Talk:Apple Inc./Archive 6

message: Is the part on Greenpeace (the whole section "Environmental Issues" is on Greenpeace's criticism) relevant? Checking Google, Greenpeace has similarly criticized every major computer manufacturer I could think of. I think that it should be removed from this article, the Hewlett-Packard article and every other article that has a Greenpeace section. If a company has a serious problem, it will be noted by other organizations than Greenpeace. Also, if the majority of computer manufacturers are behaving similarly, criticism about the industry's should be placed in a generic article, like computer or an article on computer manufacturing or environmental issues, if there is one. A mention in the Greenpeace article may also be appropriate. Finally, in my experience, Greenpeace is not a reliable source. First, they are biased. Getting environmental information from them is like getting gun violence statistics from the National Rifle Association or global warming information from the coal industry. Bias affecting results or information need not be intentional. Second, like most political organizations, they are inept when it comes to logic, committing logical fallacies regularly (some of their (political organizations) favorites are guilt by association, straw man and false dilemma). Third, they do not understand technical issues, like the safety of a substance or technology. -- Kjkolb 12:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greenpeace 

message: "The Apple I, Apple's first attempt at computer hardware, sold for $666.66. It lacked basic features such as a keyboard and a monitor."  However, the picture clearly has a built-in keyboard.  Caption should be changed.  24.57.195.9 23:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The caption isn't quite accurate for the image, but the Apple I was sold initially as just a motherboard, so technically the facts are right. However, the article text adjoining the picture notes that the Apple I motherboard was sold for $500 ... so where does the $666.66 come from? salamurai 00:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure.  I've heard the urban legend about the $666.66 but can't recall ever seeing actual proof of it.  Caption should probably just be changed to "Photo of the Apple I in wood housing with keyboard" or something similar.  24.57.195.9 03:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not an urban ledgend. So Far, a book Apple published on its 10th aniversary (it's cited in the Apple I article) says, on page 38, the original price for the board was $666.66. It also reproduces on the same page Apple's first ad, published in the September 1976 edition of Interface Age on page 13, which also give the price as $666.66. The caption should add that the hobbiest who purchased this unit added his own keyboard and wooden case.--agr 05:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apple 1 picture caption 

message: Should be Apple Inc (no comma) due to the screenshot of the slide from today's announcement here, no? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a bigger dilemma:  Wikipedia pretty much never includes "Inc"-type suffixes in company names.  -/- Warren 19:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But in this case it serves as the disambiguation.  Are you saying it should be "Apple (company)"? -- Renesis (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's my vote -- but gawd, what a mess. Thanks a million, Steve. ;) —GGreeneVa 20:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  OTOH, we can spell out the abbreviation -- as AP style calls for in the first mention of a proper name -- and title the article 'Apple Incorporated'. That goes easier on the eyes, and does a better job of disambiguating b/c it makes clear that the article discusses a corporate enterprise. —GGreeneVa 20:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Apple (company) is most conformant with MOS guidelines, but the guidelines can be bent around a bit if the result is still accurate.  Personally, I think Apple Incorporated looks good.  Another thing:  the name of the company is still officially Apple Computer as of today, and Apple hasn't issued a press release or changed their trade dress about the name change.   -/- Warren 21:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I definitely vote against "Apple Incorporated" since it doesn't look like they themselves are going to spell it out.  Apple (company), if anything. -- Renesis (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It should be changed to "Apple (company)". — Wackymacs 18:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apple Inc (no comma) 

message: I quickly wrote something about the references to the Beatles at the keynote, which I found odd due to the previous legal problems, and because I cannot find any Beatles songs on the iTMS. I'm not sure if a song played, but I distinctively remember seeing the Abbey Road album cover on the iPhone at least once. If someone can clean up what I wrote, maybe add some references, that'd be great, thanks! - Dave. 
EDIT: They deleted it already... thanks for that.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.150.130.214 (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was me that removed it, I apologize.  It was in the middle of another series of edits that screwed up the page.  Why don't we figure it out here and then add it to the article.  Do you have any sources? Has anyone mentioned the significance of this? -- Renesis (talk) 06:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's what the San Jose Mercury News had to say. -Adjusting 08:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to Beatles at 2007 Macworld? 

