Talk:Apple Inc./Archive 2

message: Nothing important, but what releases does the article talk about with "This reversed the earlier trend within Microsoft that resulted in poor Mac versions of their software and resulted in several award-winning releases." Releases of Mac OS?--Chealer 01:52, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)
Releases of MS Office for the Mac.--RicardoC 01:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguity about "award-winning releases" 

message: I've pulled this couple of sentences.
:By 2003 Apple's share of the personal computer market had dwindled to around 5%. In 2004, Apple lost second place in marketshare around the world (estimated 3%) to Linux which will rised to control 5.1% of the desktop market, worldwide.
Does anyone have a reliable source for any of these numbers? AlistairMcMillan 14:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marketshare 

message: An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Apple_Computer article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add  to this page. — LinkBot 10:30, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:LinkBot/suggestions/Apple_Computer|Link suggestions]] 

message: From the article "In 2001, Apple introduced Mac OS X, an operating system based on NeXT's NeXTstep, that finally marries the stability, reliability and security of Unix with the ease of use of the Macintosh interface in an OS targeted at professionals and consumers alike."
Isn’t the above statement to much POV? I type this on a Powerbook, but its stability, reliability, security and ease of use is still a POV, not a fact. Of course you can support that POV with good arguments, i.e. statistics of how often a OS X computer is attacked compared with how often a Windows machine is attacked, or semi-professional studies of people preferences on ease of use, but it is still POV. If nobody has any objections, I will soon change the above statement.
M4c 15:35, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mac OS X and "stability, reliabilty and security" 

message: The recent history section is incomplete, and pretty random on the things it does cover.  So I've made it my mission to clean it up and improve the coverage.  I have split it in two, 1984-1997 and 1998-present, because they really are two eras.  I've also added a paragraph on the Apple IIc and Apple IIgs.
There's lots more to do.  The major problem is that it's disjointed: it jumps from one random little thing to another, rather than working through the important trends.  I'll continue working on it when I have the time.  But in the meantime, please help if you can.  —RadRafe 09:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Progress report:  '84-'97 improves ever more, but we still have to add a paragraph about what a royal mess Apple's product line and strategy were in the early to mid '90s, the Spindler-Amelio era.  I figure that once we've done that, we've finished the essentials of the section.  Again, help is appreciated.  —RadRafe | t 19:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent history 

message: I deleted the mission statement ("to make the power of computing available and accessible to everyone") because it is no longer current. The new one is here, but I would suggest we leave it out of the article -- or at least the lead -- because it would be redundant. Bbpen 21:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted mission statement 

message: I split out the Litigation into its own section, leaving everything that had been in "Apple as a Corporation" intact.  I added two of the most notable cases in Apple legal history, Apple v. Franklin and Apple v. Microsoft, both of which have extensive articles but were not mentioned in the main Apple article.  I also added the current iPod battery class-action settlement.
I feel that the two domain-squatting cases are beneath notice for encyclopedic content.  Apple has sued or been sued thousands of times, and these two cybersquatting cases don't affect consumers, didn't set precedents, and didn't materially affect the operations or reputation of the firm.  I recommend they be removed. cde 05:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Litigation 

message: I'm removing the Wiki at the top of this article. Intel Apple is not an article, it is a poorly written non-encyclopedic stub which should not have been made into a separate Wikipedia entry, especially with a title like that. Furthermore, that Apple will adopt Intel chips is already stated in the Apple Computer article in more depth and more proper English than the contents of that stub. Ramallite (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Intel Apple]] 

message: I propose to split off the bulk of the sections on Apple's history into a main article, History of Apple Computer, and leave summaries in their place.  That may get Apple Computer down to preferred article size.  In fact, I'm planning a major copyedit of the history sections, but I want to get some approval first, to make sure that I won't be disrupting something inconsiderately.  —RadRafe 00:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a key editor, so I couldn't answer that. However, if you want people to read your comment, give it a title that descibes it; "A proposal" is too general. Not like it's a bad thing though, but I still expanded the title a bit. I think you'll get more responses now :) HereToHelp 22:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposal about the History section 

message: I'm not sure exactly what it's called, but I mean the thing on the left at the beginning of the article. This is currently only on this page, should it be used for all the Apple products? I think that it's a good idea, providing basic info and all the links needed to get to all the other major Apple pages. Anyone else have a veiw?
:It could just be extra info someone added on. Microsoft has a similar one as well. Kenny M.
Then why waste that effort? I think it should be on all the Apple pages.
:Random Sidebar stuff: Note that Jon Rubenstein is retiring as of 3/31/06, being replaced by Tony Fadell. I'd suggest limiting the products on the sidebar, because they seem to be fairly arbitrary. Note that Final Cut Pro is missing from the list, but Aperture, which Apple hasn't really even shipped yet, is listed there.
::What relevance do Rubenstein/Fadell have regarding the sidebar as displayed here? Is there something somewhere else that I have missed? Moriori 08:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just mentioning it now so that the main Apple page gets updated when Rubenstein officially steps down.Boomeringue 08:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're talking about the Infobox Company template.  Please do not put that thing on all the Apple product pages---you will probably be reverted.  The Infobox Company template is controversial enough as is just on company pages!  Its content changes practically every other month as editors fight over what the fields in it should be.  --Coolcaesar 22:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Apple Computer Sidebar 

message: Hello everyone:
I took a picture of the Apple Computer HQ in Cupertino a few months ago.  It was shown as a thumbnail in the history section, but went off to another article along with most of the history section.  Does anyone object to having it also appear in this article?  
--Coolcaesar 22:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apple Computer HQ picture 

message: you guys should insert something about how microsoft use to own a small percentage of apple just to dispel the rumours that microsoft own half of apple--Whywhywhy 14:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  microsoft ownership 

message: Should Xcode be listed in the Products section? It is included with Mac OS X. Macintosh User 13:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xcode? 

