Talk:Original equipment manufacturer

message: I have rewritten the introduction to make clearer the two conflicting definitions of OEM. I also improved the citations of the references. 
I removed the gte.net reference because it was poorly written, hard to understand, and didn't seem to be a particularly reliable source. I removed the Economist reference because it was outdated and there didn't seem to be an easy way to get to what was referenced. 
I hope that other editors agree that these changes represent improvements. 
The Automotive Parts section makes a lot of sense, but the partsbin.com reference doesn't seem to be available any longer. Somebody needs to fix this or find better references (auto parts are outside my scope of knowledge). Lou Sander (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Great effort, in my opinion. The revised version is an improvement and has moved the lede onto the right track ontologically. The lede is now strong and well designed, with only one more aspect of the definition that yet needs to be covered, which is a third sense that is an important extension of the two main senses already covered. It only arises (becomes relevant) in contexts of collecting and restoring machines (most often vehicles). It is when "OEM" has a floating meaning (referring to either of the 2 entities already described) that stands in contrast to aftermarket. This is when there are multiple members of the first group (the parts makers), and one of them was the original supplier (whose parts were used at the factory by the second entity, the final assembler) and the others are aftermarket. For example: Say Ford builds a Mustang. The spark plugs used by Ford at the factory are Autolite plugs. Someone who buys a Mustang can go to the store the next week and buy Champion or Splitfire plugs and replace the Autolite plugs with those. In this scenario, the Autolite plugs are described as original equipment (and a magazine article will say, "when Bill restored his Mustang, he replaced the aftermarket plugs with original equipment plugs" or "with OEM plugs"); and car people accept either Autolite or Ford being called the OEM (when you say "OEM plugs", it is understood that you mean "the plugs used at the factory", and it is understood that those may have been Ford or Autolite or Acme, but we will not bother asking which of those it was). This is already explained in the "Automotive parts" section ("An automobile part may carry the designation OEM if it is made by the same manufacturer that made the original part used when building and selling the car or pick-up truck.[5] The term aftermarket is often used for non-OEM spare parts.[5]"), but the lede's ontology doesn't mention it yet. I may try to add one simple sentence to the lede that mentions it. — ¾-10 17:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Update: done. It took several sentences, but I made them as short and clear as possible. — ¾-10 18:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. It is understandable and makes sense. It needs some references, though. Lou Sander (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-doing the article 

message: I've archived everything that was on this page prior to 2014. There was a lot of it, and some of it didn't make much sense any more, since the article has been changed many times. Almost everything was from 2012 or before. Lou Sander (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving old material 

message: Hi. I respectfully submit that the recently added software section should not have been deleted. The use of the term OEM in software has sufficient notability to be explained here. I pasted below the text that I am talking about. Unless a good analysis of why this needs to be deleted is explained, I will restore this in a week or two (if I remember). — ¾-10 22:24, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any way to get better sources for this section? Without different sources I'm reluctant to agree it should be reinstated if simply because Microsoft, which would be one of the primary sellers of so-called OEM software, doesn't use the term. Fleetham (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's confirmed that Microsoft uses the term, as pages at the domain oem.microsoft.com (and at microsoft.com/oem) show. The term has been used throughout the era of desktop PCs of various brands (what were once called "IBM PC clones") running Microsoft DOS and Windows OSs. The use of the term in software also continues to have relevance even as that era closes, because now there is the issue of people wanting to modify or supersede the OEM software in their cars (engine control unit software and other car software, which is starting to pervade the rest of the car now), and they are fighting about whether the OEM software's copyright protection means that car owners can't touch it. Which is an interesting question, because one can understand protecting proprietary software from piracy (and from homebrew version forks that might suck and cause accidents), but at the same time, car owners have always had substantial freedom to modify their own cars and use other brands of parts, and people don't want that freedom to go away as software becomes increasingly central to everything a car does. — ¾-10 01:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Restore software section

message: A third opinion has been requested.  I see that there has been extended discussion, but I am not entirely sure what the concise question is.  Is the question whether a statement about the variability in the quality of non-OEM (aftermarket) parts should be included in this article?  In my opinion, that belongs more in Aftermarket (automotive) than in this article.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the bone of contention, yes; we've already agreed that the list of parts stores and such should go away. Thank you for weighing in. Pogorrhœa (talk) 05:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm kind of interested in this article, and have done a lot of work on it in the past. It is a tough article to edit, as there are so many definitions of "OEM", some of them conflicting. I acknowledge that "unpublished and unknowable" isn't presently sourced, but I seem to remember seeing it in some RS long ago. IMHO, like the article, this talk page is pretty hard to edit, mostly because the discussions, though lucid and logical, are so very, very wordy. It's too hard to figure out what these people are talking about. This is car parts, not philosophy. IMHO, a big problem here is a shortage of reliable sources. Lou Sander (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I see that the Parts Bin source is no longer available. Sigh! I've put some feelers out to some folks in the auto parts industry, looking for some reliable sources on their notion of "OEM". We'll see if anything comes back. BTW, if you Google "unpublished and unknowable", you get a boatload of citations from Wikipedia. Sigh, again! Lou Sander (talk) 15:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Opinion