message: Does this change  want to be kept? →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 10:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say, not as it was written. For one thing, the link was created incorrectly. Second, it wasn't clear what relevance it had to that section. I'd have to look into the iPhobe article to see if that's even notable and verifiable enough to keep. -- Kesh 22:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, there is no iPhobe article, so the statement is totally invalid. -- Kesh 22:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DELETE -- Bboyskidz 03:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep this? 

message: Ok, It says that it makes computer hardware and software, but now Apple makes iPods and they just introduced iPhone, so it should say:
Industry: Computer hardware, Software and Consumer Products.
So perhaps we should change it to that, does anyone Agree? Gumbos 18:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Added Consumer electronics. — Wackymacs 18:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should it also include mobile phones, or should that wait until iPhone is actually shipping? Guy Harris 04:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mobile phones are consumer electronics. — Wackymacs 07:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Industry is wrong 

message: Hello- Could I ask for your opinion on the justification of the following article:
(Apple tax).
It's slated for deletion as an informal term/neologism/joke.  It's a real phenomenon to me; IMHO.
Thanks.
PochWiki 23:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article on "Apple tax" to be deleted 

message: I'd like to see the Litigation section in this article sharply trimmed, with just a sentence or two on each case. The details should be left to the main litigation articles. --agr 14:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Litigation

message: There appears to be no citations or evidence for the statement "An exception to this is IDG Publishing, whose line of popular books were banned from Apple stores because Steve Jobs disagreed with their editorial policy." A search for the particular event does not return anything significant other than this article, and I think we should remove it until adequate and accurate verification can be found for this statement. –-  kungming·2 (Talk) 07:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The publisher that was banned was John Wiley & Sons, which had previously purchased IDG Books and the For Dummies series from IDG Publishing. A search on "Wiley Steve Jobs" will produce plenty of references including this one from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/30/technology/30apple.html. Perhaps you can restore the sentence with the correction and cite. I'm reluctant to edit the article on this issue because I write for Wiley.--agr 04:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for finding the citation. I recalled that Steve Jobs was not happy about the publisher who published iCon, and had banned the publisher's books from Apple stores - I didn't know that they were one and the same. The new sentence reads: A notable exeption are books published by John Wiley & Sons. The publisher's line of books were banned from Apple Stores in 2005 because Steve Jobs disagreed with their editorial policy. –-  kungming·2 (Talk) 04:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding IDG Publishing statement 

message: The article requires a major cleanup with references and unencyclopedic statements.  I went through the history section and cleaned a little bit, but I didn't fix everything (the refs are at least all in good shape though).  The templates should always be used.  Tomhormby 16:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References! 

message: The article needs to have a critism sectoin, as there is alot of Apple critism out there, with little/none of it being listed on this page (unlike almost all corperate wiki pages).--Zeeboid 22:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly, a lot of what passes for "criticism" of Apple out there belongs under fanboy (as does some of the praise, of course). A lot of forums get filled with "Windows Rules, Macs Drool!" nonsense as soon as anyone mentions Apple or the Mac. That said: an actual balanced collection of reasoned criticisms (as opposed to "Apple tax" and other such slams) is an appropriate concept. --Orange Mike 16:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I spent a few mn looking this stuff up.  here is a start:
Apple 'falsified' share documents
 
