Talk:Apple Inc./Archive 8

Apple Inc.
	\|150px\|The Apple Logo
Company type	Public (Nasdaq: AAPL, LSE: 0HDZ, FWB: APC)
Industry	Computer hardware · Computer software Consumer electronics · Digital distribution
Founded	Cupertino, California, United States (April 1, 1976); as Apple Computer, Inc.
Founder	Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, Ronald Wayne
Headquarters	1 Infinite Loop, Cupertino, California, USA
Number of locations	251 (Q1 FY 2009)
Area served	Worldwide; United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, Australia, Switzerland, Italy, Germany, and China
Key people	Steve Jobs (CEO, Chairman, and Co-founder) Tim Cook (COO) Peter Oppenheimer (CFO) Phil Schiller (SVP Marketing) Jonathan Ive (SVP Industrial Design) Mark Papermaster (SVP Device Engineering) Ron Johnson (SVP Retail) Sina Tamaddon (SVP Applications) Bertrand Serlet (SVP Software Engineering) Scott Forstall (SVP iPhone Software)
Products	Mac (Pro, Mini · iMac · MacBook, Air, Pro · Xserve) iPhone, iPod (Shuffle, Nano, Classic, Touch) Apple TV, Cinema Display, AirPort, Time Capsule Mac OS X (Server · iPhone OS), iLife, iWork, Aperture, Final Cut Studio, Logic Studio, Shake, MobileMe
Services	Stores (retail, online, iTunes, App), MobileMe
Revenue	US$32.48 billion (FY 2008)
Operating income	$ 6.28 billion (FY 2008, 19.32% operating margin)
Net income	$ 4.83 billion (FY 2008, 14.88% profit margin)
AUM	$24.49 billion (FY 2008, 1.74 quick ratio)
Total assets	$39.57 billion (FY 2008, 12.21% ROA)
Total equity	$21.03 billion (FY 2008, 22.97% ROE)
Number of employees	35,000 (Q1 FY 2009)
Subsidiaries	Braeburn Capital, FileMaker Inc.
Website	Apple.com

This is an archive of past discussions about Apple Inc.. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

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)

So now you claim that Apple never made a single computer in Cork. There were pictures (accidently) published of Computers being build there 2 years ago. Lars T. (talk) 15:40, 22 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.htmlhttp://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)

Apple is not a manufacturer just because they posses prototypes. You're moving the goalposts and trying to redefine words. It's obvious we mean a manufacturer in that it produces products that they sell to consumers. Otherwise we'd have to call any home inventor a "manufacturer". It's obvious those Apple prototypes are not for sale, and when it comes to the tech field, working prototypes often use parts or are made to order by the OEM/ODM as anyone doing business in China (like Apple) well knows as we can derive from the iPhone prototypes. There is no shame in OEM/ODM-ing all your products. There's only shame when you fake it, which Apple hasn't, don't know why Wikipedia has to do it for them. Again, read the top quotes from the 10k. It's divided into 3 parts.

Final Assembly (which is not manufacturing): Ireland, External Vendors in California, South Korea, China

Supply and Manufacture (this is what we want to see): US, China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, Singapore. (NOTE THAT APPLE'S IRELAND PLANT IS NOT LISTED UNDER MANUFACTURING!)

Sole-Sourced third party vendors in China: perform final assembly of virtually all of Apple's portable products.

We've already established that the Ireland plant is the only place where Apple may be manufacturing anything. Even Apple doesn't admit they do.--24.193.80.232 (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for proving your competence in the matter - there is no "DRM chip" in the iPhone phones. Stop blowing second hand smoke.Lars T. (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

also no chip inside any Mac or PC outside the US, is made in the US. some of them are designed in the US but the US government is a bit funny when it comes to exporting chips.

i have been looking for years now to get any form of Intel/IBM/Moto/AMD/VIA/nvidia/ati chip to come from the US but they are all made in India/Germany/china/Malaysia but haven't found a US one since 1994 "when they magically disappeared" Markthemac (talk) 05:53, 27 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

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)

There is this tale, promoted by Sadie Plant in her book _Zeroes and Ones_, that the bitten apple logo was a reference to the way Alan Turing committed suicide, by eating a bite from an apple that was prepared with cyanide. The rainbow-colored logo was assumed to be a reference to the rainbow flag of the gay community, as Alan Turing was gay himself. Unfortunately for that tale, the rainbow Apple logo was designed by Rob Janoff in 1977, replacing the previous logo graphic of Isaac Newton under an apple tree. The rainbow flag was designed later, by Gilbert Baker, in 1978. Since this tale comes up a lot, is it worth debunking in the article? See also I Invented … the Apple Logo, Matt Rodbard, Sync Magazine.

64.103.25.233 (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should "debunk" misinformation in Wikipedia, I think we should present the info, AKA the facts. man with one red shoe 20:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I see it's already detailed on the Rob Janoff page anyway.

64.103.25.233 (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Environmental Record needs more citations

There is a substantial amount of Apple environmental activity stretching as far back as 1990 (see 'A history of Sound Practice' on apple.com/environment) that should be added to this section on Apple's environmental 'track record.' The whole section wreaks of Greenpeace editing and construction. Some more level-headed perspective would be an improvement here. User:Ecoscience

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. —Precedingunsigned 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 —Precedingunsigned 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 by93.96.186.110 (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, dedicated~~solely 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, ^[1] 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^[2]. 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. ^[3]^[4]

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.^[5] 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".^[6]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".^[7]

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.^[8]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.^[9] Immediately after the allegations, Apple launched an extensive investigation and worked with their manufacturers to remove all unacceptable conditions.^[10]

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.^[11]^[12]. 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)^[13]. 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.^[14] with Greenpeace responding to the report that same day. ^[15]

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^[16] . In subsequent 3 month editions Apple have scored 2.7 ^[17], 2.7^[18], 5.3^[19], 4.1, 6^[20]

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 byRupertApple (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 by79.47.179.145 (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.^{[citation needed]}

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.^[21]

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 byJoshuagross (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 by79.74.114.31 (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 andDVI 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)

Could somebody download Inkscape and make the SVG a 50% gray? 76.247.45.241 (talk) 00:43, 26 August 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 byGvlx (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 therequirements 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. _Talk Islander 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 by222.152.165.220 (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)

i highly doubt it, as the 2G component price has actually gone up vs 3g "and future chipsets are only going to become cheaper, instead of more expensive"Markthemac (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Labor Practices section removal

This section is totally unnessesary.

All allegations were proven false.

Its like me saying Apple are a 6 legged monster with macs for eyes and poops ipods. Obviously it would be proven false. So why does it have its own section??

I vote for the removal of it, or at least move it down to a "lesser" bullet point in the criticism section. Adderz91 (talk) 03:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It could be shortened & integrated into the Criticism section, but I dont agree that its unnecessary or irrelevant. At least two of the sources are major media. [3]. However, it looks like someone went ahead and removed the whole Labor Practices section. Fhue (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes if the allegations were proven to be true then it deserves its own section but as it stands it does not. Making it a bullet point in the Criticism section would be a happy medium i think.58.110.36.34 (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Where does Apple manufacture?

One of the most basic things you can tell someone about a company is, without judgment, where the company makes their products. Someone (who works for Apple?) keeps deleting that information from the article. If someone wants to add, "they also manufacture in [list of countries], that would be fine. The primary manufacturing location for Apple, dwarfing all other locations, is China, which is a significant bit of information that belongs in the article.

The issue is not notability but placement in the lead, which is undue weight and a disruption. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 09:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

How about a deal - add the same fact to the Dell article, if it stays in for a week, you can add it here. Lars T. (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Just looked at the Dell article. It does list Dell's manufacturing locations, including China, but omitting Ireland (My wife and I have identical Dell Latitudes, except mine is assembled in Malaysia and hers in Ireland!). It does lists the location in a separate section and not in the lead. Personally, I think it's lead type information, but if it's at least in the article that's good. On a related subject, the Apple article says, "an American multinational corporation." It's either a single nationality or a multi-nationality, but not both. If the idea is to stress its American roots, how about, "American-based multinational..." or "multinational corporation headquartered in California?" The Dell article gets this right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.134.172 (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Unlike Apple, Dell closed its plant in Ireland. Now go away. Lars T. (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about Apple Inc.. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Super wide infobox?

