![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Why isn't there a section for this? Many people have issues with Apple, and seeing as there is one on the microsoft entry, makes me wonder why this hasn't been brought up before. Hogiaus 17:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree, Apple can be criticized for a lot of things, from enviromental issues (the iSight was banned from the European Union) to lack of expanded support options (next-day support etc) to their habit of never releasing information about future products in advance. 81.233.73.177/A helping hand
Yes, for fairness, Apple, much like Microsoft, requires a Criticism section.-- Zeeboid 22:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I politely agree. Has somebody deliberately left a criticism section out? There's one in many other similar articles. Please consider adding one. Andacar 06:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree and ask motion to expand section. There are a lot of problems with Apple products. I own many and think it is true. 74.12.217.44 06:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's ready yet, but like Microsoft I think that Apple has an FA in it. I know that my preivous nom was very premature, but I think that the article is vastly improved since then. Anybody interested in collaborating to get this up to FA status? Any suggestions on how to do so? - Mike | Trick or Treat 23:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
No way would I vote for this article for FA. Not until it gets some honesty. It doesn't even mention the 1997 Microsoft bailout [1]. Not even once! And no criticism section? This article is heavily colored by biased advocacy. -- Skidoo 17:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I've been working on iPod, too, with the same goal... This one is most certainly not FA quality yet, but it has the potential.-- Here T oHelp 21:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing in here that says that criticizes Apple other than the lawsuits. How about the fact that Macs can't play games and can't run on AMD? -- Rigist 22:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
To attempt to add fairness to this POV, a screenshot of Tiger Crashing has been added, much like the Blue Screen of Death image on Microsoft's Wiki page.-- Zeeboid 17:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
It is notable at the corperate level, just as notable as the BSOD. it is an error screen that the machines are known for. as you say "It's a relatively common jab at Microsoft." Wikipedia is not the place for "jabs." Much like the need for the Microsoft page to include a photo of their operating system crashing, to be as accurate as possible, the Apple Computer page should include an image of their operating system crashing as well. The BOSD may be in pop-culture, but that does not make apple's crash screen unnoteworthy in fact, the fact that apple does crash is informational since the common misperception is that apples DONT crash, which from a user perspective, is very very not true. Perhaps information like this should be in An Apple Inc.'s own Criticism section? either that, or it should be fine where it is.
The fact that Blue Screen of Death has its own article indicates the reference on Microsoft' page is not for "pop-culture" significance, but is simply giving information about a reality of Microsoft systems. That standard, in strictly neutral encyclopedic interests, is being applied here. This is not a response to the Microsoft BSOD, simply following the standard that is used for Microsoft as a template in editing Apple. -- Zeeboid 19:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
All operating systems can crash. That does not mean every computer company article has to have a picture of its crash screen. Most reviewers credit OS X with being very stable. Absent some reliable source that says this crash screen is commonly enountered by OS X users, it's not notable and doesn't belong in this article. Whether BSOD belongs in the Microsoft artilcle should be discussed there, not here.-- agr 20:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
KEEP--What is your definition of "The only thing that makes that fact notable in regards to a particular OS is notoriety, or if it crashes unusually often." because from what I understand it’s all a numbers game. It is clear that a computer with 95% of the market share, would have the perception of crashing more often then one with 3.5% of the market share. The reason the windows crash screen is better known is because 95% of the users out there have a Windows machine. I am not here to argue semantics or play numbers games, or bicker over a better operating system, but the As we are all in agreeing that "all computers crash," my reasoning for posting that image is to help show other users that despite Apple's Advertising claims, and apparent majority misconception about the product, the computers actually do crash. As Tony stated, information about a topic that is not "commonly known" is just as important as the information that is "commonly known." Because of the misconception that is out there about Apples not crashing, is precisely the reason it is important to keep up.-- Zeeboid 04:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No original research I have not performed any research on this, it is documented that people have had their Apple crash, and it is a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, much like the BOSD being displayed on Microsoft's Wiki page is neutral, and Wikipedia:Verifiability is met because the crash screen is not only verifiable but duplicatable... It Does Exist.
There is no POV pushing here, simply to educate those who have been misinformed about how "Apples Don't Crash" which was a message in multiple forms directly from Apple. Otherwise, would you argue then that the Crash Screen does not belong on the Windows Wiki, but in the Screens_of_Death section only?-- Zeeboid 20:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
For me, the question seems to be this: because Apple have made the claim that Mac's don't crash, does that mean a screenshot of a Kernel Panic belongs on Apple Inc.'s main page? No-one here (I hope) is arguing that kernel panics don't happen; rather, as I have said before, there has to be a better place for this particular picture. For one thing, if it is to stay, I think it needs a reference in the text. At the moment, its presence is pushing a particular POV simply because there is no attempt to balance it: its only reason for being there appears to be to prove that Mac OS X crashes, in response to a perceived view that it doesn't. Is it the place of Wikipedia articles to attempt to address every supposed misperception? As to the argument that Microsoft has the BSOD, so Apple's page must too: why can't OS X stand up on its own merits? Again, the question is raised—does the kernel panic screen have such notoriety that a visitor wishing to learn about Apple Inc. would find it useful? As the article stands, the answer has to be ‘No’. -- Walafrid 23:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
No mention of this? 142.59.135.116 08:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I am laughing out loud at the GLARING absence of any mention of the 1997 Microsoft bailout. Clearly some Apple fanatics have had their way with this article. Hopefully someone will fix this. It's ridiculous. That was one of the pivotal moments in Apple's history, AND IT'S NOT EVEN MENTIONED!! Good grief. If I get some time, I'll put it in.