Apple options review claims Anderson's scalp
 
Apple may need to restate last 15 quarters
 
Apple, CA investigate share option grants
 
Unpatched bug bites Apple Mac OS X
 
Month of Apple bugs planned for January
 
Apple to delay quarterly results filing
Apple takes $84 million charge, defends Jobs
Steve Jobs on Microsoft "They have no taste"
Steve Jobs talking about Microsoft, and how Internet Explorer is "we believe IE is a realy good internet browser"
Quicktime Bugs--Zeeboid 02:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: At this point, that's just a random collection of links, many of them redundant, or inappropriate (youtube, etc.). I also don't see how Jobs pointing out that Microsoft has no taste constitutes a criticism of Apple. --Orange Mike 18:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, its something to work on, not intended as a section at all, feel free to edit/alter or whatever as you wish, as I have a feeleng that when a critism section is added, it will not go up quitetly.  its just a list of critism I located in my 20mn of searching.  The youtube isn't needed, as a quote from the apple confrence is all thats needed there.--Zeeboid 18:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, a Critism section Does exist for Microsoft (the company, not the OS) as well as: Ford Motor Company, ExxonMobil, Citigroup, Boeing, Nestlé and Dell.  There are others i'm sure, i'll let you look them up.--Zeeboid 13:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Discussion of this matter is ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-04-20_Apple_Inc.; it might be best to contain any opinions there. --Walafrid | talk 13:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism Section Needed

message: Clarification: Just as "Apple Computer, Inc." recently became "Apple, Inc." according to the company itself, "Macintosh" was modernized to simply "Mac" several years ago, circa the release of the G4 -- and following the abstraction of the Mac OS as a distinct product.
I think this is a model article, and I only wish to freshen it by suggesting that the term Macintosh be updated to Mac when used generically -- it should remain "Macintosh" for historical accuracy. As example, I recommend the following as basic guidelines:
#The "Macintosh Plus" was an early Mac computer. At the time, the entire series of related computers were known collectively as Macintoshes.
#The current line of personal computers offered by Apple Inc. are now collectively known as Macs.
#Any computer that runs any version of the Mac OS can be referred to as a "Mac" generically. (Servers notwithstanding.) However...
#...If it was manufactured before ca. 2001, it might have "Macintosh XXX" as its model name.
I already made changes in the lead of the article to reflect this. I would/will do more if I have time.
Keep up the great work on the article(s). And please feel free to discuss further clarifications here on the talk page.
Thanks.
--
ManfrenjenStJohn 21:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression that a Macintosh runs classic OS and a Mac runs OS X.--HereToHelp 01:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HereToHelp, I've been a Mac user for 22 years, and attend my local Mac User Group meetings regularly, subscribe to the zines, etc.; I've never heard any such distinction made. Mac users have always shortened the term. --Orange Mike 16:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apple Inc. shortens the term.  If one is using a Mac, the "About this Mac" screen displays "Mac OSX".  In the past however, yes, it was Macintosh OS and Power Macintosh computers.  However, I think it is erroneous to say "the Macintosh Plus was an early Mac computer" - it was an early Apple computer.  Apple is the brand, Macintosh/Mac is the name of the software/machines.  Demosthenes X 18:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommend "Macintosh" nomenclature be transitioned to "Mac" 

message: I'm wondering if image is worth keeping.  I just glanced at the Windows and Microsoft articles and there is no photo of a Blue Screen of Death.  The inclusion of this photo here (to me) is someone's subtle way of saying "Macs crash too".  This is an article about Apple Inc., not one of its software titles.  Thoughts?  Demosthenes X 02:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This image has been discussed in the talk page here.  The Microsoft does include the BOSD image, and text around it, but mainly is included here because of Apple's advertising claims that Macs don't crash, as refrenced in the article and in the talk page above.--Zeeboid 13:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, shoulda checked out the Microsoft page for the BSOD myself.  steventity 14:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's strange: I looked at the Microsoft page and would have sworn there was no BSOD there.  Alas, there is.  My mistake.  That said, I do not feel that this image serves a purpose on this page (nor does the BSOD on the MS page).  They belong in the respective articles about Windows and OSX.  Demosthenes X 21:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiger Crashing 