I don't think that the infobox should be so wide... it's practically taking up more space that the content. Does anyone else feel this way? — cosmotron ( talk | contribs ) 03:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see. Hmmm... I probably have an explanation for all of this. One, you probably have a relatively low resolution screen. Two, there is so much information that it somehow stretches the infobox sideways instead of extending it down. If you have a sandbox, you could put it there and fiddle with the formatting. If not, just ask me and I'll put it in mine. Then we can collaborate and see what can be done. I looked at the raw format of the infobox (by pressing the edit button of course) and all of the letters made my head swim. Regards, Airplaneman ^talk 03:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha, I actually tried messing with it before I made this post and wasn't successful with actually changing anything. I thought the {{no wrap}} template around certain fields was the culprit, but after removing them... nothing changed. Also, since you sort of asked, my resolution is 1360x768. I'll continue messing with it in a sandbox and try to come up with a solution. (P.S. Is it possible for there to be too much info in an infobox?) — cosmotron ( talk | contribs ) 03:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a "me too". I have a nice wide screen and a good resolution, but for me the infobox takes up the whole width of the screen (minus the left-hand column menu). The article only begins after the infobox. Completely borked. I'll move the infobox here so that the article will be in a readable state while someone looks for the problem. I'm using Firefox, FWIW. Gronky (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, looks like it's fixed now on the page! Airplaneman ^talk 16:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Origin of name

Does anybody know how the company got "apple" in its name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.69.189.25 (talk) 08:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There are several theories, but none backed up by reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Correction

In the iPod section, there is an uncapitalized Apple. Would someone please capitalize it? 98.230.214.136 (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. I decided to rephrase the sentence to avoid recentism and redundancy (who else would introduce an iPod nano?). HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 14:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Who's Brian Bagnall?

The Wikipedia Apple (computers) page attributes an opinion to Brian Bagnall, but there's no indication of who he is or why his opinion matters. The article used to link to the now-deleted Brian Bagnall page, I guess. I think "(the author of several computer books for McGraw-Hill)" should be added to xhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_computers, but I'm unable to edit the page at this time.

An author, [4]. We should probably take out the bad link, though. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 19:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

A factual error on The Apple Inc. entry

The error is that Apple Inc. was established in Silicon Valley, it is the southern part of the San Francisco Bay Area in Northern California, United States. And not in Cupertino, California. Y.harrif (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Source, please. I'm not an Apple history buff, but as far as I know, they moved to Cupertino a bit later. Airplaneman ^talk 22:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you're right:). It was fixed. Airplaneman ^talk 22:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Magic Mouse

In the Mac and accessories section, there's no mention about the Magic Mouse. Would someone please add it in? 69.254.153.143 (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure will! Thanks for bringing it up :). Airplaneman ^talk 14:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Xerox granted Apple engineers three days of access to the anted Apple engineers three days of access to the PARC facilities in return for the option to buy 100,000 share of apple at the pre-IPO price of $10 a share. apple doesn't do market research

Prof256 (talk) 00:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Done, per AGF. Thank you for you contribution to Wikipedia. Intelligentsium 02:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Question of THE infront of products

Apple being Apple has always been keen to be a little different. and it is worth pointing out that they don't use THE infront of their product titles. as a result, in the intro for example:

The company's best-known hardware products include Macintosh computers, iPod, and iPhone

Would be better suited as from their Guided Tour videos amongst other sources they talk about how iPhone is the worlds most bla bla bla not THE iPhone.

Its up for discussion but I think its a valid point. thanks.

81.86.243.148 (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Needs fixing. Grammar error.

Under the picture of the Apple 1, the grammar is incorrect.

"The Apple I, Apple's first product. Sold as an assembled circuit board, it lacked basic features such as a keyboard, monitor, and case. The owner of this unit added a keyboard and a wooden case." Can you be more specific please? HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

iPod Touch 16 gB

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

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

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

Speculation about the logo

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

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

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

Expected Products/ Speculated Products Section?

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism section

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

Update to Environmental Record

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

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

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

Aperture

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

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

Add MacBook

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

The Mac 128 is NOT the first Macintosh

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

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

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

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

Semi protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lawsuits point

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Auto archive

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

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

Revise Histroy Section Names?

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

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

Update actual numbers of open Apple Stores

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

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

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

The number of stores can be found on Apple Store.

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

Actual financial numbers

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

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

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

Edit request from Amazadh Kristeopolous, 23 May 2010

The Request was accepted and executed.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

{{editsemiprotected}} Please replace: Although Apple's market share in computers has grown, it remains far behind ||competitor Microsoft||, with only about 8 percent of desktops and laptops in the U.S.^[26] with: ...far behind ||competitors using Microsoft Windows||, with ... Amazadh Kristeopolous (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Done -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

On censorship

wikipedia is supposed to be 'non censored'. if there are notable articles from notable sources about a notable problem at a notable company, and you fail to include it, then wikipedia loses credibility as a neutral source of accurate information and it loses credibility as an encyclopedia. Decora (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

IE: Foxconn suicides, the foxconn employee who claimed he was beaten and interrogated because he lost an iphone prototype, the conditions at Foxconn plants, etc etc etc. Articles in dozens of mainstream newspapers, the world over, about these alleged incidents. The Apple, Inc. article should at least make mention of the massive manufacturing facilities that produce just about every modern apple product that has been sold in the last few years. It would make a crude mockery of an 'Encyclopedic article' to have a situation where you deem the de-facto manufacturing wing of an entire company (nay, sector of the economy) to be unworthy of more than a passing mention in the articles on the company. Decora (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Logo is no longer correct

Apple's current logo is just a black apple. The article logo does not match See the logos below, they are all:

dated 2010
color documents
show the apple logo in black over a white background

Mineralè (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. GoldRenet (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. See the logo on the top left of apple.com, for example, which includes a gradient and lighting "streak" like the one we are currently using in the article. The "black" Apple logo is actually a glyph included in many (all?) default Mac fonts:  (if you are using a Mac, at least; otherwise, see here). Apple has used the simple black logo glyph in many documents for at least as long as I can remember, dating back even to the time of the multicoloured "rainbow" Apple logo. All this to say, the current logo we're using in the article has not yet been deprecated, and I figure, if we're looking for an objective standard, the logo in the top left of their site is a good guide for us. jæs (talk) 08:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It's common in advertising + marketing to use a simplified logo in print, especially for documents in black & white -- which explains the OP's five examples (all PDFs). Apple in particular uses various logos on a wide range of products and collateral, so sticking with the website version seems reasonable. PrBeacon (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you give a link for a current logo? 71.204.28.184 (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, even in the video ads the current logo does not match the article, (see below) Mineralè (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

See videos that show the apple logo -- it's the monochrome one still: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1wbQdVezio#t=1m40s Mineralè (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I have changed the logo to the grey monochrome version. This matches the logo shown in the iPhone 4 commercials as well as most reent print media Mineralè (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not the current logo which appears at apple.com. And unless you can cite a reliable secondary source that says that Apple's logo is not the one on their website, then it shouldn't be changed. I don't think Youtube videos are enough to override the primary source. Print materials show b&w or monochrome because, as I said, its standard to simplify a logo for print. I'm reverting your change. -PrBeacon (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The logo on the apple website is monochrome as well, see: http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/#design-video (you have to go to the end of the video). The logo embedded in the navigation bar has just been styled to look like the banner -- all the logos in the print media, and videos are monochrome. Mineralè (talk) 04:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

And using your views is original research. Please find a reliable source to support this.--Terrillja _talk 05:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely per WP:IAR this can be included? He's provided a lot of evidence. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Apple logo references

Guys for the love of god don't reverse this for a second time, I've included below screenshots from various sources to prove that the current apple logo is monochrome. Mineralè (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

But the apple logo on the web page is glossy: Yes but it's embedded in a navigation ribbon. All sources below are monochrome:

Favicon is monochrome (not glassy)
Logo from Apple Corporate Marketing Jobs is monochrome
Logo on apple business cards is monochrome
Logo at the end of the iphone features video is monochrome (white on black)
Logo at the end of the iphone facetime video is monochrome (black on white)
Logo on retail stores is monochrome (white on grey)
Logo on all print documents is either white, grey or black
- http://images.apple.com/jobs/global/images/photo_positions_marketing.gif Logo from marketing page: http://www.apple.com/jobs/us/corporate.html (web page)
- http://www.apple.com/iphone/design/#design-video (video apple logo appears at end)
- http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Apple_1_Infinite_Loop.JPG -- apple logo on their campus sign —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.28.184 (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- http://www.apple.com/r/store/government/reseller.html monochrome apple logo on a color web page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mineralè (talk • contribs) 05:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- http://images.apple.com/supplierresponsibility/pdf/SR_2010_Progress_Report.pdf (print)
- http://javworld.com/JAVBlog/comments.php?id=A128_0_1_0_C Apple business card —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mineralè (talk • contribs) 05:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- http://www.etiole.com/2009/10/unboxing-apples-ioffer-getting-hired-by-apple/ Apple offer letter (print)
- http://devimages.apple.com/softwarelicensing/agreements/pdf/OpenCL_Guidelines_Final.pdf
- http://developer.apple.com/iPhone/library/documentation/AddressBook/Reference/ABGroupRef_iPhoneOS/ABGroupRef_iPhoneOS.pdf
- http://developer.apple.com/softwarelicensing/agreements/pdf/mac_logo_gdlns.pdf
- http://4.bp.blogspot.com/__fbYTVkL1ag/Sc4bCOBLCgI/AAAAAAAAAgY/sb7C0XggtaE/s400/IWork09_box.png shrink wrapped apple product with logo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.28.184 (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- http://developer.apple.com/iphone/library/DOCUMENTATION/StoreKit/Reference/SKPaymentTransactionObserver_Protocol/SKPaymentTransactionObserver_Protocol.pdf
- http://imgur.com/fTB1Y.png http://imgur.com/B13Bc.png http://imgur.com/fbfzl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mineralè (talk • contribs) 04:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Screen shot 2010-06-11 at 12.36.09 AM.png File:Screen shot 2010-06-11 at 12.32.52 AM.png File:Screen shot 2010-06-11 at 12.39.10 AM.png