I don't care how big a Mac fan you are, it's dishonest not to have ANY MENTION WHATSOEVER of this huge event. Come on, people. -- Skidoo 16:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
One controversy over this issue is whether Microsoft's payoff was indeed then "bailing Apple out", or whether it was indeed paid to Apple in order to settle previous and upcoming lawsuits. Of course, with the secrecy of the company, we may never know what the deal really was about, but I personally find it strange for one company to help out virtually its only competition. -- Rfaulder 00:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Added some info on this yesterday. Hope that helps. -- Brucethemoose 18:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Owen Linsmayer's book on the history of Apple goes into the background of this deal, someone should find a copy and give an accurate citation (I can't find my copy of the book). According to Linsmayer, Microsoft bought $150mil of nonvoting stock, but they secretly bought options (IIRC something like 250mil) betting that Apple stock would go down. But the stock went up, and Microsoft lost more money on the secret options than they gained in the publicly announced stock "bailout." Microsoft is the only company I know that can stab you in the back and shoot themselves in the foot at the same time. --May 22 2007
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)
I believe the Greenpeace, as a current event, belongs in a secion marked "Controversy and Criticism". I *do* believe it is relevant but it is not appropriate in the current place (under "Hardware") as this section should be considered part of the story that explains Apple's relationship to other entities.
Jasonfb
00:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
"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)
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)
The lead section of this article is not the place to talk about the new iPhone. Okay? The Wikipedia:Lead section is intended to provide a concise overview of the article that follows. I understand that Mac afficionados presently suffering from the effects of the reality distortion field will try to conflate the importance of a newly-announced product which won't even be released for another half a year, but in terms of summarising the totality of the subject of Apple, it has absolutely no relevance. The name change, however, is very important, because it directly relates to defining the subject. -/- Warren 19:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit of a stickler for accuracy so: Has the legal name actually changed yet? Most of the time shareholder approval is required for a corporate name change, so this might be just an announcement of a planned change. Jobs's quote only says "we are changing...", not "we have changed", while so far the copyright notices at apple.com still read "Apple Computer, Inc." — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 21:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
(deindent) At this point, we should wait a couple days to sort things out. First, we need to wait until Apple officially has the name changed in its listings. Then, we need consensus on how to name the article (and fix the Talk page link). I'm leaning towards Apple (company), though it seems Apple is making the Inc. a part of their logo. So, it may be appropriate to leave the article as-is.
Either way, we should wait until the dust settles a bit. There is no deadline and The World Will Not End Tomorrow. -- Kesh 04:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
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).
Does this change [4] want to be kept? → James Kidd ( contr/ talk/ email) 10:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
In the History/Early years section, the following appears: "In the early 1980s, IBM and Microsoft continued to gain market share at Apple's expense in the personal computer industry. Using a fundamentally different business model, IBM marketed an open hardware standard created with the IBM PC [...]".
It seems to me that the IBM PC was very much a closed hardware system, until Compaq managed to clone the PC (remember the fuss about PC clones back in the mid-80s?). Also, in the early 1980s, Microsoft was a bit player, just a contractor to IBM. And IBM could hardly "continue" to gain market share as it was just starting out in the PC business. IBM *began* to gain market share at Apple's expense.
I'm writing this here on the talk page rather than editing the article because I would prefer that someone who knows the history better do the actual revision. But please someone change these sentences; they're unclear and misleading. Justinbb 06:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
As pointed out in Name change official? above, the company's name has officially changed. Unfortunately, this means we need to move the article again. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies), the legal status of the company (Inc. in this case) is not normally part of the article name. Since removing that would leave us with Apple, which is ripe for disambiguation, the article needs renamed to Apple (company).
I'd make the change myself, but I've yet to deal with double-redirects, so I'll let someone else make sure the move goes properly. -- Kesh 03:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
If you wanted to get really picky, you could go all the way to say that the name should have a comma. It's true, no one calls Apple Inc. by its real name, but then did anyone call it "Apple Computer Inc" before CES 07? I don't think so. The name should remain as it is or (if anything) add a comma - "Apple, Inc." -- Bboyskidz 02:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Aren't Apple inc and Apple Corps both companies? That's why Apple Corps is denoted to differentiate. -- EXV // + @ 20:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
[2] does not work -- Sjefen6 17:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
I agree. I mean there isn't anything even about the whole stock options scandal -- 71.163.74.97 22:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Apple 'falsified' share documents [5]
Apple options review claims Anderson's scalp [6]
Apple may need to restate last 15 quarters [7]
Apple, CA investigate share option grants [8]
Unpatched bug bites Apple Mac OS X [9]
Month of Apple bugs planned for January [10]
Apple to delay quarterly results filing [11]
Apple takes $84 million charge, defends Jobs [12]
Steve Jobs on Microsoft "They have no taste" [13]
Steve Jobs talking about Microsoft, and how Internet Explorer is "we believe IE is a realy good internet browser" [14]
Quicktime Bugs [15]-- Zeeboid 02:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree there should be a room for critism. Especially since Apple is now chosen as least 'green' company in the electronics industry. [16] There is even an petition on it atm [17] 145.46.220.6 12:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
A criticism section in an encylopedia is completely absurd. I am no Apple advocate, but one does not appear for Linux nor Windows, so seems to be a bit stupid appearing here, or in my view in any article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.46.28.210 ( talk • contribs).