message: *:Image:Apple first logo.png The original Apple logo featuring Isaac Newton under the fabled apple tree.]]
*:Image:Apple Computer Logo.svg The rainbow Apple logo, used from late 1976 to early 1999.]]
*:Image:Apple-logo.png The current Apple logo. On products, a simple gray version of the Apple is used, without embellishing it as has been done to computerized images.]]
Does anybody think a gallery-style layout for the logos would be more aesthetically pleasing? I think it is a better layout for the article style, plus they use the same format in the FA Microsoft article. Thoughts?  Scrumshus Talk to me→ 00:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo gallery 

message: Today's (June 20th) Guardian (UK) editorial also associates the Apple logo with Turing, mentioning how he "ate an apple laced with cyanide. The symbol of the half-eaten apple lives on to this day". Whether this is conscious intent on Apple's part I couldn't say, but it's an interesting thought. Rob Burbidge 13:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo and Alan Turing 

message: Zeeboid make it clear above that he is intent on demonstrating that Apple is lying about Macs not crashing in its ads. That is a serious allegation of unethical and possibly illegal conduct. Such an allegation can only be included in Wikipedia if it comes for a reliable source that made that specific allegation, i.e. that Apple is lying about Macs not crashing in its ads.  According to WP:RS "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."  It goes on to say "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people." 
Neither of the sources he cites meet the reliable sources test. The Register article has nothing whatsoever to do with crashes. It is reporting on a lawsuit filed by Apple resellers. The Register does not say Apple is engaged in false advertising, it merely reports that false advertising is one item in the laundry list of allegations in the law suit. Lawyers routinely include every colorable accusation they can come up with in a complaint. And if you look at the actual complaint, the resellers are talking about advertisements of Apple's product support plan, AppleCare. There is nothing there about crashes. 
The AppleMatters cite is not much better. It's an on-line forum, with three people discussing crash problems, two of which turn out to be hardware related. The 2002 Register article is also not applicable since it talks about an earlier release of OS X, before the improvements that led to the ad campaign in question.
Apple's ads are among the most widely seen and remembered by the general public. Apple has some 22 million OS X users.  If even a small fraction of those users felt they were misled by the ads about crashing, there should be plenty of well sourced material out there that can be cited. If such a source cannot be found, Zeeboid's allegation does not belong in Wikipedia. --agr 14:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I'm not the one who wrote the stuff from The Regester or Apple Matters.  I'm not the one who told Apple to maintain an advertising campaign that states "It Doesn't Crash" and I'm not the one who, as noted in The Regester, has filed suit because of "False Advertising"  The sources I cite are either listed in Wikipedia as a reliable news souce (the register) or are used many many many other places as a source (apple matters) as a news article that refrences an online forum ocassionally.  the information is factual.  Apple Matters never even came up as a "invalid source" until this discussion where AppleMatters said something about apple that you don't like.  It is not my allegation, it is sourced and refrenced.  all of your claims are dealt with in the above discussion.--Zeeboid 16:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I have posted an alternate opening line that addresses your complaints.  You have not commented on this, but you have made it clear by your posting here, that even my attempts to work with you to add to this article are balked.  You were arguing about it being me claiming apple lies, then you moved to say that even though I point out its not me saying that, its sourced (and I list the sources), its now how the sentance is worded, RV'ing the critism section instead of repairing what you list as being inaccurate, Now your back to claiming its me claiming Apple lies and the sources don't matter for one reason or another.  It doesn't sound like you would be open to this being added no matter what anyone does.  If you would work with the editors, you would have commented on my proposed alteration to the sentance that you claim is inaccurate (though it is sourced) in the section above.--Zeeboid 16:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: None here, I will take anyone's reasonable comments into advisement.  Remember however, they can not "judge who is right," but only assist us in our discussion. --Zeeboid 16:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, my comments above directly address Zeeboid's proposed wording. I felt the response needed to be in  separate section to bring this matter to a head. I have no problem with mediation, but the current criticism section should be editied to reflect what the Register article actually says. Right now the reference does not support the sentence to which it is attached. I'm happy to let someone else do that. --agr 16:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This has to stop 