message: While this article was nominated on WP:IDRIVE the following suggestions were made there:
; Comments:
* Oh please, this company gave us the Apple II, the Apple Macintosh and most recently the iPod and you're telling me this article is a bunch of lists and far from featured status!? — Wackymacs 19:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  IDrive-Comments 

message: * Suggestion to add to the Marketing section, a section on the Apple Masters program.Santaduck 06:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apple masters and Marketing and other related articles 

message: The Criticism section includes a lot of opinions expressed in passive voice and/or without specific cites: "Apple was criticized for ... Others criticize the company by suggesting ... Some even regard the company as ... Jobs is cited for criticism ... Apple was also criticized for". Most of these criticism are common knowledge in the computer industry, but the section could use some refs to substantiate and demonstrate notability. --Muchness 18:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section needs refs 

message: This subsection was removed for being un-encyclopedic and specious:
Diversity
Many lawsuits have been filed against Apple Computer for its treatment of racial minorities as well as its hiring (and termination) practices against Blacks, Middle Easterners, South Asians, and East Asians. In one of the largest racial discrimination lawsuits in its history, Apple was sued for discriminating against African-Americans for $40 millionWired News: Apple Hit With Racial Lawsuit. In 2000, Jesse Jackson singled out Apple as a "negative example" of racial tolerance due to its failure to appoint African Americans or Latinos to the board. lowendmac.com Musings: Racism Apple has still not made such an appointment, claiming that they instead appoint individuals to their board of directors based on qualification instead of ethnicity. On October 25th, 2005, Apple saluted the late Rosa Parks, heroine of the civil rights movement in USA, with a tribute on its website. The company had used Parks' image in its 1997 "Think Different" campaign.
One African-American employee filed a lawsuit in 2001 (as noted above), and a lesbian fired from her job filed one in May 2005. That doesn't qualify as "many lawsuits." Both dealt with particular managers' behaviors, not some sort of corporate culture. Both were handled by the same lawyer, Waukeen Q. McCoy, who specializes in squeezing money out of companies; both were for exactly the same amount ($40 million), and make the exact same claim ("One of the largest discrimination lawsuits!) Both appear to have never gone to trial. Ironically, Apple is rated #6 of the top ten "gay friendly" companies by Business Reform Magazine. And the claim that the company somehow discriminates against "Blacks, Middle Easterners, South Asians, and East Asians" is rather laughable when one considers that Steve Jobs' biological father is Syrian. —LeFlyman 23:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excised "Diversity" paragraph 

message: I added the house address and geocode that Steve Wozniak and party built the first Apple I. 70.125.43.99 12:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above unsigned comment appears to have been made by user:MathStatWoman after a series of reverts. Please  see the discussion on her talk page. The thing is, reporting an opinion is not POV, as stating that opinion would be. WP:NPOV allows for this. I agree some sources would help, but in some cases it's hard to find a definitive source - some opinions are widely held and there are mentions all over the web - others are based on things people have said at various times - how can you verify that though? As a Mac developer I've been to many Apple dev seminars and training courses, I talk to a lot of Mac guys that work for Apple - they say things, over time you get a feel for certain opinions... you know those opinions are out there, and widely held, but they are just a sort of folklore. That doesn't mean they are any less valid. Aren't you an Apple guy Stan? So you probably know they are true... ;-) Graham 12:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things to tweak 

message: This article seems to be rather opinionated.  Not neutral, i.e. not following NPOV.  Needs some tweaking as Stan Shebs stated above. DeveloperFrom1983 12:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some free advice. Stick to one user name, sockpuppets are generally viewed with deep suspicion. Logging out and making edits "anonymously" also doesn't usually work. As you can see, creating another ID and using it to try and lend weight to a particular argument is also tranparently obvious. Admins can see who you are you know! You're new and haven't worked this out yet, it's OK. Also, mistakes are OK too, but do try and get a feel for what wikipedia is and is not, and what POV really means. Reporting POV is not itself POV. Edit wars are futile and waste a lot of time and effort, and ultimately, can't be won by anybody - consensus will always prevail. If you plan to make a contribution, and I hope you will, your credibility will be much enhanced if you stick to your original login, and defend yourself with integrity. Graham 12:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: DeveloperFrom1983, what is your reasoning behind the change to the way Apple's stock is referenced in the first sentence?  ( vs. AAPL(NASDAQ))...  Additionally, it seems to me that the latter is unnecessary and a superfluous article.  PaulC/T+ 21:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: On the other hand, that text is pretty poor, so if it's included in any form, it will need significant clean-up. Personally I feel that if the stock value is of interest to a reader, they can very quickly look it up on a much more appropriate, and dynamic, source than this. This text doesn't even mention any dates - if you go back far enough you can find much bigger than 6x gains.. and 'hextupled'? ...is that a real word?  Also, stock splits are nothing unusual, explaining at length what one is here is redundant. Graham 23:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apple Article 

message: :Image:Columbia SEAS.GIF is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Columbia SEAS.GIF