Logo edits keep getting reverted

After providing no less than 16 different sources of apples current logo, including print ads, print, business cards, tv ads, web pages etc -- the change was reverted: "provide a third party source" . I'm only a casual editor -- but I'm trying to help here. I give up Mineralè (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Minerale you have a good point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Icons are not the same as a company's logo. Two of us have asked for secondary source, not cherry picking examples from various Apple webpages -- and certainly not posting so many links and photos here~~, that's counterproductive overkill.~~ (If my earlier remarks including edit summaries on reverts, were seen as terse or harsh I apologize.) -PrBeacon (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Grabbing one icon here and another there does not make it reliable. The fact that Apple uses the "mirror" logo on their web page makes me think that it is the "official" one.--Terrillja _talk 14:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to mention that Apple uses the glass logo on products such as the iPhone and iPod when booting up.

Scott Bywater (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall it being used in Snow Leopard at all though. I'm confused. Maybe they use both? Airplaneman ✈ 12:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the glass logo is the official logo – it is also the one used on the flags at Apple HQ – and the monochrome logo is simply part of the company's branding as it keeps to their minimalistic theme.

Scott Bywater (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's it – it's explained at Apple_Inc.#Logos as well. Airplaneman ✈ 12:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I just want to add that I found the glass logo used in Snow Leopard on the Log In window and on the About This Mac window :-)

Scott Bywater (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps that section of the article could be updated, copying some or most of the caption under the monochrome icon. As I remarked about provisional/contextual use of a simplified logo in traditional print, the same variations may be used on other marketing materials like packaging, brochures, etc, so I would concede that the hazy distinctions between icon and logo become even more blurred in the nebulous sense of overall branding. But for the record: I still think it's best (ie, simplest) to go with the mirror/glass logo unless and until there is a definitive Apple website page (or reliable third party) stating otherwise. -PrBeacon (talk) 09:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Apple worth more than Microsoft

See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/technology/27apple.html

This should be in the article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Very relevant info for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.207.70 (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It should also probably be mentioned, however, that that evaluation has a price/earning ratio of 56, compared to Microsoft's 15. TastyCakes (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's that notable - MS were notable as being the largest software company, whilst Apple are primarily a consumer electronics company, so it's not a valid comparison. Still, I don't mind us mentioning it. I removed the first mention of this as (a) we don't need to mention the fact twice, and (b) the first reference mistakenly claimed largest by revenue, when this is about market cap. The sentence we have at the end of the second paragraph is more than enough. Mdwh (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Section on Foxconn

Given the suicide rate in China is 14 per 100,000 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704026204575267603576594936.html) and even in the UK it is 11.5 per 100,000 (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1092) that 9 people out of 400,000 workers at Foxconn have committed suicide this year doesn't seem significant enough to warrant inclusion here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

then erase it. the WSJ felt it was 'notable' enough to write articles about the suicides. other papers have reported on the employee who alleged that he was beaten and searched by the company over a missing prototype, and other papers have reported on the other stuff. perhaps the most 'non neutral' thing about this section is that there is not a similar section in the articles for Dell, HP, and many others. cheers. Decora (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The prototype issue sounds more serious and more statistically significant. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I retract the above per further discussions on Talk:iPad -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Apple admits using child labour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with Eraserhead. How is allowing teenagers to work in an Apple factory a bad thing? I would have killed to work in an electronics factory when I was a teenager but the damn laws wouldn't let me so I missed out on that experience and had to deliver newspapers in freezing cold weather instead. For third world people, it certainly beats starving. This seems questionable that it belongs in "Criticism" or whatever. JettaMann (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

if there are notable verifiable articles about it in the mainstream press, it belongs in the encylcopedia article, at least that is the way that wikipedia policy seems to indicate things should go. it is not up to us to judge what the mainstream press chooses to report, just for us to include those reports, especially if they are numerous, ongoing, have many sources, come from reputable newspapers and reporters, and it goes on for years and years, the same reports. Decora (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Decora is right, just because it was something that happened in the past doesn't mean a thing; simply shrugging it off just because of that is rather egregious bias. This was huge news when it came out. Of course, this article has had this problem for years, it has always needed more contributers that can edit in a neutral manner.... RN 06:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Including it is fine as long as its made clear that there are no longer under aged people employed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Erm, I think you could be missing the point. Proper articles on wikipedia aren't about whether a subject currently does something (they don't mention "current" at all), they just summarize sources. This is particular is like... a sentence - I'd put it in but I'm having a little trouble finding a non-blog source about it's "over-hypedness" which is the other side of this story... need to come up with better search terms ;p. i.e. http://www.zdnet.com/blog/apple/apple-and-child-labor-why-its-a-non-story/6144. RN 06:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What you're saying here sounds great, so I guess I misunderstood :o - I'll take a look too for something. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Windows copying habits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Considering that Apple sued Microsoft for copying apple in the 1980s, and it was reported in dozens of newspapers, magazines, journals, etc, for years on end, and was featured in documentaries as well, I'm sure someone could find a bunch of verifiable reliable sources on related topics Decora (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there's plenty of older (harder to find) sources speculating about this, but since this is about the company it probably only deserves a passing mention on this page.. RN 06:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Environmental Record

Hi Eraserhead. The Environmental Record section is only partially covering Apple's environmental history. There are a number of activities and programs that have been carried out since 1992. As it stands the entries start at 2003. I found a good summary of their activities in the 1990s here http://www.apple.com/environment/news/. Are you able to add something here or would you like me to propose some text and references? Ecoscience--Ecoscience (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd much rather you be WP:BOLD and propose something (as it means less work for me), I think this sounds like a good addition :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That also needs to be sourced to things other than Apple, per WP:SPS, it's easy after the fact to try and put a better spin on how things actually happened.--Terrillja _talk 00:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Origins of Apple Logo

I heard somewhere that the logo depicting an apple with a bite taken out is an allusion to the death of Alan Turing (the so-called 'father of Computer Science'), who committed suicide by biting a cyanide-laced apple after being arrested for being gay.

Can anyone confirm this? Or is it just an interesting coincidence? 86.42.87.1 (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope, it was all to do with it proving it was an apple and not a cherry, for example. Source: http://creativebits.org/interview/interview_rob_janoff_designer_apple_logo 84.92.73.137 (talk) 10:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge all subheaders of "Criticism of Apple" into the main Criticism of Apple article

Other than the main title and paragraph below summarizing the criticism, I see no reason why those two specific allegations should be in the main article other than the fact that they both relate to more recent events. I'm proposing moving that information to the main Criticism of Apple article, which was created specifically to contain this content. elektrik SHOOS 17:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

For interested parties this discussion will be continuing at Talk:Criticism of Apple Inc./Archives/2012#Merge discussion. elektrik SHOOS 00:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Security

(For further discussion, please see the talk page of Criticism of Apple. GoldRenet (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC))

I am a little surprised that in this article there is little or no mention of the security problems that Apple has in combination of the false image the company projects. Here are a couple news (reliable) sources i.e. from CNN, theinquirer, Washington post etc ect

2010 - June - CNN Apple is the new hacker bulls-eye

The truth is that Mac OS has as many vulnerabilities as Windows, according to Nigam -- Apple patches its products just often as Microsoft does.

2010 - April - The Inquirer Apple dips below Microsoft's security standards

According to Maiffret it doesn't take long for talented coders to find holes in Apple's software at various hacking events.

To round things out he says that security prospects are "scarier with them [Apple]", as Jobs' Mob "market themselves as more secure than the PC". Given the ignorance of Apple fanbois everywhere and the growth of Mac OS X, it's highly likely that the security through obscurity approach that Apple has taken won't hold up for much longer.