message: Fleetham, I'm having difficulty with your point of view. Right up above, just a couple of days ago, you agreed the list of improperly-described parts stores should go away. There's no disagreement there, so continuing to put it back seems counterproductive. As for the other removed material (diff), once unacceptable citations were removed (per WP:RS), the already-flimsy assertions they were propping up really couldn't stand any longer. Add to that the mismatch between the statements (auto parts quality, etc) and this article's topic, and their speculative and non-NPOV nature (smearing all non-OE parts as inferior), then factor in your having ceased participation in this discussion five days ago (without bothering to give any reasons beyond what amounts to "I just like it") after having dismissed whole chunks of it a day or two before, plus the fact three voices are against your position and only yours is in favor of it (remember, concensus does not require unanimity) and...well, it all creates the appearance you're more interested in ownership of this article than cooperation on it, and I'm sure that isn't the impression you want to convey. C'mon, now, if you've got time to revert an edit with a scoldy edit summary calling for talk page discussion, you've ruddy well got time to get your own self to the talk page and talk. Pogorrhœa (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to remove material where a consensus has been reached, but please don't also remove extra material when doing so. Fleetham (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's cooperate

message: The page name is "Original equipment manufacturer" while in the lead it is capitalised to "Original Equipment Manufacturer". I think one should be changed for consistency. I would prefer to use "Original equipment manufacturer" (without capitalisation) as these are not proper nouns and it is a term used to describe a manufacturer, not a title. 81.152.219.238 (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I just edited the article as you recommended. --71.183.128.251 (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Name and Lead

message: I clicked on the link to the HP pdf in the list of references (currently, it's the second reference) and I see that while the pdf that I downloaded is apparently the same one that the person who added the source to the article found, the URL in the reference redirects to one in the domain hpe.com, which following last year's split of HP into two, belongs to the company that deals with enterprise computing. I didn't update the URL in the reference (nor the retrieval date) because I figured I should make sure any statements in the article that cite this source are still supported by the source and I don't have the time to do so right now. --71.183.128.251 (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  HP pdf in references 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.ecar-alliance.eu/the-repairs-clause/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Count Count (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: I like the fact that this article addresses the conflicting definitions issue right at the top of the article. I have one specific example which I wonder if it is covered by the current wording on conflicting definitions. As many people are probably aware, Boeing buys many of the subsystems in aircraft from other companies. To take one specific example, Boeing buys actuators from Parker, Moog, UTC Aerospace, etc. Within the aerospace industry, these companies that supply subsystems to Boeing are frequently called OEM's. Is this covered in the description of the introduction? I'm not sure. --Westwind273 (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting Definitions 

message: I've read the first two sentences in this article several times and could not make sense of them:
The first sentence:
"An original equipment manufacturer (OEM) is a company that purchases parts and equipment that may be manufactured by another company." (emphasis added)
That would mean that an OEM, despite the M in OEM standing for manufacturer, is by definition NOT the manufacturer. In fact, it would be an original equipment purchaser. That doesn't make any sense to me.
To add to the confusion, the second sentence goes on:
"For example, Foxconn, a Taiwanese electronics company, which manufactures parts and equipment for OEMs including Apple, Dell, Google, Huawei and Nintendo." (emphasis added)
When I started reading this sentence, I assumed Foxconn would be an example of an OEM. Then, however, I read that they manufacture parts, which according to the above definition would make them NOT an OEM, since an OEM would purchase parts "that may be manufactured by another company." Finally and at least and consistent with this ludicrous definition of OEM, the other companies Apple, Dell, Google, Huawei and Nintendo are then listed as examples of OEMs, since as OEMs they only purchase parts, which have been manufactured by Foxconn, which therefore is NOT an OEM.
Is this really what OEM means? This is insane.
/rant
--Shinryuu (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, this whole thing is a holy mess. The use of the term OEM is very loose across multiple industries. I think that generally only certain industries (or certain segments within certain industries) are consistent with their use of the term OEM. That is the only way they know what each other means when they say "OEM". But once you broaden that out to an entire industry or across industries, the term becomes almost meaningless, because the meaning in one industry can be almost the exact opposite of its meaning in another industry. --Westwind273 (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introductory sentences don't make sense 

