comes to articles on corporations. That said, the article has weaknesses. I don't think it's encyclopedic to only list recent products and on the whole it's too focused on the "second coming of Steve Jobs" era. — David Remahl 21:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm an Appleholic too - a family member knows more about the Apple II series than just about any other living person - but I disagree that the company is adequately covered in this piece. There's only one brief mention of Sculley, and Amelio's tenure was Bad with a capital 'B' - both periods need more attention. The article depends too much on lists, and deserves more prose. I'm in. ddlamb 01:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I most definitely believe this article has potential and should become a Featured Article, however at the moment it is just one almighty cram of information. MyNameIsNotBob 20:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Small market share, but big industry influence. Many innovations were created or made popular by Apple, and the culture (and history) of the company have a huge effect on its actions, even today. -JustinWick 17:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
  • For all you Appleholics there is now a WikiProject Macintosh. This article is the WikiProject's current focus; but we'd like this outside help, too, because the WikiProject is new and only has a few members. --HereToHelp (talk) 01:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This article could definitely use some good handiwork and improvement. It should undoubtedly be capable of holding featured article status some day. Pylon 19:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Since this vote is now between two topics in the same field, Apple computer and CPU, my question is: in what ways is this topic more important to computing than the other? I appreciate that Apple has its share of fanboys (hence the new WikiProject), but let's keep things in perspective. -Silence 19:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
    • If it's relevance you're concerned with, I'd have to agree with the implication that a fundamental component of digital computers for the past 60+ years is probably more significant than a ~2 decade old company. However, on the flip side, I don't think you'd have much work to do if you elected CPU; since it's very close to FA quality as is, IMO. -- uberpenguin 23:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism section needs refs

The Criticism section includes a lot of opinions expressed in passive voice and/or without specific cites: "Apple was criticized for ... Others criticize the company by suggesting ... Some even regard the company as ... Jobs is cited for criticism ... Apple was also criticized for". Most of these criticism are common knowledge in the computer industry, but the section could use some refs to substantiate and demonstrate notability. --Muchness 18:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Excised "Diversity" paragraph

This subsection was removed for being un-encyclopedic and specious:

Diversity
 Many lawsuits have been filed against Apple Computer for its treatment of racial minorities as well as its hiring (and termination) practices against Blacks, Middle Easterners, South Asians, and East Asians. In one of the largest racial discrimination lawsuits in its history, Apple was sued for discriminating against African-Americans for $40 million[1]. In 2000, Jesse Jackson singled out Apple as a "negative example" of racial tolerance due to its failure to appoint African Americans or Latinos to the board. [2] Apple has still not made such an appointment, claiming that they instead appoint individuals to their board of directors based on qualification instead of ethnicity. On October 25th, 2005, Apple saluted the late Rosa Parks, heroine of the civil rights movement in USA, with a tribute on its website. The company had used Parks' image in its 1997 "Think Different" campaign.

One African-American employee filed a lawsuit in 2001 (as noted above), and a lesbian fired from her job filed one in May 2005. That doesn't qualify as "many lawsuits." Both dealt with particular managers' behaviors, not some sort of corporate culture. Both were handled by the same lawyer, Waukeen Q. McCoy, who specializes in squeezing money out of companies; both were for exactly the same amount ($40 million), and make the exact same claim ("One of the largest discrimination lawsuits!) Both appear to have never gone to trial. Ironically, Apple is rated #6 of the top ten "gay friendly" companies by Business Reform Magazine. And the claim that the company somehow discriminates against "Blacks, Middle Easterners, South Asians, and East Asians" is rather laughable when one considers that Steve Jobs' biological father is Syrian. —LeFlyman 23:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Things to tweak

I added the house address and geocode that Steve Wozniak and party built the first Apple I. 70.125.43.99 12:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, for the first time I've actually read the article all the way through. Two things I note. First, the criticisms section needs attribution; "many people say" is not exactly sourceable or verifiable. Second, the style is very choppy, with lots of short disconnected sentences, perhaps the consequence of years of tweaking. If people are agreeable, I could make a pass and make things flow a bit more, at the risk of making longer and more complicated sentences. Since there is a separate history article, I imagine the history here could be pruned down further. The space freed up could then be used for some corporate culture and philosophy (easier to verify than one might think; for instance, the liberal lean of company mgmt is supported by board presence/visibility of Al Gore and overwhelming tilt of political contributions to Dems). Stan 02:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This article contains too much unverifiable opinion. Someone please correct it.

The above unsigned comment appears to have been made by user:MathStatWoman after a series of reverts. Please see the discussion on her talk page. The thing is, reporting an opinion is not POV, as stating that opinion would be. WP:NPOV allows for this. I agree some sources would help, but in some cases it's hard to find a definitive source - some opinions are widely held and there are mentions all over the web - others are based on things people have said at various times - how can you verify that though? As a Mac developer I've been to many Apple dev seminars and training courses, I talk to a lot of Mac guys that work for Apple - they say things, over time you get a feel for certain opinions... you know those opinions are out there, and widely held, but they are just a sort of folklore. That doesn't mean they are any less valid. Aren't you an Apple guy Stan? So you probably know they are true... ;-) Graham 12:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a little unfair, but I'm getting a bit fed up with the silly edit war that has been enjoined by user:MathStatWoman. Here's her attempt at "removing subjectivity and adding fact". Check the history - it's a scream!

However, this is because Macs are indeed superior in the following ways, supported by testing and benchmarks: pixels are nearly invisible so graphics are better and look smoother, causing Macs to be preferred by many artists and scientists, the operating system is user-friendly and crashes rarely, much less frequently than other operating systems.

Apple Article

This article seems to be rather opinionated. Not neutral, i.e. not following NPOV. Needs some tweaking as Stan Shebs stated above. DeveloperFrom1983 12:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Some free advice. Stick to one user name, sockpuppets are generally viewed with deep suspicion. Logging out and making edits "anonymously" also doesn't usually work. As you can see, creating another ID and using it to try and lend weight to a particular argument is also tranparently obvious. Admins can see who you are you know! You're new and haven't worked this out yet, it's OK. Also, mistakes are OK too, but do try and get a feel for what wikipedia is and is not, and what POV really means. Reporting POV is not itself POV. Edit wars are futile and waste a lot of time and effort, and ultimately, can't be won by anybody - consensus will always prevail. If you plan to make a contribution, and I hope you will, your credibility will be much enhanced if you stick to your original login, and defend yourself with integrity. Graham 12:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
DeveloperFrom1983, what is your reasoning behind the change to the way Apple's stock is referenced in the first sentence? (Nasdaq: AAPL vs. AAPL(NASDAQ))... Additionally, it seems to me that the latter is unnecessary and a superfluous article. PaulC/T+ 21:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Use the first one; it's a template and that means it's standardized. I'm not opposed to moving this down to a "sales" sub section (another "corporate affairs" section?) if anyone bothers to get enough data to justify the section.--HereToHelp (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, that text is pretty poor, so if it's included in any form, it will need significant clean-up. Personally I feel that if the stock value is of interest to a reader, they can very quickly look it up on a much more appropriate, and dynamic, source than this. This text doesn't even mention any dates - if you go back far enough you can find much bigger than 6x gains.. and 'hextupled'? ...is that a real word? Also, stock splits are nothing unusual, explaining at length what one is here is redundant. Graham 23:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Columbia SEAS.GIF

Image:Columbia SEAS.GIF is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ Wired News: Apple Hit With Racial Lawsuit
  2. ^ lowendmac.com Musings: Racism
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apple_Inc./Archive_2&oldid=1048516183"