2010 - June - Apple vs. Microsoft: Patch Management Polar Opposites

By keeping users in the dark, Apple is putting its customers at risk unnecessarily by lulling them in to a false sense of security. David Harley, another security wonk from anti-virus vendor ESET puts it like this: "Any computer user who believes a system is so safe that they don't have to care about security is prime material for exploitation by social engineering."

2010 - June - Apple Increases Mac OS X Malware Protection

"This lack of awareness isn't helped when Apple issues an anti-malware security update by stealth, rather than informing the public what it has done."

2010 - June - Mac OS X security myth exposed

One thing the hard figures have shown is that OS X's reputation as a relatively secure operating system is unwarranted, Secunia said. This year and last year Secunia tallied 36 advisories on security issues with the software, many of them allowing attackers to remotely take over the system - comparable to figures on operating systems such as Windows XP Professional and Red Hat Enterprise Server. "Secunia is now displaying security statistics that will open many eyes, and for some it might be very disturbing news," said Secunia chief executive Niels Henrik Rasmussen. "The myth that Mac OS X is secure, for example, has been exposed."

2010 - 20 zero-day security holes in Mac OS X to be revealed

A zero-day security hole is a weakness in software that neither the makers of the software nor other individuals have any knowledge of. Hackers then take advantage of the exploit on the day it becomes general knowledge. Miller revealing that Mac OS X has twenty of them makes Apple look like they didn't do the job right the first time and also suggests Apple needs glasses to see what they've missed – and he's not wrong.

"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town," Miller said, suggesting that while both OSes have their security flaws, the Mac OS is safer because of the lack of people threatening to exploit it.

And if you do not believe these articles check out below the humongous number of security holes apple had per year (and i only spent 5mins in google). Moreover, if you want to compare the number of security problems that pops up every year (more than 50 per year for Apple) with other operating systems then compare it with OpenBSD, which had 2 since 1997...

2007 - Washington Post in January: "Month of Apple Bugs"

2008 - Washington Post Apple Patches 40 Security Holes

2010 - March - Softpedia Apple Patches 23 Security Holes in Mac OS X Leopard, Snow Leopard

2010 - June - Threat post Apple Plugs 48 Security Holes in Safari Browser

And if you don't like news sources here is a book bluntly stating the illusion Apple creates over its security:

The myths of security p. 144

Look at Apple. People often find security vulnerabilities in the products, often dozens at a time. And while the security industry knows this, the world sees Apple as a more secure platform.

Anyhow these are my 2 cents... A.Cython (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have some actual content that you want to add to the article? Apple patching security holes isn't very exciting, every bit of software has security holes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Please forgive me if I did not articulate well what I wanted to say. Every operating system has security holes and indeed there is no point numbering them here; it would have very boring both to the writer and the reader. However, the security holes were not my main point, but rather the combination effects of the marketing or reputation that Macs or other Apple products are safe/immune from dangers of malware/viruses etc with the plain fact that they are not. The sources that I have provided verify both the facts that Apple has as many security holes as other operating systems and the existence of a myth that Apple products as "hacker/virus/malware"-proof systems. The only reason that Apple does not have the same reputation as Windows is that the hackers have not started exploiting Apple's vulnerabilities yet. However, as some of the sources provided outline that the false sense of security can create even bigger problems. This effect is almost unique to Apple.

So... so... on my opinion I think it would be very good to insert somewhere in the articles a paragraph or two concerning the wrong impression of security that is given by Apple (and others I guess) in comparison with PCs to its users when in fact it is not. This is either related to the culture section, since this myth is part of the culture the Apple projects, or with the criticism section. I think the later is more appropriate place.

I will try to write something short and insert it at some point the following days. A.Cython (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have read you piece and think it has issues with WP:NPOV.

Firts: the title would be better "Allegations of false security projection" instead of "False security projection".

Second: The piece begins with asserting that Apple advertises its products as being more secure and you refer to an Apple ad on YouTube. But Apple doesn't claim in the ad to be more secure, but to be not susceptible to PC-viruses.

Third: I searched the McAfee Threat Center Database with the words Mac OS X and got 14 results. 3 of them (Linux/Tored.worm , OSX/Tored/worm and W32/Tored.worm) were Windows viruses and only had the words Mac OS X in their description. That leaves 11 results. Two of them were a PDF-list (File Name Size _31661fcdac82_4c09_872f_4df296f6181f.exe 45,056 ...) from McAfee and another webpage from McAfee (Titled: McAfee Threat Center) and not related to my search. That leaves 9. Another one of them is a macro-script for MS Word for Mac. This only affects MS Word for Mac and can only run within that application and can affect documents opened in it. It doesn't affect the actual Mac OS X-system. That leaves 8. 5 of those 8 are trojans. As you know, trojans have to be installed by the user in order to work. The trojan tries to trick the user into installing it. That leaves still 3. OSX/Cosmac is labeled by McAfee as a program, so it has to be installed and run by the user in order to work. That leaves 2 (OSX/Leap and OSX/Inqtana.a). OSX/Inqtana.a is a proof of concept-virus and therefor never released in the wild, it dates from Februari 2006. That still leaves one: OSX/Leap. McAfee lists it as virus, but there has been controverse about that, with some saying it is a trojan. McAfee itself says the following in their description of OSX/Leap: "Leap requires user interaction in order to infect a machine, as the user receiving an instant message containing the worm will have to extract the executable from the archive and then run as admin. When run, it appears immediately that it is not a harmless jpeg file but in fact a malicious binary file. It runs in command/shell mode calling a terminal session for it to execute. The default message "Welcome to Darwin! " can be seen.". So, Leap requires the user to be an admin user, extract the executable and run it in order to function? Sound more like a trojan to me. But because it is labeled as a virus by McAfee an there was controverse around it, you could say, with some good will, that there has been 1 Mac OS X virus and that it dates from 2006. The security hole has been plugged a long time ago by the way. I have to conclude that if Apple claims not to be susceptible to any virus that there is now in the wild, they are right.

Fourth:Then you say that criticism over Apple's claims of being more secure (which they don't claim -> see point 1) have risen over the years. Then I find this link to an article on CNN Money. Basically the article claims Apple is the new hackers bulls-eye and the article refers to the stolen e-mailaddresses of AT&T customers that used a dataplan with their iPad. So, let me get this straight: the article suggests hackers are now hacking Apple-products, but then I read the following: "Hacker group Goatse Security was able to obtain 114,000 iPad 3G users' e-mail addresses and iPad SIM card ID numbers from AT&T's (T, Fortune 500) website last week. The vulnerability was on AT&T's site, but any hit against the iPad dings Apple as well." So because AT&T's website has a security leak and gets hacked, Apple's security is somehow hacked? Come on. It goes on by saying there has also been found a security leak in the Safari webbrowser (this is not related to the stolen iPad emails-addresses). Yes, of course a security leak, but Apple has never claimed to be more secure in the ad, it claimed not to be susceptible to PC-viruses. And even if they would claim to be more secure, products can have security leaks. More secure doesn't mean 100% secure.

Fifth: Another link, this one to The Inquirer. One of the first things I read were: "Bastion of smugness": referring to Apple and Apple users. Later I read: "While fanbois love to tout their belief in the superior security of their shiny toys" and "Those Apple faithful who like to point out that their toys are subject to fewer attacks are simply falling into the mistake of thinking that this is because of better security magically put into place by Steve Jobs and his minions." The language in which the article is written is unprofessional and source-unworthy. I consider a Mac to be a useful computer, not "a shiny toy". The fact that you included this article as a source gives a clue about your POV.

Sixth: Then you write the following: "since every year a significant number of vulnerabilities have being found" and you give sources. The second source, going to threatpost.com doesn't lead to an article, but that's besides the point. Source 1 (Washington Post) and 3 (Softpedia) seem to be ok for the given statement, but given that Apple doesn't claim to be more secure in your source of the first sentence, the statement doesn't make sense.

Seventh: It goes further: "and at the same time this number is comparable" and you give a source from Techworld, but it concerns an article from 2004. Isn't that a bit old? Mac OS X isn't static, it evolves.

Eighth: Then it ends with a quote of a security expert working at an anti-virus company. While I have my doubts about the neutrality of opinion of an employee working at an anti-virus company concerning the security of products, it is an opinion that can be included, just like other sources opinions. The problem with the whole piece is that it only gives one POV which to my opinion goes against WP:NPOV.

