Talk:Apple Inc./Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Fourth paragraph under Criticism

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

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

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

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

Some other, offbeat criticism

I came across some other criticism here[1]. I don't know how common this POV is among Christian parents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.228.240.61 (talk • contribs) 22:46, August 30, 2006 (UTC)

Citations

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

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

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

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

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

Deleted "Analysis"

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

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

I think this article is back up to GA standards

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

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

"Green my Apple" campaign

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alexa ranking

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

GA Status

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

Financial Information

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

Yes, which is why that information is in the infobox. Guy Harris 23:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Currently-Used Logo

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

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

Reference cleanup

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

Controversial claim of no viruses

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

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

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

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

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

Atlant 20:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

new Article to merge

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

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

iPhone

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

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