Jump to content

Talk:Apple Inc.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleApple Inc. was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 2, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
October 19, 2006Good article nomineeListed
October 25, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 14, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
November 16, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 1, 2004, April 1, 2008, April 1, 2010, and April 1, 2016.
Current status: Delisted good article


Criticism of Apple missing/lacking?

[edit]

Is there an equivalent criticism article for Apple, similar to Criticism of Microsoft, Criticism of Netflix, Criticism of Amazon, etc.? The existing Criticism of Apple is simply a redirect to Apple Inc.? GobsPint (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Through a series of page moves, the criticism section ended up at Apple supply chain. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve retargeted the various criticism redirects back there. It seems one person changed all of them. The criticism page was moved to “Practices of Apple Inc.” then to “Apple supply chain”. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only comprehensive discussion of criticism I see remaining are in Apple supply chain and that's not, for the most part, direct criticism of Apple. I remember Criticism of Apple Inc./Practices of Apple Inc. had some of this meat but this has been deleted so we can't see exactly what was pared out and by whom. I know there is more about Apple that has received criticism in reliable sources than issues related to supply chain. There is still a lead paragraph that mentions this but not much remaining in the body supporting it especially anti-competitive practices. Can we get some balance back into our coverage please? ~Kvng (talk) 19:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per Talk:Apple Inc./Archive 10#Redirect to this page goes nowhere, criticism of Apple is now scattered between Environmental impact of Apple and Apple supply chain, neither of which are solely criticism pages. Guy Harris (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should create a "Criticism" section, with subsections for supply chain practices and environmental impact, which would be short sections pointing to Apple supply chain, Environmental impact of Apple, Apple and unions, App Store (Apple), and any pages that I've missed, or sections thereof, and redirect Criticism of Apple there. Either that, or just create that as a "Criticism of Apple" page, again pointing to the pages about said topics. For better or worse, criticism of Apple is scattered across pages about topics on which Apple has received criticism, rather than being combined into a single criticism page. Guy Harris (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we start by undeleting Criticism of Apple Inc. As far as I can tell, there was never a deletion discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 17 § Criticism of Apple Inc.. Guy Harris (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Harris that is a technical discussion about the redirect, not a discussion of the merit of a criticism article. After criticism was (systematically?) dispersed or removed there was no clear and non-astonishing place to direct readers interested in the topic. ~Kvng (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a discussion that resulted in the deletion of "Criticism of Apple Inc." - which was not a criticism article; it was a redirect to Apple Inc., if the head of the discussion is to be believed. Was "Criticism of Apple Inc." ever anything other than a redirect, whether to "Criticism of Apple", "Apple Inc.", or some other page? Guy Harris (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The history of Criticism of Apple Inc. is visible at the present Apple supply chain, which was moved without redirect from Practices of Apple Inc.. See the diff of this page move ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Criticism of Apple Inc." was moved to "Practices of Apple Inc." with, as far as I know, a redirect. And "Practices of Apple Inc." was moved to Apple supply chain, but some redirect was created under the name "Practices of Apple Inc.", as "Practices of Apple Inc." was, like the redirect "Criticism of Apple Inc.", deleted after [Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 17#Practices of Apple Inc.|a discussion]].
I've recreated Criticism of Apple Inc. without the cruft or minute details. Please contribute if you like! I still think some of the sliced off articles could be trimmed down further, especially Environmental impact of Apple ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Shushugah. Where did this material come from? Where can we see the original material you considered to be cruft or minute detail? ~Kvng (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism about iPod design from 2006 or random blog about eco-packaging from a random year instead of a more thorough analysis of Apple’s eco practices would be two made up examples ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shushugah this did not answer either of my questions though it sounds like you have access to a version of the original article. I'm concerned about attribution issues if we don't preserve the history, see WP:CWW. Also it would be good to have a consensus on what material makes the cut and we can't do that if you're the only one with access to the source material. ~Kvng (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an admin and do not have any more or less access than you do. I recreated the article, without regard for what was there in the past. A fresh pair of eyes and assessing what would be relevant for a reader if we were to write this article from scratch. That said, the old history of Criticism of Apple Inc. is visible at the present Apple supply chain, which was moved without redirect from Practices of Apple Inc.. See the diff of this page move ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The history at Apple supply chain (no capital "s" in "supply") will show a bunch of history. See Talk:Apple Inc./Archive 10#Redirect to this page goes nowhere for a timeline as of 2024-01-25.

Summary:

(Do not assume from the current lack of a "Practices of Apple Inc." page that "Practices of Apple Inc." was renamed to Apple supply chain without a redirect; the redirect did exist at one point, otherwise a request to delete it would probably not have been made in the first place and, even if it were made, would have been shot down rather quickly as "there's nothing to delete!".)