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:
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)
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)
I don't think it belongs here. Especially if there's no BSOD in the microsoft article. Maybe in the OSX article. Maybe. steventity 06:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Alright, in light of this and the complaint below about too many images in the article, I've removed the Tiger Crashing image. If someone has an objection, feel free to raise it, but I don't think this shot has a place in this article. Demosthenes X 19:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't speak for any other user here, but does anybody notice the slow loading time for this article? It may be a bit long, but there are so many images on this article that I don't think need to be present. Specifically, the digital camera and iPhone images are unecessary. Thoughts? Scrum shus Talk to me→ 17:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Apple 1: keep
1984 ad: drop
Macintosh Portable: keep
Camera: drop
Sign: drop
iMac: replace with a better photo of the iMac
Company HQ: drop
MacBook Pro: keep
Intel iMac: keep
Mac Mini: drop
iPod: keep
iPhone: keep
Tiger: drop
Logos: keep
Demosthenes X
19:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I can agree about the headquarters shot. I'm not entirely sure about the 1984 ad, even though I do love it and agree it was an important ad. I definately think the sign, the Mini, and the camera can go. This is a general page about the company, we don't need to include all of their current products. There are respective product pages for that... I think the iMac, iPod, and iPhone, being their most notable and recognizable products, should stay. Demosthenes X 01:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I've just reverted a gratuitious insertion of another image (apparently placed as a "Nyah, nyah!"). I concur we need to trim the images, and with Steventity that 1984 should stay. I say dump MacBook Pro and Intel iMac (you can't tell from the pic what's inside). -- Orange Mike 02:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Some people are having an edit war about the picture and the accompanying text. I am a bit disappointed that people keep reverting back and forth despite this being discussed on the talk page, which normally means that people should lay off the disputed content and talk about it. Zeeboid has pointed out that there has already been a discussion about this and, as far as I can see, there were two keeps. Would it be possible/agreeable to have a vote about keeping the image and text? I am a little bit new to wikipedia and maybe this should be done somewhere else or more formally, but if not, why don't people just register their vote below with a short precis regarding their reasoning and that will be the end of it? (Conflicting interests: Mmoneypenny owns 2 macs, 1 airport express, 1 airport extreme and 4 iPods (I know, I know...)) All the best. Mmoneypenny 20:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep well, the most recent user (ArnoldReinhold) removed the image and the text claiming that AppleMatters.com and Apple.com] "unsourced POV text too. Websites are not reliable sources and this one hardly supports the claim" [19] though other users have removed the image claiming the there is no text supporting it, though there was [20] or that it was a "Pointless slam by a windows uer" [21] however even though I prefer my two PCs to my iMac, I believe that its actions like these, the removal of sourced, factual information that may not support the view that the stereotypical "Cultish" user does nothing but support the stereotype. Wikipedia isn’t about supporting limited views. Its here to display the info, and let people make of it as they wish. This image met resistance when added earlier, and it was supported. It has been removed many times by many anonymous users or altered with “yea but…” statements. I’m sorry that this isn’t something that the “cultish” ones want to hear, but it is factual, and referenced, just like the BOSD on the Microsoft page.-- Zeeboid 21:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Conditional Keep- It needs a better source than AppleMatters. There has to be one out there. The link to apple's own claim is great, but AppleMatters is hardly a notable source. Ah, and my reasoning... It's a claim made by apple that Tiger doesn't crash. This is an explicit comparison to windows ("Are you just a tad too well acquainted with the notorious “blue screen of death”?"). As such, the fact that it does crash should be in there. I've had it KP a couple times, as have others, however this, along with the Apple Matters article, is anecdotal evidence. We need a better source. Hell, a PC World or even a MacLife or MacWorld article would do. There's got to be something out there about it not from a rumors site. It just needs to be found if we're going to keep it. - steventity 21:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Conditional remove - Find a reliable source before including this material. The BSOD inclusion in the Microsoft article cites CNN and the New York Times. Something comparably reliable is required that says the kernel panic screen is a notable problem. Not only is AppleMatters unsuitable as a source, the cited discussion attributes most of the observed crashes to hardware problems or improper removeal of a storage device. There is a call for addtitional reports that has 1 vote. -- agr 23:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Love it or hate it, AppleMatters is currently being used as an acceptable source, and is thus acceptable in this case. Under your reliable sources examples, by the way, it also states that blogs shouldn't be used, but they are used as well. If you take issue with AppleMatters not being acceptable, then take issue with it, and get it removed from , but until it is cited as not being appropriate and removed from the 7 examples I have given you, from what I understand, it is used as an acceptable source in several places, and thus can also be used here. It is a dark and difficult road when you start to say "Well, this source works fine for everything, except what your trying to do here..." Based on your expl, see no reason this source is deemed unacceptable. Also, as wikipedia encourages users to add or fix what other editors add, does it not? I would expect you to help me find other sources that you deem acceptable, But fortunately to make this easier for all of us, the link that is referenced from AppleMatters is not a forum. [32] it is a "Ask Apple Matters Article" which fits under news.-- Zeeboid 14:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It's clear from the above that you are trying to make an argument in this article that Apple lies. That is a serious allegation. To include it in Wikipedia you have to find a reliable source that makes that claim. And it has to be the full claim, that Apple's ads are materially false. To quote WP:NPOV:
I'm slightly nervous about wading into this discussion again, but what makes me most nervous is the suggestion that Apple still makes the claim. As far as I can see, it was part of the previous "Switch" campaign, but nowhere is it made in the current "Get a Mac" series. The link Zeeboid gave above, when investigated, points to a part of the website that is no longer accessible except by specifically typing its address (and what country is 'lae'?). Again, is it the role of Wikipedia to attempt to counter every possible misunderstanding that a reader may have? -- Walafrid 17:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Remove I am trying to be as NPOV as I can and I know Apple aren't perfect but this little piece of add-on to the software section, with the image almost as big as the blurb explaining it and the fact that Apple no longer claim this to be true just does not sit well with me. I was originally going to say keep in the interests of a balanced article, but the arguments above have swayed me. Having said all this, if Zeeboid (or someone) could come up with a Criticisms section a la Microsoft article I would be happy to endorse it. At the moment this article, in my opinion, is still too Apple-worshipping and this too is not encyclopaedic, at least the Microsoft editors have a Criticism section which quickly allows people who read the article to have a look and see what's "wrong" with Microsoft, instead of having to trudge through reams of paragraphs here on the Apple article. I do think it's funny that in the link above [37] Apple say that the Mac crashes as much as a paperback book, that is to say "almost never", because none of my paperback books have ever ever ever crashed... but my Mac has. Some more NPOV is needed here. Thanks for reading the rant. All the best. Mmoneypenny 20:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