message: Foxconn is a Taiwanese electronics company; that brief introduction is useful to help the reader understand the company and may shed light on the 'original equipment manufacturer' concept because Apple and Nintendo etc are known to be companies that are not Taiwanese. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, can you see what I'm saying here? What do you think? Thanks  Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Overemphasizing the company as "Taiwanese" is absoutely unnecessary and has pretty much nothing to do with this article. As you can see, the countries from where Apple, Dell, Google, Huawei and Nintendo is from was not mentioned. Telsho (talk) 11:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   Thanks for your reply. I do not agree with your opinion. The company could have been Jamaican. The point is to emphasize that the Original equipment manufacturer is in a country different from the one where the other companies have their primary place of business. Nintendo, Google, etc are household names in the English speaking community whereas Foxconn is not as well known. It serves as an example of an original equipment manufacturer being "distant" from companies that sell products made by that manufacturer. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone with great interest in OEMs and such similar topics will definitely know as much of Foxconn and the other companies that were mentioned. Besides, a casual reader could just access the hyperlink for the Foxconn article page if they so wish to know more about the company. They didn't click on this article to know where these companies are from but to understand what OEMs are all about. Telsho (talk) 11:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   "Someone with great interest in OEMs and such similar topics will definitely know as much of Foxconn and the other companies that were mentioned." That may be true, but I'm concerned about the people who do not have interest in the topic and want a basic example so they can understand the concept. Yes, a casual reader could click, but the point is to help the casual reader get a grasp of the concept by giving a clear example. Yes, they didn't come to the article to know where companies are located, but the point of the example is to show that Foxconn is in a totally different place from the primary place of business of some well known businesses it works with. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't matter where the company is from or its origins as it has nothing to do with this article. There's no correlation whether a company is more "well known" or is a household name as it has no basis on what the reader wants to know more about OEMs. Telsho (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   It does matter. A company that is nearby to its original equipment manufacturer may naturally be suspected to be part of that company (or vice-versa). In this case, we are better able to see that Foxconn is clear example of an actual original equipment manufacturer, independent of the companies it supplies, once we know the primary place of business is in Taiwan and it supplies several well-known companies in several countries. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  a Taiwanese electronics company 

message: I agree that the previous image wasn't very illustrative of the article's subject, but the German supply chain pyramid is near worthless to anyone who doesn't speak German. Is there anyone who could translate and replace it with an English version? HerrWaus (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  German image 

message: The auto industry has evolved it's definition of OEM to meaning something similar to other trades an industries. Such as to mirror or reflect attitude towards licensing and contracts. 
I've read some place, I'm not sure if I'll be able to locate reference... But it works similarLy to how Trademarks and Patents work... An oem may not be the actual original OEM in the classic definition, but instead whom is licensed or contracted with to provide/make the object, product, etc
some what related...if you read the small print on most work orders where you have something serviced (agreement or policy), which you autographed probably, it often states aftermarket is defined as any* part or item that was purchased and added or replaced POST sale date of original purchase... Would be considered aftermarket, whether it's sold identical to the original by an OEM "authorized"￼ or as the wiki mentioned "Prefered" or "value added " retailer... Those references are old now and times have changed some. 24.19.141.129 (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Times have changed 

message: The article in its current form completely leaves out the fact that automakers call themselves "OEM" - they manufacture the vehicles and they also market the vehicles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:79E0:15:10:91FE:7896:5F4F:E8E6 (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automakers 

message: I believe there is still confusion about the meaning of the term OEM, and the above comment titled #Introductory sentences don't make sense clearly sets out some of this confusion/mess.  I think the lead is good in that it tells the reader that the term is used in different ways.  The section titled "Automotive parts" makes sense to me.  The main section that I think needs improvement is the one titled "Computer software" because OEM has been (and still is?) used to refer to hardware as well as software.
Perhaps the title could be changed to "OEMs in the computer industry" and the section rewritten using better and more general sources.  One source I have found is  which clearly says "The term initially referred to the company that made the products (the "original" manufacturer), but eventually became widely used to refer to the organization that buys the products and resells them." JonH (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of the lead has been removed since my previous comment.  I still think it is important to say that there is confusion around the meaning of "OEM".  So I have partly restored the lead, used the original 1981 book as a source, and added another source that mentions the confusion. JonH (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing with confusion about what OEM means