Nineth: In reply to what you write on the page :"And if you do not believe these articles check out below the humongous number of security holes apple had per year (and i only spent 5mins in google). Moreover, if you want to compare the number of security problems that pops up every year (more than 50 per year for Apple) with other operating systems then compare it with OpenBSD, which had 2 since 1997...". Patches to security holes != number of security holes. There can be and probably are more security holes in a product than the number of patches that are issued. It is possible that there are more security leaks in OpenBSD, but that they aren't yet discovered. It can be that OpenBSD is more secure, but it can also be that less people audit OpenBSD-code to discover security leaks that with Mac OS X. All I want to say is that the number of patches/discovered security leaks doesn't equal the true number of security leaks a product has. It depends on a number of factors.

All taken together, the piece is not neutral. Some things don't make sense, there are bad and low-quality sources and some things can be included as longs as there is also another POV included. One could easily write the opposite, make a header "Praises for Apple" and get a few sources from a few blogs that Apple is the best that ever happened and is secure as hell. But it wouldn't be neutral, just as this isn't. You could prove every POV as there are enough sources/blogs/articles on the internet to prove everything that you want and that's why more POV's must be included and quality of sources has to be higher. The piece is very one-sided written in its POV. GoldRenet (talk) 10:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with basically everything GoldRenet (excellent explinations btw) says, and also could point out a few more things if I was more focused on this article, I just restored the link and cleaned up the refs. As in my edit summary, I was about to tag it myself but figured maybe the person was working on it so give it a few hours, but I fell asleep ;p. It could turn into something useful but right now isn't too hot; perhaps removing it and putting it on the talk page or similar is the best course unless it gets cleaned up. It really isn't that bad of a stab at the issue though, it's just hard to do correctly. RN 13:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I sometimes like to write large letters ;) Sorry if I seemed harsh, it wasn't my intention and certainly not meant ad hominem. However, the thing is that the security of Apple (especially Mac) products and the advertising around it, are very controversial. So if there will be a section about that on the article, it better be well researched and documented with multiple POV's. Also, there are two sides on the security-issue:

The first is Apple's advertising of the security of their products. If Apple makes false claims and if this is documented on the internet, it should be included in the article. However, in the given ad, I didn't find a false claim. I searched their website (more specifically the Why You'll Love a Mac-section) and their marketing machine certainly walks a thin line, but they also don't explicitly make false claims, as far as I can tell. Though, if a false claimed is found, there has to be a source that documents and criticises this false claim. As it is now, the sources don't follow the claim, because the claim doesn't exist. There is a disconnect between the source of the first sentence and the sources of the second sentence. If the first sentence would follow its source correctly, we would get this:

"Apple advertise its products as being non-susceptble to viruses and persuading the public's perspective that there are none for the Mac. However, criticism over Apple misleading the public has been risen over the years since every year a significant number of vulnerabilities have being found, and at the same time this number is comparable with other products such as products from Microsoft."

But of course, it wouldn't make any sense anymore. Sentence 2 wouldn't follow sentence 1 anymore.

The second issue around the security of Apple products, are the security features/leaks/shortcomings of the products itself and the technologies behind it. For example, criticism about security features/shortcomings in Mac OS X Snow Leopard or iOS are better fit on their respective pages and not on this general Apple Inc. page. And in fact, on the Snow Leopard, there is a security section with for example criticism about the fact that ASLR security technic isn't yet fully implemented in Snow Leopard.

I'm neutral on whether to remove the section and place it on the talk page or to leave it there. The advantage of leaving it there would be that everyone who sees it, sees the badge and can contribute on the talk page. However, the section is based on wrong assertions in the beginning. Until or unless someone comes with a documented source that criticises Apple's claims around security in their advertising, the section is rather useless.

Again, sorry if I seem harsh, it can happen that I don't realise it of myself, and I certainly assume good faith, this is far from vandalism :) GoldRenet (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

@GoldRenet, "That leaves 9. Another one of them is a macro-script for MS Word for Mac. This only affects MS Word for Mac and can only run within that application and can affect documents opened in it. It doesn't affect the actual Mac OS X-system. That leaves 8. 5 of those 8 are trojans." I don't think its fair to exclude Trojans just because they have to be installed - many users aren't aware of security issues and might well install them.

That said the number of threats for the Mac is still extremely low if there are only 6. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

@Eraserhead1 A note: as explained below using a different keyword "MacOS" it gives 130 viruses and most of them specifically for Macintosh... that is not a small number considering that hackers haven't started targeting Apple yet. You can find more with the keyword "Apple" (although there is some overlap between these two searches).A.Cython (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

@A.Cython: Mac OS does not equal Mac OS X, see my reaction below.

@Eraserhead1: see the first part of my later reaction a bit lower on the page. GoldRenet (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I suspect my english were terrible. I do hope that I have provided enough material that show that Apple is not as secure as Apple wants to project.

"But Apple doesn't claim in the ad to be more secure, but to be not susceptible to PC-viruses." I am sorry but I have feeling this is potato tomato logic... Apple is technically a PC ever since they switched to intel processors. So the distinction between Apple and PC is false. Lie number 1. Moreover, programs that run on PCs i.e. Microsoft Office or Firefox run on Apple as well therefore if a virus hits a particular program on a PC it can also hit an Apple computer as easily. The only difference is the different architecture on the operating system (OS) which might prevent the virus of bringing the whole OS down. But this is in direct conflict with the ad the Apple guy could sneeze as well since some popular programs running on an Apple product are the same as in a PC and therefore equally susceptible. Lie number 2. But this difference in OS is not enough since it does not guarantee any level of security. As some sources above outline, Apple is less susceptible to hacker attacks not because it is more secure (or less susceptible in comparison to PCs) when a hacker attacks but rather there is no hacker interested to attack an Apple product. Here are two quotes, one of which is from a book whose publisher is O'Reilly Media, Inc. in 2009... (please forgive me re-using the quote from above)

The myths of security p. 144

Look at Apple. People often find security vulnerabilities in the products, often dozens at a time. And while the security industry knows this, the world sees Apple as a more secure platform.

2010 - 20 zero-day security holes in Mac OS X to be revealed

"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town," Miller said, suggesting that while both OSes have their security flaws, the Mac OS is safer because of the lack of people threatening to exploit it.

In essence if there was a hacker, who have built a virus to target Apple products, then the Apple guy will sneeze just like the PC guy in the ad. Lie number 3. In total, Apple lied three times and on my perspective and also it seems the authors of the sources I have used, Apple manufactures a false image. I do not know if Apple crosses the line on legal terms for false claims but on my opinion certainly crossed it in terms of morality, respect, and trust between the company-client relation. All these different sources found and provided reflect that. Now some people might want to shoot me for using hard language. I am willing to dilute the language used so long we do not dilute facts.

What is the problem with The Inquirer? Just because they describe Apple products as "shine toys"? Apple products are indeed shiny and many people buy them in order to play with its gadgets, therefore they are used often as toys. It does not mean that they cannot be useful. They can be very useful. Are you offended somehow by this characterisation? If you answer yes then it will sound as if you are having POV. Please take no offence I am not accusing anyone. But also remember that I use that article not to describe Apple products as "shiny toys" but rather the fact that the article comments on the opinion of an expert concerning Apple's security issues:

According to Maiffret it doesn't take long for talented coders to find holes in Apple's software at various hacking events. If Apple was taking security seriously, he said, then "they wouldn't claim to be more secure than Microsoft because they are very much not."

and the nurture of unawareness in the Apple's culture:

To round things out he says that security prospects are "scarier with them [Apple]", as Jobs' Mob "market themselves as more secure than the PC". Given the ignorance of Apple fanbois everywhere and the growth of Mac OS X, it's highly likely that the security through obscurity approach that Apple has taken won't hold up for much longer.

About AT&T and iPads... If Apple force you only to choose AT&T... In other words this is the only way to use an Apple product then a security breach at AT&T that could potentially affect an Apple product means only one thing. The security choices of Apple about its products are not secure. I mean come on guys whose fault is it about brakes at Toyota cars? Toyota or any company that sells Toyota cars or the people that manufacture brakes. The answer on my opinion is both Toyota and the people manufacturing the brakes. In our case both AT&T and Apple. Let's not hide behind words.

You complained about one source being from 2004? What!? All the sources I have provided are from 2004 till June 2010. And the subject I am trying describe is that Apple since it became popular has projected a false image on security! Of course Apple products are not static they evolve... well expect its security problems, which are popping up all these years: 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010. I do not want to ruin your day but the sources increase in numbers as we approach summer 2010. The problem becomes bigger not smaller! Using a parabolic term to describe the issue at hand... Apple effectively devolves.

You also complained about a quote from an expert on security working in an anti-virus company. On what grounds the quote I am using is false? That quote does not even say anything about Apple, it is generic (i.e. applied to anyone) and makes sense! He is a bloody expert on his field. What is next. The guy who found 20 security holes that not even Apple knows them has worked in NSA. Now what is his problem? Worked for the government and thus this is government take over of the free market? They are experts on their field. Please do not take an offence but I will go with their opinion rather yours. Provide an expert to challenge them!