You've made it very clear that the reason you want to include this image is to prove your theory that Apple lies. That is highly POV and an improper use of Wikipedia. Information here must be sourced, particularly negative information. I have no problem with a criticism section if the information comes from reliable sources. That should not be difficult. There is plenty negative written about Apple. If you think the existance of a crash screen in OS X proves Apple is engaged in false advertising take it up with the FTC. Here is a link to their on-line consumer complaint form [39]. Or write an article and get it published. Wikipedia is not the place to pursue your cause. -- agr 00:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Based on opinion earlier in this discussion, I have moved this information to a Critism section, and have also included the link to Apple's website showing the KP and the Regester. If you take issue with the AppleMatters source, then I would question why no one has had an issue with AppleMatters as a source until now.-- Zeeboid 13:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Based on opinion in this discussion, I have removed AppleMatters, since it quotes both answer and question directly from forums. Please reread why I am taking issue with the use of AppleMatters in this case. I have added a verify tag. I have also Added some wikilinks and clarified the language surrounding the Reg's article. - steventity 14:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
"Some of Apple Inc's Advertising claims have been the subject of lawsuites including false advertising and fraud [42]. Apple's past claims "it doesn't crash" [43] and current claims of being "Crash Free" [44] are refuted by The Regester [45] and AppleMatters [46]. This was featured as..." Oh, and the apple matters site link, is an article that refrences a forum, not a forum. Wiki rules don't state that a news article can't refrence a forum, only that you can not refrence a forum. Add onto this Apple Matters being used in 7 other places without being balked until now, it [47], and it is backed up by The Regester, I don't see why it doesn't work.-- Zeeboid 20:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Only if you can point out to all of us, Like I asked before, where it says on the page or in the URL that this [48] is an archive. You can't show us because it is not an archive. Otherwise, just like anyother website that is an Archive, you could tell by the URL or on the page itself. If its not an archive, its a "Current Claim" unless, of corse, you can point out to all of us, like I asked before, where it says on the page or in the URL that it is an archive... How is it, Orangemike, that you KNOW it is an Archive?-- Zeeboid 20:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Any Problems with this one: "Some of Apple Inc's Advertising claims have been the subject of lawsuites including false advertising and fraud [49]. Apple's past claims "it doesn't crash" [50] and current claims of being "Crash Free" [51] are refuted by The Register [52] and AppleMatters [53]. This was featured as..." -- Zeeboid 16:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, everybody slow down, take the long view and mind the three revert rule. We should wait for more people to voice opinions. steventity 19:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I initially proposed the removal of the image on two grounds. One was that the Microsoft article does not include the BDOD, which was an error on my part. I checked but did not see the image. The other, however, was that it's not really relevant to Apple Inc. This article discusses the company: the image refers to a rare occurrence in one of their many products. This image belongs on the OSX page, not on the Apple Inc. page. For the record, I do not think the BSOD belongs on the Microsoft page, either, but rather on the Windows page.
Further, I just looked at TheRegister's linked article, which apparently is the justification of the criticisms section, and it mentions false advertising in passing, with no specifics. It does not mention crashes, and it certainly does not mention the Get a Mac or Switch campaign: the way the article is written, it makes it out as though TheRegister directly attacked those campaigns, which is not the case judging by the linked sources. The link from TheRegister article leads to a dead URL. If this section is to stay, it needs a better reference for the criticisms... if this is the best we can do, then the entire bit about crashing should go. Demosthenes X 22:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
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? Scrum shus Talk to me→ 00:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. [54] 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)
I'm gonna post a request for the mediation cabal to look at this, as I feel we have reached an impasse. Any objections? - steventity 16:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I am offering to help as a mediator in this case after seeing the notice posted up on Mediation Cabal. I will wait for the involved parties to accept the offer before we proceed with the discussion, but I do look forward to helping you all reach an agreeable conclusion to this matter. I will be posting a notice on the talk pages of the parties listed as participants to the dispute. Arkyan • (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Zeeboid:
Orangemike:
agr: I don't think another debate is wanted, but I wish to clarify my position here. I am not saying that the Register is not a reliable source, just that the articles cited by Zeeboid are not pertinent to the crashing ads. There are two register articles in question. One is from 2002, before Apple released the versions of OS X that are the basis of the ad campaign in question. So it can hardly refute the ads as claimed in Zeeboid's proposed wording linked above.
The second Register article says absolutely nothing about crashing. It merely describes a lawsuit by aggrieved Apple resellers. Their complaint does not mention crashing. According to Apple's 2006 10K, all the suits in question have been settled, however the prior owner of one of the resellers is appealing a bankruptcy judge's approval of the settlement. If this lawsuit belongs in Wikipedia at all, it would be in the Notable litigation of Apple Inc. article, with an explanation of the issues raised and the suit's current status. This suit has nothing to do with the crashing ads, unless we accept the notion that once a company has been accused of false advertising in some law suit, any of their ads is subject to review for truthfulness by Wikipedia editors, who may then respond in the article about the company.
While I have not intention of editing the Apple Inc article as long as the mediation proceeds, I do wish to object to the disputed text remaining in the article during the process. If, as I claim, the current version violates Wikipedia policy, more damage is done every day the text appears and the disputed tag merely draws attention to it.-- agr 20:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
steventity Pretty much what Orangemike and Mmoneypenny said, but I'll lay it out in my own words, just in case we differ somewhere.
- steventity 01:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
walafrid: I think the main points of debate have been laid down fairly clearly already, so I don't have much to add. The main facts here as I see them:
The difficulty as far as I can see it, however, is that there has not been notable criticism of Apple in the media for these claims (or at least they're appearing hard to find!). The result is that this article's criticism section is less reporting actual criticism of Apple (surely its real role) and more making its own criticism of Apple in this regard, fundamentally challenging the article's impartial nature.