message: Ok, now that all the involved partise have had a chance to express their view on what the problem is, let's work toward finding a solution!  Based on what everyone has said I'm going to make an attempt to summarize here - feel free to point out if I have made any incorrect assumptions.
Points we can all agree on
# At one point or another, Apple advertisments have stated or implied that their computers do not crash, or at least made statements that can be interpreted that way.
# It has been demonstrated that Mac OSX can crash, and has been reported in at least once source.
# There are or have been lawsuits against Apple alleging false advertising.
Points we do not all agree on
# Whether the "does not crash" claim is current or historical
# Whether the sources in question are satisfactory, reliable, secondary sources
# Whether the fact that OSX crashes is relevant to the Apple article
# Whether the lawsuits claiming Apple engages in false advertising are relevant to the claim about crashing
# Whether this critisicm is even notable
I believe that if we can come to a consensus regarding these questions then we are well on our way toward resolving this issue.  In considering possible solutions and compromises I would ask that everyone consider the following questions :
*Are "criticisms of" sections appropriate in articles about well-known companies, ideas, organizations and people?  Does it help to establish a balanced, NPOV perspective?  If so, is there a point when a critique of the subject becomes "historic" and no longer relevant to the subject, or does it remain relevant as historic information?
*Lawsuits claiming false advertising certainly qualify as criticism of a company.  However, if the suits in question do not support the existing claims of criticism, what is the best way to deal with it?  Should the information be removed all together?  Should it remain in a "criticisms" section to provide a broader viewpoint?
*How do we determine when a criticism is notable and appropriate?  Is criticism of a company's product the same as criticism of the company?  WP:N tells us the primary requirement for notability is coverage by multiple, independent, secondary sources.  However WP:N is about notability of encyclopedic topics, not  sub-topics of an already notable topic.  How, then, should we determine when and if a criticism is notable and appropriate?
At this point I am intentionally avoiding answering any of these questions.  I do have my own opinions, of course, but as a mediator I will make every attempt to simply assist you with reaching a consensus and not making one for you!  If a request for additional opinions are made then we can see about getting that, but for now, I am optimistic that a consensus can be reached here.
Zeeboid as been kind enough to write up a proposed version of the "Criticisms" section over here and I would ask that everyone read it over and offer suggestions on how it can be improved to meet everyone's concerns.  Additionally, if you have a proposed compromise or rewording that you would like to suggest, please feel free to post it up.
Let me make clear at this point we are not voting on a proposal but merely trying to get some ideas out there for everyone to consider as the next step to building consensus. Arkyan • (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have added my possible compromise to Zeeboid's page (needs some work, formatting and maybe even total rewrite.)Mmoneypenny 22:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added mine as well.--agr 02:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposals and Compromises

message: Just a friendly notice to interested editors that the majority of the conversation seems to have shifted over to the case talk page Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-20 Apple Inc..  I am confident that we are narrowing in on a solution and encourage anyone and everyone to take a peek over there and add your voice. Arkyan • (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuation on case page 

message: Over 100 million units have been sold even though it was not originally perceived to be a successful product. 
The ref doesn't state the bolded part. And even the 100 million units sold. I deleted the former and retained the latter. Frequent editors might want to take notice and place the right reference for the units sold, and to keep the deleted part, find a source. Berserkerz Crit 10:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re Reference of iPod sentences

message: As the Environmental issues is critism of apple, it should be under apple's Critism section.--Zeeboid 17:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this not fit better under a critism section then it does a Hardware section?--Zeeboid 03:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, yes, for it is about hardware. That it is an area where Apple is criticised is clear enough from the text itself, methinks, though you may be inclined to disagree. Yours, Walafrid | talk 10:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Using the other wiki company articles as examples, even your sentance "that is an area where apple is criticised..." most critism, espically the large bits, are included in the seperate critism sections.  gives the article a cleaner more level appearance then it does including critism throughout.--Zeeboid 13:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Then we disagree about the fundamentals of good writing style! --Walafrid | talk 15:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sugguestion of moving "Environmental Issues" under Critism Section