Claim about poor sources. It is partially true. I have used mainly news sources and some well respected blogs (from Washington post etc) and one book on security from probably the most respected publisher on computers. Unfortunately, there are not many books that touch this issue, because things change very fast in the technology world. So I used what was available and seemed reliable enough. But all sources bluntly show one thing. Apple is misleading the public on subject of security of its products. Now you want to change the words e.g. not misleading but say the nurture of the lack of awareness, that is fine by me.

Finally, please do not get me wrong. I have an iPhone and I admire the impact of Apple on breaking the Windows domination in the market and the public perspective. However, it does not change the fact that most people, who have Apple products, have false sense of security because they are unaware of the security vulnerabilities, which are found at same rate as in other non-Apple products (Windows, Linux etc). I also apologise if my english were poor and maybe to some readers misleading. Any valid criticism is welcome. I will more carefully re-read the comments above and try the following days to improve the paragraph in question.A.Cython (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok here is where Apple bluntly claims: Mac OS X doesn’t get PC viruses. This is not true. The user GoldRenet has already searched at the McAfree site some viruses that exist at Apple products. Although he claims that is not entirely related Apple products since the Trojan horse is an application rather than on the operating system. But that crazy logic i.e then PCs are also immune from viruses since if you do not have any application running then you not do anything or being infected. If there is at least one virus (unfortunately it is much more than one) that through a program, a corrupt file or other possible way does something that the user does not want on the computer without Apple being able to protect him/her then Apple should advertise Mac OS X does get PC viruses! Moreover, the user GoldRenet only looked for the cases where there is an actual virus infecting Macs with a very specific keyword. However, the sources used talk for all the security holes Apple has not only the one being exploited already! Finally, if you type "MacOS" at the McAfree security center it gives you 130 results of which most of them are viruses specifically for Macintosh. At that is my understanding when it says Type: Virus, Subtype: Macintosh! A.Cython (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Another source from the Macworld.com written on 2 Jun, 2009:

On May 26, Macworld republished a controversial Computerworld article by Ira Winkler suggesting that Apple is “grossly negligent” when it comes to security, and should be investigated by the Federal Trade Commission for false advertising. The author was motivated to write this piece based on Apple’s recent failure to patch a known Java security flaw that was fixed on other platforms nearly six months ago.

...
The article is absolutely correct in that Apple clearly bungled the Java security patch, placing Mac users at risk in the process. This isn’t the first time Apple has failed to patch a known security issue in a timely fashion, and it reveals a major weakness in the company’s security program.
...

Apple has a poor history here, often failing to provide OS X security fixes for flaws fixed on other platforms days, weeks, or even months earlier. We’ve seen Mac users exposed to known vulnerabilities in WebKit (Safari), Samba (Windows file sharing), DNS (networking), MDNS (Bonjour), Apache (web server), Java, and more. This is an extremely serious problem, and one Apple is rightly criticized for.

Now if a magazine for Macs say these things and still people disagree then what can I say...A.Cython (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

One more source:

In June, Dai Zovi reported on a new local privilege escalation vulnerability researchers had discovered that gives local root access on Mac OS X Tiger and Leopard.

...
The security level in Leopard falls in between Windows XP Service Pack 2 and Vista, he said. If Snow Leopard has full ASLR and DEP, it would bring its security close to the level of Vista, he added.
...
"Microsoft has had a head start. That's why they had ASLR and DEP first," Miller said. "It's not because they're geniuses. They just started caring about it sooner."
"These things go lock in step and it doesn't make sense for businesses to expend a ton of resources when the threat is not there," said Dai Zovi. "So far, Apple has been keeping up pretty well with the level of threats in the wild."
...
In the meantime, more and more Mac malware is appearing. Earlier this week, TrendMicro reported that it found a new variant of the JAHLAV family of Trojans that pose as pirated versions of legitimate applications, modify a computer's domain name system (DNS) settings and enabling successful phishing attacks and redirects to sites hosting malware. Earlier versions of the Trojan masqueraded as versions of QuickTime, but this one passes as Foxit Reader or an antivirus program.

Some malware is written for both Windows and Mac platforms and downloads the correct version depending on the browser. Last week, Symantec reported that sites purporting to show streams of new movies were actually feeding up a DNS-changing Trojan instead called OSX.RSPlug.A for Mac and Trojan.Fakeavalert for Windows. Last month, a McAfee blog post wrote about the OSX/Puper.a Trojan that is downloaded onto Mac systems when users download what they think is a video player.

And if people are curious about viruses at Macintosh before 2000 look here p. 169-17?... The more I search the web the more dirty things I find about Apple.A.Cython (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

First, to reply to Eraserhead1: the number of trojans targetting Mac OS X must be more. I remembered that there were trojans packaged in pirated iWork copies. I searched the database again with iWork as keyword and got two trojans I think. Unfortunately McAfee doesn't always list Mac OS X as words in the description as targetted platform. The reason I left trojans out was because Apple claimed in the commercial that there were no viruses for Mac. They did not claim that there was no malware for Mac. I follow Mac-related news since a long time, and as far as I know there has only been one item of malware that was described as a virus by an antivirus company, and even that was controversial, see my post above.

To respond to A.Cython. Your English is excellent ;)

1: Just like applications, malware has to be written for a specific OS, not purely for a CPU architecture.

2: You say that there are programs that run on both Macs and PC's. Yes, that is true, but these applications have different versions for each OS. In webbrowsers or plugins there may be cross-OS security leaks, but exploiting this would, as far as I know, still require OS-specific malware. If someone is an expert on this, feel free to contribute. The situation for MS Word for Mac and MS Excel for Mac is specific as there are macro-scripts with malicious intents written for. These scripts can only run in the macro executing environment of MS Excel and Word itself. They can run cross-platform but they can't do anything outside of the application, they can't harm the OS. It runs in a sort of virtual machine within MS Word or Excel. Again, if someone knows more about this, feel free.

3: You also seem to mix different sorts of malware. Viruses, trojans, macro scripts, etc are all different forms of malware. You began your piece with saying that Apple advertises itself as being more secure and you give an ad as source. In fact, Apple doesn't advertises itself as more secure, it advertises that there are no viruses it is susceptible for. As far as I know there has only been one item (OSX/Leap and it has also a couple of aliases, dates from 2006) of malware for Mac OS X that could be described as a virus. If you know the name of another virus for Mac OS X in the wild (not an alias of OSX/Leap and not a proof of concept), you can give it here.

4: As for the fact that there are security vulnerabilities for Mac OS X: of course. Apple does not claim (as far as I know) that there are no security vulnerabilities for Mac OS X, it claims that there are no Mac OS X-viruses in the wild that target its platform. And this is where I think you section is wrong. You make Apple claim something they did not say in the ad.

5: You say: "In essence if there was a hacker, who have built a virus to target Apple products, then the Apple guy will sneeze just like the PC guy in the ad.". Yes, that may be true, but as far as I know there has only been one piece of malware for the Mac that could be described as a virus. And what does Apple claim in the ad you gave: There are no viruses in the wild for which Mac OS X is susceptible.

6: You say: "I do not know if Apple crosses the line on legal terms for false claims but on my opinion certainly crossed it in terms of morality, respect, and trust between the company-client relation." You know, I completely agree. Apple's claims may be technically correct, but most people don't know the difference between a virus and a trojan and don't know which implications this has on the Mac OS X-platform. Those people think that all malware are called viruses, and so they wrongly think that, seeing the ad, if they buy a Mac they won't be able to get any type of malware.

7: I am not offended by The Inquirer, because it is their style for all of their articles. But have you looked at the writing of their articles? It is totally unprofessional. I have nothing against the people writing these articles, but they are very unprofessional. Such writing, you would not find in a quality newspaper, and it's quality sources we need. Or are we going to descend in this garbage quality? Again, the quote may come from a true expert, but what he says is the following: Apple isn't as secure as you think. Yes of course, but in the ad you have given, Apple claims something different, they don't claim to be secure, they claim to have no viruses that exploit their platform.

8: About iPad and AT&T. Yes, indeed, for having 3G on you iPad in the USA, you have to go with AT&T. But consider the following: if you had a computer and the only email-site you can access is Yahoo, will you blame your OS company or Yahoo if there is a security breach in the Yahoo website? This is a tough decision according to me. You have to look at it from both sides.

9: About the source of 2004. The reason I say it is too old is the following. You first say in your piece that the number of vulnerabilities in Mac OS X are about the same as in Windows. Then, you give a source from 2004. Is this relevant? How many people still use Mac OS X Panther? A more recent article comparing modern OS'es would be more useful. And again, your second sentence in the piece, doesn't follow the beginning sentence as you start from a supposed claim by Apple in an ad. A claim that isn't there, maybe only technically, but this is an encyclopaedia, standards of quality should be high.