In addition—and I think I've said this before—it doesn't seem like the proper role of a wikipedia article to exist as a means to pre-empt misunderstandings about whether OS X crashes or not, since it is a fact that it does. And it is surely not a criticism of Apple that its operating system does crash, for it is widely expected that operating systems will, and one might even class it as a feature!
I also wanted to echo orangemike's concerns about methodology. For instance, it has been stated here before that the Apple page should have the Kernel Panic image because the Microsoft page has one for the 'BSOD'; it seems to be in the same spirit that the Kernel Panic image is annotated 'the equivalent of a BSOD'. This may be in the genuine pursuit of understanding for the reader, but it makes me feel uneasy—is it really the article's job to be 'fair' in this kind of way? I think this is more equivalence than fairness, and the two companies are not equivalent. I hope we are able to reach a consensus on this matter, and thank you Arkyan for stepping to mediate here.-- Walafrid 09:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
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
Points we do not all agree on
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 :
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)
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)
The mediator has closed this case. His final proposal is at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-20 Apple Inc.#Wrapping up. He also concluded:
Zeeboid has voiced strong disagreement with the moderator's most recent proposal. Are there other objections?--
agr
16:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that the new PC World information that has been put up should stay. I say we give this criticism section a bit more time. Mediation has just ended, and already one editor seems to be going crazy trying to fill it. There's no hurry! Please let's not have the same arguments over and over again—Zeeboid, you're really not doing your case any favours with this combative approach. -- Walafrid | talk 22:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Zeeboid, if you're interested, I have spent some time this morning combing through the article and trying to balance out some of the more obvious points where there seemed to be bias coming through. You've suggested repeatedly that everyone else has been sitting on their hands not attempting to battle bias, so I've responded. As to the points you've directed at agr just above, you might want to see my comments below. Yours, Walafrid | talk 10:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Over 100 million units have been sold even though it was not originally perceived to be a successful product. [3]
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)
As the Environmental issues is critism of apple, it should be under apple's Critism section.-- Zeeboid 17:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, its been moved. Thoughts?-- Zeeboid 20:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm about to revert the move. The information is doing just fine under environmental. I don't think we've established that a Criticism section is best practice. It's surely madness to artificially separate the article into a 'good' section and a 'bad' section. -- Walafrid | talk 22:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
I haven't had time to think about it a great deal, but this may be the kind of thing on which a Criticism section could be built. I can hear myself saying earlier that the section should report on notable instances of criticism against Apple, of which that article's content could be an example.
Let me be clear that I am not saying that the business about suppressing stories should go in there. That is unfounded allegation at best, and may never be proved. Rather, I am saying that the section could be used to highlight instances of criticism for Apple in the press. In doing so, of course, we leave the reader to make up their mind about what they think about the content of such pieces, and refrain from commenting or perhaps even listing the content. In this way we draw attention to the kinds of criticisms that may be made of the company.
There is a danger, though, that this would leave the section to be a kind of 'recent bad press for Apple' thing. That should be avoided. What do people think, in general, about the kind of proposal I have outlined? Yours, Walafrid | talk 10:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Below is the text as it currently exists. Do with it as you wish here, lets try to keep from revert-waring:
The 12 year Editor-in-Chief of PC World, Harry McCracken, quit PC World May 2 2007, when PC World's new chief executive Colin Crawford, a former CEO of Macworld, tried to kill a story about Apple and Steve Jobs titled "10 Things We Hate About Apple." [4] PC World later published this article [5] on their website on May 7 2007. Steve Jobs, according to Wired News [6], would call Crawford (then working for the Mac magazine) "any time he had a problem with a story the magazine was running about Apple."
last change-- Zeeboid 13:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I have today been bold and removed the criticism section to the advertising page as per the mediation. I appreciate this was not a consensus decision, but I do believe that the article is the better for it. As the mediation was not entirely successful and the arbitration committee will not look at disputes about content, I believe we will just have to continue to edit and improve the article as we have in the past. All the best. Mmoneypenny 05:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I want to propose a final solution to the problem causing this lengthy debate. What it all boils down to, as I see it, is different views on how well grounded allegations and insinuations against a company should be. Being in an encyclopedia all allegations of this kind should be very well grounded. Almost all editors agree here. However, as well as there are people that praise Apple for everything they do (which is described in a special section in the article with a link to the Cult of Mac) I think the article should mention that there are also an anti-cult of Apple. It's a fact that there has been an anti-cult of the Macintosh since the very beginning. Being a sociological phenomenon, the various "truths" the members of that group share doesn't have to be well grounded and sourced to be worth mentioning. On a page devoted to that, for example with a title like Anti-cult of Mac, we could collect all the different rumours and allegations both new and old. A page like that could be very interesting to read, I think. iNic 15:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree that this argument isabout keeping criticism of Apple out of the article. It's about having well sourced and notable criticsm. As I have mentioned before, there are controversies about Apple that belong in here. For example:
I believe there is abundant secondary source material on both sides for all of these issues. Whether they should be in a separate criticism section or integrated into the article is a separate question. I believe there is a preference for the latter on Wikipedia, but clearly there are examples of both. I'd like to invite comments on this question first.-- agr 16:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
As I promised above, here's my first tentative suggestion for the kind of shape a criticism section should take:
In May 2007, PC World magazine featured an article on its website entitled “10 Things We Hate About Apple”, [7] which, as the title suggests, listed the 10 things its authors found objectionable about the company. Other publications, the UK magazine PC Pro for instance, have had similar features. [8] This section includes critism of Apple Inc.
Apple Inc Recieved critism for blaiming Microsoft for some video iPods released with a virus. To quote PC World [9]:
""That Apple would blame Microsoft demonstrates a lack of understanding of remedial security and manufacturing processes. Virus was only a symptom of the problem. Apple didn't know what they were shipping," Abrams said.
Apple did not respond to phone and e-mail requests for comment before this story filed."