So what questions remain? All of the moving of stuff out of the criticism/practices page are in the history of Apple supply chain, in entries for 2023-01-15 and 2023-01-16 (those might be a good source of additional pages to which the top-level criticism pages should refer). I don't know whether there was any discussion of those moves, or if User:DFlhb just acted boldly. Guy Harris (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Guy Harris and @Shushugah. Sorry that history was a bit hard for me to follow. I feared that the criticism article had been WP:BLARed and then the redirect deleted without considering its history. That turns out not to be the case. All questions resolved.
Shushugah's new article is a great start but it is 8K with 13 references while the old article was at one point 130K with 237 references. I suspect competent coverage lies somewhere between. We also should have a Criticism summary section in this article (Apple Inc.) with {{Main}} to Criticism of Apple Inc.. ~Kvng (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that history was a bit hard for me to follow. Yeah, the bulk of it is 21 edits by User:DFlhb, moving stuff into other articles, along with two renames and removal of the redirects left behind by those renames.
I suspect competent coverage lies somewhere between. Not all of the topics in the old article are covered yet. There's nothing abut the often-criticized App Store policies, for example. Guy Harris (talk) 03:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even though there is lots more criticism to add, it looks off to a good start! It was hard to read the last time I saw it before the splits and eventual deletion. 173.217.111.76 (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recall several discussions on moving criticism to relevant articles and balancing out coverage of Apple throughout our articles (to follow WP:CSECTION), though those discussions are probably hard to find by now and I no longer care. DFlhb (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if someone who still cares would help us find those discussions. WP:CSECTION contains a paragraph that I think applies here: In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material. ~Kvng (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found Talk:Apple_supply_chain#Strays_away_from_WP:POVFORK and Talk:Apple_supply_chain#"The_corporate_practices_of_Apple?"_too_subjective_perhaps_leading_to_essay. It looks like User:DFlhb did this reorganization boldly and most of the discussion came afterward. There's some criticism of the changes and also some support for the general tenants of the WP:CRIT essay (by a now-indefinitely-blocked editor) and incomplete discussion about additional reorganization. User:DFlhb's core argument for the reorganization is that Criticism of Apple Inc. and similar articles become a dumping ground that overwhelms readers and editors and can't be fixed. ~Kvng (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2024

[edit]

I would like to add that Apple was founded in 1976 and incorporated in 1977. It was founded as a business partnership, but after beign incorporated, it became a corporation. CSZS129 (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 10:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
here is the information from Apple's official website under "Apple Corporate Info":
[1]https://investor.apple.com/faq/default.aspx
This clearly states that Apple was incorporated on January 3, 1977 in California.
CSZS129 (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, just as User:Charliehdb said, given that, as of 2024-06-21, two days before your edit request, the article says, in the third paragraph:

Apple was founded as Apple Computer Company on April 1, 1976, to produce and market Steve Wozniak's Apple I personal computer. The company was incorporated by Wozniak and Steve Jobs in 1977.

and says, in the "1976–1980: Founding and incorporation" section:

Apple Computer Company was founded on April 1, 1976, by Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Ronald Wayne as a partnership.

and

Apple Computer, Inc. was incorporated on January 3, 1977, ...

what is it that needs to be edited? Repeating information that was in the article before the edit request was made does not answer that question. Guy Harris (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluding the lede

[edit]

@Adabow regarding your revert of my good faith edit, I see your point regarding the transclusion of templates like {{Good article}} which is problematic. I thought lack of inline references would have been acceptable, given that they're guaranteed to be updated from Apple Inc. and unions which has them without inline references, since they summarize existing inline text further below.

Would the text otherwise of the lede be acceptable, if manually copied over with inline reference for each claim? The bit about Foxconn investigations is one extra thing I would include/pull over from Apple Inc. and unions § China section. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 08:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the article (I reverted mostly because of the issue transcluding {{Good article}}) so I'll leave it up to you and other involved editors to decide what's the best course of action. Options are manually copying over the information or using a variation like {{Excerpt}}. Manual summary also has the advantage of focusing the text on what's most relevant for readers of the general/main article. Adabow (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Apple logo with bitten apple

[edit]

Apple logo is with bitten apple since 2011 when Steve Jobs died, not 1998 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:5450:44F0:1555:31D3:3AE3:341C (talk) 07:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The bitten Apple is much older than 2011. gujamin (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Products - Mac

[edit]

I think that this text in the Products › Mac section:

Macintosh, commonly known as Mac [...]

should be changed to:

Mac, formerly known as Macintosh [...]

The "Macintosh" name for an Apple computer hasn't been used since the late 1990s/early 2000s: Power Macintosh G3 up to 1999 (The following G4 models were called "Power Mac G4"); Macintosh PowerBook G3 up to 2001 (the following laptops were just called "PowerBook G4"). No actual computer from Apple shows the term "Macintosh" anywhere.

The search for "macintosh" on Apple's site yields no actual products result. Jack 6502 (talk) 08:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Maxeto0910 (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Al Gore from the board of directors. - Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2024

[edit]

Remove Al Gore from the board of directors. He is no longer a board member. JodaDoesMusicAndStuff (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Al Gore from the list. Beikeonbeogeo (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Info lacking interest

[edit]

I personally love Apple products and only have good feedback but when done reading through I felt tired like after reading a bedtime story,needs more excitement this is huge company / Brand. Cecilia Nortier (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have specific suggestions for how this article can be improved? 331dot (talk) 09:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apple_Inc.&oldid=1257320241"