10: I completely agree that Apple doesn't make people aware that, even though there may be no viruses for Mac OS X, there certainly is other malware.

11: I don't admire any company. I like using Apple products, I admire that people are working hard to make them, but I don't admire the Company Apple itself. Companies are only here to make money.

12: As I said earlier, a lot of people don't know the difference between a virus and a trojan when watching an Apple ad and therefor get a false perception about security in Apple products. But technically Apple is correct. I agree it is very difficult to make a good, neutral, well documented section about this. But because it is a controversial subject for many people, it has to be a section of high quality.

13: About the difference between PC's and Macs in getting malware: see points 1 and 2.

14: The reason why you get more and other results when you type Mac OS in the search field of McAfee, is because you then find viruses written for a version of the classic Mac OS, more precisely: System 1 to 7 and Mac OS 8 and 9. These viruses do not work on Mac OS X as the base of the classic Mac OS and the base of Mac OS X are not the same. Mac OS X is a departure from Mac OS, it is a very different system. By the way, I don't think Apple ever advertised their computers as non-susceptible to existing viruses back in the days of the classic Mac OS when there were viruses in the wild for the classic Mac OS.

15: The section could have risks becoming too one-sided. Like I said, one could also make a header "Praise for Apple Security", write some fluffy stuff and back it up with some articles and blogs from across the web. One could prove everything with sources from the web.

I'm certainly not against a section about this, but it has to be neutral and of high quality. One could for example write that although Apple's claim in the ad are largely correct, the public has too little technical knowledge to correctly understand them. The problem is that one has to find good sources to back this up.

PS: I see that you just wrote some extra, but I'm sorry that I can't reply to that now, as I was also just posting a reply. GoldRenet (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, luckily it wasn't too much extra :p

Now, I never disagreed on the fact that Apple products have security vulnerabilities. In some cases there implementation of security technics is behind the rest of the industry, like ASLR. I disagree on the fact that you made Apple claim their products are more secure, while they say something different in the ad. And yes for the public, perception is different, they think everything is a virus and that trojans are the same as viruses, etc. But by pointing that out in the piece and have sources for that, would make it more neutral. The last bit you wrote, I only read for a moment, maybe I will reply again later, but I'm tired now ;) GoldRenet (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok give a couple of days and I will try to improve the paragraph based on your constructive criticise. :) A.Cython (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

All right. When I have the time I'm ready to help with the section! And thank you for reading and replying to my comments. :) GoldRenet (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried to be more precise in the paragraph. This is not the final version but i think it is moving to the right direction. Also I would like to quickly reply to your previous comments.

1. Not necessarily. It is possible to be OS independent.

2. It also depends on the security breach. If the program has a flaw, which OS does know how to handle it then a virus/malware can be damaging.

3. fixed. Also, i think hackers the last few years are more interested into writing malware rather than viruses. They are more sneaky.

4. it think it is covered on (3)

5. That is the essence of what I would like in the paragraph i.e. just because there are no threats it does not mean you are have a secure system! There is a huge difference between these two things. The fact that experts find zero-day security holes + whenever Apple has security update it fixed at least one or two dozen security holes. This means that had something that was not secure and only by fortune alone your Apple product was not attacked.

6. :)

7. Fixed.

8. The answer in your question is yes if the OS only allows you to use Yahoo and no other company.

9. This article is about Apple not Mac OS X, thus a 2004 is valid unless you have a source that shows things has changed. Unless you claim Mac OS is not a product of Apple Inc.

10. :)

11. A company without people is meaningless. At least for me a company is the collective production of a group of people. These people make the products and make money out of the product... etc Anyhow... this is irrelevant with the main point of this discussion.

12. see (3)

13. see (1)

14. see (9)

Ok, my last last update is not final. I will try to improve it further.

A.Cython (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

To reply to A.Cython: as some points are out of the way, we can focus on the remaining ones ;)

1. Can you explain how? You seem to be very certain about this.

2. Then still it can only do those things that MS Word or MS Excel can do to your Mac OS X-system as the macro-script can only run from within these applications. But I am no expert in this, so I am not totally certain. What I do know is that if there is something (be it the user or an application or something else) that wants to change system files on Mac OS X, the user will be prompted by the system to fill in an administrator username and password to authenticate this action.

5. Yes. But what is the section about: "Allegations of false security projection". Apple does not claim that it's products do not have vulnerabilities or that it's 100% secure. If Apple advertised that its products are 100% secure and do not have any vulnerabilities, then that would be a false security projection. As long as Apple does not claim that, it isn't any different than products from other companies.

8. Actually, I can find myself both in your arguments in this as well as in mine :)

9. As this is a section about allegations of false security projections by Apple, this can only be included if Apple made false claims around its products in 2004 or before. See also (5). This is not a section of the security of Apple products but a section of false advertising of Apple around the security of its products. The security itself of its products is already written about on the Wikipedia articles of some of its products.

14. As far as I know, Apple has never advertised the classic Mac OS as virus-free. They did however advertise Mac OS X as virus-free. Since 2001, on every Mac you have Mac OS X installed. What did they say in the Get a Mac ad from 2006: buy a Mac and you will have no viruses to deal with. As every new Mac (for years already) came with Mac OS X and not the classic Mac OS, their claim is not false.

I'd also like to say something about a new source you provided in the section: a Report from McAfee about Mac OS X security in 2006. On 16 Februari 2006 McAfee reports the existance of the OSX/Leap trojan in its database and handily calls it a virus (which it is not, as OSX/Leap cannot arbitrarely execute and reproduce itself, unless the user launches it and fills in an admin user name and password). Then, on 4 May 2006, McAfee releases a report basically to spread fear among Mac users that they are not safe from viruses; a large part of the report is dedicated to the "virus" OSX/Leap and the proof-of-concept virus OSX/Inqtana.a. The same day, they release their newest product of antivirus software for Mac OS X, so all these Mac users don't have to be scared anymore after reading the McAfee report. They can now just buy McAfee antivirus for Mac! I find this all very suspicious.

More so, the report itself is sometimes misleading. For example, the table on page 3 takes Mac OS and Mac OS X viruses together. That would be the same thing as taking Windows and Linux Mint viruses together and make a table of it. It doesn't make any sense. If they had only taken Mac OS X, the table would look like this: a timeline from around 2000 to 2006. Only in 2006 there would be a bar with 2 viruses (actually trojans, but by McAfee labeled as viruses). I also refer to the following post: I don't agree with everything in the post, but it has some good criticism, and by the lack of any better sources... And another article on the opinions around whether OSX/Leap is a virus or a trojan.

I think the example about Java you now included in the section is a good example. For pointing out that Apple projects falsely around security in connection with this Java-example, you could do something with the following I found on this page: "When a potential security threat arises, Apple responds quickly by providing software updates and security enhancements you can download automatically and install with a click." Before the Java-sentence you could add a sentence pointing out that Apple advertises to respond quickly when a security threat is discovered. After that sentence, there is the Java-sentence that criticises the slow response of Apple. Although it would technically be incorrect as the advertising page I included came a half year after the criticism, there is not much choice I think because it would be else undoable.

I will withhold my further comments on the section itself until you think you're done with it ;) Actually, readers should better read the talk page, this discussion is much more informative :p GoldRenet (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

In reply to above comments:

1. Check this report and here... moreover... JAVA and any multi-platform applications/framework are targets. If the OS is not able to handle the these applications properly it can be damaging to the user.

5. Well not in those words. But to convict a murderer you do not need a smoking gun. It would be nice and easier but not necessary. If you ask any Mac user about the huge number security vulnerabilities he/she will only reply with ignorance. What makes things worse is that they insist as well. Second, sources I have supplied above do state that Apple somehow is responsible for the ignorance of its users. I doubt I would be able to trace the steps of their marketing campaign... but at least I guess we could add the removal antivirus suggestions on Macs after the first virus appeared check here. Why Macs users do not need options for anti-virus? Indirectly it says Macs are so secure that the user does not need more protections... go figure. Yeah I know what a guy from Apple said who will remember in a week or two. Everybody will remember Hi I am a PC and I am a Mac... Anyhow you do not like McAfee's report well here is a more recent report from the Swiss Federal Institute here:

Our analysis of the 0-day patch performance and the number of concurrently unpatched vulnerabilities covered 658 high- and medium risk vulnerabilities of Microsoft and 738 of Apple.

No matter how you see this Apple is as bad (or as good) as Windows. Just because there is no interest by hackers to attack Apple it does not mean Apple cannot get infected by viruses/malware etc. This is not what Apple projects!