There's not a great deal of text there, but I would suggest it's a start towards a section whose aim is to report on the way in which Apple has been publicly criticised. For additional material, how about these issues? [ [70]] and [ [71]] Yours, Walafrid | talk 18:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Here is my version of that fleshed out:
In May 2007, PC World magazine featured an article on its website entitled “10 Things We Hate About Apple”, [10] which, as the title suggests, listed the 10 things its authors found objectionable about the company. Other publications, the UK magazine PC Pro for instance, have had similar features. [11] This section includes criticism of Apple Inc.
Apple Inc received criticism for blaming Microsoft for some video iPods released with a virus. To quote PC World [12]:
""That Apple would blame Microsoft demonstrates a lack of understanding of remedial security and manufacturing processes. Virus was only a symptom of the problem. Apple didn't know what they were shipping," Abrams said. Apple did not respond to phone and e-mail requests for comment before this story filed."
According to the BBC: [13]
Apple recently plugged holes in Mac software such as iChat and Finder and a flaw in the user notification process that could potentially grant system privileges to malicious users.
All three problems were highlighted by Finisterre, and a fellow researcher known only as LMH. Finisterre said: "Try calling any Apple store and ask any sales rep what you would do with regard to security, ask if there is anything you should have to worry about? "They will happily reinforce the feeling of 'Security on a Mac? What? Me worry?'." He said the Month of Apple Bugs (MOAB) project had succeeded in its original aim of raising the level of awareness around Mac security.
"I would really hope that people got the point that there are most definitely some things under the OSX hood that need a closer look," he said.
Apple has also received criticism for failing to notify users ahead of time for system patches. To quote PC World [14]:
"Does anyone want to tell us when the next Mac OS X software updates will hit? What security vulnerabilities Apple is working on fixing? In April, Apple released a patch that plugged more than two dozen vulnerabilities--with absolutely zero advance notice. Mac users were wide open to attacks, and they never knew it. Even Microsoft (usually) tells people when to expect patches, and often tells you how to protect yourself until the patches are ready"
Apple has also received criticism for having a "closed door policy" on aspects of technology, having a limited number of systems to choose from, not being good for gaming, and occasionally having design mistakes like their round "puck mouse."
-- Zeeboid 13:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
(Revert Criticism section to version that is actually backed up by sources, that doesn't cite "fluff" pieces and that isn't written by editor with obvious chip on shoulder about Apple.)
I'm sorry but the PC World article is a fluff piece... Number two on the list: "secrets". Seriously, out of all the things that piss people off about Apple, number two in being secretive? And whether a guy resigned over the article doesn't prove whether or not the criticism is serious.
And for gods sake, if you are going to use an article as a source please try reading it first. Paul Roberts, who is not a Microsoft employee, wrote that article for InfoWorld, not PC World (who re-published his article, it even says so on the PC World version). Also the only sources he had for his article rebutting Apple's criticism of Microsoft happen to be Microsoft employees (past and present), .
I'm sorry, but I'm sick of seeing people with obvious chips on their shoulder being treated as if they have legitimate contributions to make. You personally don't like Apple, we all get it. You're so desperate you didn't even get that Lars was taking the piss when he suggested the article that says Apple have "ties to the forces of darkness" because they called a piece of software Darwin. Please stop wasting people's time. AlistairMcMillan 17:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The only reason for having criticism in an article is to note where a subject has been criticized. Just because other articles have criticism sections doesn't automatically mean all articles need them. My edits attempt to make the article content fit the cited sources. My edits also come from actually reading the bloody sources. You have noticed that the PC World article and the InfoWorld article are identical, right? You do see that the PC World article has InfoWorld written under the byline, right? You do notice the "Copyright InfoWorld Media Group" written at the bottom of the PC World article right? Don't try to include both to make it look like two different sources. And the word "allegedly" belongs in there because although Roberts glosses over it Apple didn't just blame Microsoft, they quite clearly take blame themselves. AlistairMcMillan 18:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Lets take this point by point then. (1) There is no-one criticizing Apple in the internetnews article you just cited. (2) Why you continue to insert the PC World link, which is just a mirror of the InfoWorld article escapes me. (3) "received criticism from multiple sources" is still followed by only one article. (4) PLEASE READ YOUR SOURCES. (5) The InfoWorld article written by Paul F. Roberts is the same article as the Paul F. Roberts article that PC World published. The PC World article that has "InfoWorld" under the byline and "InfoWorld" down at the bottom. Oo, just got deja vu there. (6) And if you think the fluff piece in PC World about "10 things we hate..." is worth noting, then why isn't "10 things we love..." which was written by the same authors, for the same publication at the same time? AlistairMcMillan 19:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
This just gets better and better. Are you serious? You want to add a link to a Slashdot article that points to an ArsTechnica article that points to the quotes from Microsoft's Jonathan Poon in the InfoWorld article, as proof that there are multiple sources? Really? AlistairMcMillan 20:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Criticism clearly states:
and, for this reason, I believe that all content which presently exists in this section should be moved to other, more appropriate parts of the article. Iccdel 02:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
i heard such arumor, is it true?