message: Although it is possible that the referred-to article (Things We Hate About Apple) could form the basis for a better criticism section, in its current state the section was implying that Apple should be criticised for the editor being forced from his job, which is on its way to becoming libellous. I have therefore removed the section.Mmoneypenny 03:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added it back.  If it is worded incorrectly, Mmoneypenny, fix it.  I have added info that shows its link to the corperation.--Zeeboid 04:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now now, lets not get into a revert war.  I have re-added it back, adding the refrence/link to Steve Jobs.  If you believe this is libellous, please cite your sources, or wiki policy, and alter/correct the informaiotn listed.  If you feel this belongs only under PC World's article, have you added it there when you removed it here?  Also, I can go with that assessment, however I want to know from you, what would cause this informaiton to stay in the apple article.  I would think Steve Jobs phonecalls to the editor of MacWorld would be enough, but if its not, what is.--Zeeboid 04:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whenever we change an article in Wikipedia the aim should be to improve the article, to help others who might come across it understand the relevant issues. Does the addition to the criticism section help do this? IMO it does not. Is this really a criticism of Apple Inc.? IMO it is not, if anything it is a criticism of PC World and, possibly, possibly, of Steve Jobs. Your request to provide the section with the materiel (on this issue) which would allow it to stay in the Apple article is unfortunately unachievable but perhaps another editor will think differently. IMO the Apple article is starting to suffer.Mmoneypenny 04:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I am up for assisting in this.  It is complete BIAS to remove a critism section from one corperation's article yet include it in others, when critism exists for most companies.  The best I can sugguest is to refer to the critism sections for the following articles as a refrence to how it is properly done: Microsoft, Ford Motor Company, ExxonMobil, Citigroup, Boeing, Nestlé, Best Buy, Dell.--User:Zeeboid|Zeeboid]] 13:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has always been a red herring. I just don't feel comfortable with using this as a reason, partly because of what I have said above in the comments about the Greenpeace section. For one thing, it's not a very good writing style, encourages fragmentation, and is difficult to follow. Will you agree with me? --Walafrid | talk 15:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: To start with, the stuff in the critism section (because its the freshest) about the PC World editor quitting, I felt it was relivent, given the attempts to remove the critism section, as it kind of hits home for all of us, but more importantly, refrences Steve Jobs and apple as a company... this has people in a tizzy.  Lets fix it.  Sugguestions?--Zeeboid 13:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, but I don't think you're really engaging with my proposal. The article itself, irrespective of the background stands as an example of the kind of criticism that Apple receives. --Walafrid | talk 15:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I should clarify: I mean of course, the PC World article. --Walafrid | talk 15:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, if I understand you correctly (pleae correct me if i'm wrong) the PC World article is an example of the types of things that should be listed in the critism section?  or are you saying that it is an example of how critism exists wether or not its listed here?--Zeeboid 15:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid that's not quite what I meant. Apologies if what I said was not clear, I do have a habit of long-windedness. It boils down to the following logic: 1) that the content of the PC World article was criticism of Apple; 2) this demonstrates that Apple is criticised in the media; 3) that the Criticism section could acknowledge the existence of the article; 4) reference to its existence would provide examples to the reader of articles which exist to criticise Apple. Is this in any way clearer? --Walafrid | talk 15:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The funny thing about this article is that it also contains thinly hidden criticism about Microsoft not found at Microsoft#Criticism, e.g. "But contrast Apple's secrecy with Microsoft's lack thereof… Even though many of those plans have a tendency to not actually come true." Lars T. 22:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I can have the same long-windedness problem, no worries.  Yes, Much better!  I believe this would be a great start, as this is what most company critism sections are about... critism that reaches the news.    What do you propose it say?  I don't want to start it for fear it will be wrong and will need to be removed from then on.--Zeeboid 15:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I will work on something and post it back in the criticism section below around 18:00 UTC. --Walafrid | talk 16:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  10 things we hate 

message: i heard such arumor, is it true?
:No, it's a joke. iNic 13:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Joke is the wrong word. It's a long running rumor that will never be anything more for various obvious reasons. — Wackymacs 06:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  buying nintendo?