Concerning the McAfee report I would also say that anything Apple says is very suspicious. No doubt since me and you are not experts, we should include both the report and the article you found in the paragraph in order to provide the reader a full view of the situation.

Here is another misleading ad... 1st of all a PC is also linux e.g. OpenBSD, which is far superior in terms of security than Macs in any possible way. It can be installed everywhere any desktop, laptops big screen small screens slow processors fast processors... even on a Mac with intel processor. So why it is not mentioned? One word... misleading!

You complained about Apple said only it does not get PC viruses? What about spyware? [5] And here is recent example to contradicts Apple [6], [7] A.Cython (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

In reply to A.Cython:

1. Check this report and here... moreover... JAVA and any multi-platform applications/framework are targets. If the OS is not able to handle the these applications properly it can be damaging to the user.

I understand you first source relates to OS independent rootkits that exploit security vulnerabilities in features of CPU-architectures (I could have wrongfully understood it as I'm no expert in rootkits). As far as I know, this is a good source. I don't know whether you were planning to use this source in the section, but if so, I'm not sure whether this is notable enough as (according to the source) a Virtual Machine Based Rootkit appears only to exist in research labs. Your second source does not say what you mean. It says "The use of fake video codecs is a social engineering tactic exclusively used by malware targeting Windows, and seeing it used in a Mac OS X based malware attack proves that successful social engineering approaches remain OS independent." The exploit is not cross-platform, it simply says that exploits using this social engineering approach also exist for Mac OS X. This is not the same as saying that a specific exploit works cross-platform. Just like the phenomenon trojan is not specific to Windows or Mac OS X, that does not mean that each trojan doesn't have to be be written for a specific OS. The description of the trojan in the source says: "OSX/Jahlav-C is a Trojan created for the Mac OS X operating system.". It is not cross-platform.

5. Well not in those words. But to convict a murderer you do not need a smoking gun. It would be nice and easier but not necessary. If you ask any Mac user about the huge number security vulnerabilities he/she will only reply with ignorance. What makes things worse is that they insist as well. Second, sources I have supplied above do state that Apple somehow is responsible for the ignorance of its users. I doubt I would be able to trace the steps of their marketing campaign... but at least I guess we could add the removal antivirus suggestions on Macs after the first virus appeared check here. Why Macs users do not need options for anti-virus? Indirectly it says Macs are so secure that the user does not need more protections... go figure. Yeah I know what a guy from Apple said who will remember in a week or two. Everybody will remember Hi I am a PC and I am a Mac... Anyhow you do not like McAfee's report well here is a more recent report from the Swiss Federal Institute.

Apple certainly tries to keep its public perception as having no malware. I think this perception is partly the result of Apple advertising that is misinterpreted by less technical-knowledgeable people. If Apple advertises its products as virus-free, most people don't understand this does not equal malware-free. Apple knows this and tries to protect the benefits of it. In that, I think this source you gave is good as Apple tries here to protect its image as having no malware for its platform. Apple has formulated its statement vaguely enough as to not claim that the security techniques in Mac OS X protect the user against all malware, but it tricks the less technical-knowledgeable reader into thinking that Mac OS X has features that protect against all threats.

About the McAfee's report: it is not about not liking the report. The timing of McAfee's actions is suspicious and the report contains misleading elements (like the chart that takes Mac OS and Mac OS X together as if it was the same platform). Therefor one could allege McAfee of making false projections of Mac OS X-security. Considering antivirus software for Mac OS X didn't and doesn't sell very well, McAfee had a lot of sales to gain from publishing this report. For all of these elements, I consider the report to be biased and cannot be included. I also didn't mean to include the source I gave (that criticises the McAfee-report) to include in the article, I meant it to point some things out on the talk page. However, and as you suggested, if the report and my source are included they can be worked into the section as sentences like these: "A report from McAfee in 2006 showed serious concerns about the safety of Apple Macintoshes.(source) Some criticised the report however (source)."

About the report from the Swiss Federal Institute: I think this is a good source to include and it would fit nice with the allegation about the slow response of Apple to vulnerabilities.

Just because there is no interest by hackers to attack Apple it does not mean Apple cannot get infected by viruses/malware etc. This is not what Apple projects!

Yes off course. I never said that it was not possible to write malware for Mac OS X. In fact, there is interest: there are several trojans targetting Mac OS X. For the last sentence of this quotation, I refer to what I have written here just above: Apple certainly tries to keep...

Concerning the McAfee report I would also say that anything Apple says is very suspicious. No doubt since me and you are not experts, we should include both the report and the article you found in the paragraph in order to provide the reader a full view of the situation.

Off course. But anything that McAfee says concerning things in which they have money/sales to gain, is also very suspicious. Anything that a company says and that connects to its interests/sales should be looked at with caution.

Here is another misleading ad... 1st of all a PC is also linux e.g. OpenBSD, which is far superior in terms of security than Macs in any possible way. It can be installed everywhere any desktop, laptops big screen small screens slow processors fast processors... even on a Mac with intel processor. So why it is not mentioned? One word... misleading!

Actually with a PC, Apple means a Windows PC. However, they don't call it a "Windows PC", so it could be misleading. Personally, I think most people understand that in the ad, with a "PC" it is meant a "Windows PC." Most people only know about Windows and Mac OS X (some only even know about the existence of Windows) and couldn't name one Linux or BSD distribution.

You complained about Apple said only it does not get PC viruses? What about spyware?

Excellent! This is a very good, and (I think) very clear allegation. It should certainly be included in the section. However upon second thought, there must be first a source criticising Apple for its advertising around spyware, as the two sources you gave don't allege Apple for that. So, without another source, this would come in conflict with WP:NOR as the allegation would come from a Wikipedia writer.

(In the last two quotations of your posts I included in my reply here, I had to exclude the sources in you post as my quotations wouldn't format properly for some reason)

GoldRenet (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Made some later edits to this reply. GoldRenet (talk) 09:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(For further discussion, please see the talk page of Criticism of Apple. GoldRenet (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC))

^ PC World- Apple Bug-Hunt Begins
^ [8]
^ Quality control problems or growing pains at Apple?.
^ The Sydney Morning Herald Blogs: MashUp
^ Business Ethics Blog: Were iPhone Early-Adopters "Abused?", by Chris MacDonald
^ Apple v. Does, EFF, 2006-05-26. Retrieved on 2007-05-14.
^ [9]
^ BBC NEWS | Technology | Time for Apple to face the music?
^ Sweatshop Conditions at IPod Factory Reported
^ Apple, IT and the Specter of Sweatshop Labor
^ iTox + iWaste
^ [10]
^ iTox + iWaste
^ name=agreenerapple
^ [11]
^ [12]
^ [13]
^ [14]
^ [15]
^ [16]
^ Linzmayer, Owen W. (1999), Apple Confidential: The Real Story of Apple Computer, Inc. (1st ed.), San Francisco: No Starch Press, pp. 37–38, ISBN 1-886411028-X {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)
^ Cite error: The named reference AppleConf was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference usstores was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference 2009Q1transcript was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Cite error: The named reference ApplePR20081021 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Leonard, Devin (August 30, 2009). "Hey, PC, Who Taught You to Fight Back?". The New York Times. Retrieved March 30, 2010.

[1] PC World- Apple Bug-Hunt Begins

[2] [8]

[3] Quality control problems or growing pains at Apple?.

[4] The Sydney Morning Herald Blogs: MashUp

[5] Business Ethics Blog: Were iPhone Early-Adopters "Abused?", by Chris MacDonald

[6] Apple v. Does, EFF, 2006-05-26. Retrieved on 2007-05-14.

[7] [9]

[8] BBC NEWS | Technology | Time for Apple to face the music?

[9] Sweatshop Conditions at IPod Factory Reported

[10] Apple, IT and the Specter of Sweatshop Labor

[11] Tox + iWaste

[12] [10]

[13] Tox + iWaste

[14] =agreenerapple

[15] [11]

[16] [12]

[17] [13]

[18] [14]

[19] [15]

[20] [16]

[acmillionairemadness-21] Linzmayer, Owen W. (1999), Apple Confidential: The Real Story of Apple Computer, Inc. (1st ed.), San Francisco: No Starch Press, pp. 37–38, ISBN 1-886411028-X {{citation}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)

[AppleConf-22] Cite error: The named reference AppleConf was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[usstores-23] Cite error: The named reference usstores was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[2009Q1transcript-24] Cite error: The named reference 2009Q1transcript was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[ApplePR20081021-25] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Cite error: The named reference ApplePR20081021 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[26] Leonard, Devin (August 30, 2009). "Hey, PC, Who Taught You to Fight Back?". The New York Times. Retrieved March 30, 2010.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]