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
Why isn't there a section for this? Many people have issues with Apple, and seeing as there is one on the microsoft entry, makes me wonder why this hasn't been brought up before. Hogiaus 17:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I tend to agree, Apple can be criticized for a lot of things, from enviromental issues (the iSight was banned from the European Union) to lack of expanded support options (next-day support etc) to their habit of never releasing information about future products in advance. 81.233.73.177/A helping hand
Yes, for fairness, Apple, much like Microsoft, requires a Criticism section.-- Zeeboid 22:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I politely agree. Has somebody deliberately left a criticism section out? There's one in many other similar articles. Please consider adding one. Andacar 06:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree and ask motion to expand section. There are a lot of problems with Apple products. I own many and think it is true. 74.12.217.44 06:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's ready yet, but like Microsoft I think that Apple has an FA in it. I know that my preivous nom was very premature, but I think that the article is vastly improved since then. Anybody interested in collaborating to get this up to FA status? Any suggestions on how to do so? - Mike | Trick or Treat 23:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
No way would I vote for this article for FA. Not until it gets some honesty. It doesn't even mention the 1997 Microsoft bailout [1]. Not even once! And no criticism section? This article is heavily colored by biased advocacy. -- Skidoo 17:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I've been working on iPod, too, with the same goal... This one is most certainly not FA quality yet, but it has the potential.-- Here T oHelp 21:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing in here that says that criticizes Apple other than the lawsuits. How about the fact that Macs can't play games and can't run on AMD? -- Rigist 22:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
To attempt to add fairness to this POV, a screenshot of Tiger Crashing has been added, much like the Blue Screen of Death image on Microsoft's Wiki page.-- Zeeboid 17:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
It is notable at the corperate level, just as notable as the BSOD. it is an error screen that the machines are known for. as you say "It's a relatively common jab at Microsoft." Wikipedia is not the place for "jabs." Much like the need for the Microsoft page to include a photo of their operating system crashing, to be as accurate as possible, the Apple Computer page should include an image of their operating system crashing as well. The BOSD may be in pop-culture, but that does not make apple's crash screen unnoteworthy in fact, the fact that apple does crash is informational since the common misperception is that apples DONT crash, which from a user perspective, is very very not true. Perhaps information like this should be in An Apple Inc.'s own Criticism section? either that, or it should be fine where it is.
The fact that Blue Screen of Death has its own article indicates the reference on Microsoft' page is not for "pop-culture" significance, but is simply giving information about a reality of Microsoft systems. That standard, in strictly neutral encyclopedic interests, is being applied here. This is not a response to the Microsoft BSOD, simply following the standard that is used for Microsoft as a template in editing Apple. -- Zeeboid 19:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
All operating systems can crash. That does not mean every computer company article has to have a picture of its crash screen. Most reviewers credit OS X with being very stable. Absent some reliable source that says this crash screen is commonly enountered by OS X users, it's not notable and doesn't belong in this article. Whether BSOD belongs in the Microsoft artilcle should be discussed there, not here.-- agr 20:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
KEEP--What is your definition of "The only thing that makes that fact notable in regards to a particular OS is notoriety, or if it crashes unusually often." because from what I understand it’s all a numbers game. It is clear that a computer with 95% of the market share, would have the perception of crashing more often then one with 3.5% of the market share. The reason the windows crash screen is better known is because 95% of the users out there have a Windows machine. I am not here to argue semantics or play numbers games, or bicker over a better operating system, but the As we are all in agreeing that "all computers crash," my reasoning for posting that image is to help show other users that despite Apple's Advertising claims, and apparent majority misconception about the product, the computers actually do crash. As Tony stated, information about a topic that is not "commonly known" is just as important as the information that is "commonly known." Because of the misconception that is out there about Apples not crashing, is precisely the reason it is important to keep up.-- Zeeboid 04:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:No original research I have not performed any research on this, it is documented that people have had their Apple crash, and it is a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, much like the BOSD being displayed on Microsoft's Wiki page is neutral, and Wikipedia:Verifiability is met because the crash screen is not only verifiable but duplicatable... It Does Exist.
There is no POV pushing here, simply to educate those who have been misinformed about how "Apples Don't Crash" which was a message in multiple forms directly from Apple. Otherwise, would you argue then that the Crash Screen does not belong on the Windows Wiki, but in the Screens_of_Death section only?-- Zeeboid 20:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
For me, the question seems to be this: because Apple have made the claim that Mac's don't crash, does that mean a screenshot of a Kernel Panic belongs on Apple Inc.'s main page? No-one here (I hope) is arguing that kernel panics don't happen; rather, as I have said before, there has to be a better place for this particular picture. For one thing, if it is to stay, I think it needs a reference in the text. At the moment, its presence is pushing a particular POV simply because there is no attempt to balance it: its only reason for being there appears to be to prove that Mac OS X crashes, in response to a perceived view that it doesn't. Is it the place of Wikipedia articles to attempt to address every supposed misperception? As to the argument that Microsoft has the BSOD, so Apple's page must too: why can't OS X stand up on its own merits? Again, the question is raised—does the kernel panic screen have such notoriety that a visitor wishing to learn about Apple Inc. would find it useful? As the article stands, the answer has to be ‘No’. -- Walafrid 23:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
No mention of this? 142.59.135.116 08:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I am laughing out loud at the GLARING absence of any mention of the 1997 Microsoft bailout. Clearly some Apple fanatics have had their way with this article. Hopefully someone will fix this. It's ridiculous. That was one of the pivotal moments in Apple's history, AND IT'S NOT EVEN MENTIONED!! Good grief. If I get some time, I'll put it in.
I don't care how big a Mac fan you are, it's dishonest not to have ANY MENTION WHATSOEVER of this huge event. Come on, people. -- Skidoo 16:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
One controversy over this issue is whether Microsoft's payoff was indeed then "bailing Apple out", or whether it was indeed paid to Apple in order to settle previous and upcoming lawsuits. Of course, with the secrecy of the company, we may never know what the deal really was about, but I personally find it strange for one company to help out virtually its only competition. -- Rfaulder 00:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Added some info on this yesterday. Hope that helps. -- Brucethemoose 18:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Owen Linsmayer's book on the history of Apple goes into the background of this deal, someone should find a copy and give an accurate citation (I can't find my copy of the book). According to Linsmayer, Microsoft bought $150mil of nonvoting stock, but they secretly bought options (IIRC something like 250mil) betting that Apple stock would go down. But the stock went up, and Microsoft lost more money on the secret options than they gained in the publicly announced stock "bailout." Microsoft is the only company I know that can stab you in the back and shoot themselves in the foot at the same time. --May 22 2007
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)
I believe the Greenpeace, as a current event, belongs in a secion marked "Controversy and Criticism". I *do* believe it is relevant but it is not appropriate in the current place (under "Hardware") as this section should be considered part of the story that explains Apple's relationship to other entities.
Jasonfb
00:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
"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)
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)
The lead section of this article is not the place to talk about the new iPhone. Okay? The Wikipedia:Lead section is intended to provide a concise overview of the article that follows. I understand that Mac afficionados presently suffering from the effects of the reality distortion field will try to conflate the importance of a newly-announced product which won't even be released for another half a year, but in terms of summarising the totality of the subject of Apple, it has absolutely no relevance. The name change, however, is very important, because it directly relates to defining the subject. -/- Warren 19:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit of a stickler for accuracy so: Has the legal name actually changed yet? Most of the time shareholder approval is required for a corporate name change, so this might be just an announcement of a planned change. Jobs's quote only says "we are changing...", not "we have changed", while so far the copyright notices at apple.com still read "Apple Computer, Inc." — stickguy (:^›)— || talk || 21:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
(deindent) At this point, we should wait a couple days to sort things out. First, we need to wait until Apple officially has the name changed in its listings. Then, we need consensus on how to name the article (and fix the Talk page link). I'm leaning towards Apple (company), though it seems Apple is making the Inc. a part of their logo. So, it may be appropriate to leave the article as-is.
Either way, we should wait until the dust settles a bit. There is no deadline and The World Will Not End Tomorrow. -- Kesh 04:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
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).
Does this change [4] want to be kept? → James Kidd ( contr/ talk/ email) 10:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
In the History/Early years section, the following appears: "In the early 1980s, IBM and Microsoft continued to gain market share at Apple's expense in the personal computer industry. Using a fundamentally different business model, IBM marketed an open hardware standard created with the IBM PC [...]".
It seems to me that the IBM PC was very much a closed hardware system, until Compaq managed to clone the PC (remember the fuss about PC clones back in the mid-80s?). Also, in the early 1980s, Microsoft was a bit player, just a contractor to IBM. And IBM could hardly "continue" to gain market share as it was just starting out in the PC business. IBM *began* to gain market share at Apple's expense.
I'm writing this here on the talk page rather than editing the article because I would prefer that someone who knows the history better do the actual revision. But please someone change these sentences; they're unclear and misleading. Justinbb 06:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
As pointed out in Name change official? above, the company's name has officially changed. Unfortunately, this means we need to move the article again. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies), the legal status of the company (Inc. in this case) is not normally part of the article name. Since removing that would leave us with Apple, which is ripe for disambiguation, the article needs renamed to Apple (company).
I'd make the change myself, but I've yet to deal with double-redirects, so I'll let someone else make sure the move goes properly. -- Kesh 03:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
If you wanted to get really picky, you could go all the way to say that the name should have a comma. It's true, no one calls Apple Inc. by its real name, but then did anyone call it "Apple Computer Inc" before CES 07? I don't think so. The name should remain as it is or (if anything) add a comma - "Apple, Inc." -- Bboyskidz 02:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Aren't Apple inc and Apple Corps both companies? That's why Apple Corps is denoted to differentiate. -- EXV // + @ 20:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
[2] does not work -- Sjefen6 17:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
I agree. I mean there isn't anything even about the whole stock options scandal -- 71.163.74.97 22:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Apple 'falsified' share documents [5]
Apple options review claims Anderson's scalp [6]
Apple may need to restate last 15 quarters [7]
Apple, CA investigate share option grants [8]
Unpatched bug bites Apple Mac OS X [9]
Month of Apple bugs planned for January [10]
Apple to delay quarterly results filing [11]
Apple takes $84 million charge, defends Jobs [12]
Steve Jobs on Microsoft "They have no taste" [13]
Steve Jobs talking about Microsoft, and how Internet Explorer is "we believe IE is a realy good internet browser" [14]
Quicktime Bugs [15]-- Zeeboid 02:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree there should be a room for critism. Especially since Apple is now chosen as least 'green' company in the electronics industry. [16] There is even an petition on it atm [17] 145.46.220.6 12:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
A criticism section in an encylopedia is completely absurd. I am no Apple advocate, but one does not appear for Linux nor Windows, so seems to be a bit stupid appearing here, or in my view in any article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.46.28.210 ( talk • contribs).
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:
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)
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)
I don't think it belongs here. Especially if there's no BSOD in the microsoft article. Maybe in the OSX article. Maybe. steventity 06:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Alright, in light of this and the complaint below about too many images in the article, I've removed the Tiger Crashing image. If someone has an objection, feel free to raise it, but I don't think this shot has a place in this article. Demosthenes X 19:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't speak for any other user here, but does anybody notice the slow loading time for this article? It may be a bit long, but there are so many images on this article that I don't think need to be present. Specifically, the digital camera and iPhone images are unecessary. Thoughts? Scrum shus Talk to me→ 17:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Apple 1: keep
1984 ad: drop
Macintosh Portable: keep
Camera: drop
Sign: drop
iMac: replace with a better photo of the iMac
Company HQ: drop
MacBook Pro: keep
Intel iMac: keep
Mac Mini: drop
iPod: keep
iPhone: keep
Tiger: drop
Logos: keep
Demosthenes X
19:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I can agree about the headquarters shot. I'm not entirely sure about the 1984 ad, even though I do love it and agree it was an important ad. I definately think the sign, the Mini, and the camera can go. This is a general page about the company, we don't need to include all of their current products. There are respective product pages for that... I think the iMac, iPod, and iPhone, being their most notable and recognizable products, should stay. Demosthenes X 01:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I've just reverted a gratuitious insertion of another image (apparently placed as a "Nyah, nyah!"). I concur we need to trim the images, and with Steventity that 1984 should stay. I say dump MacBook Pro and Intel iMac (you can't tell from the pic what's inside). -- Orange Mike 02:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Some people are having an edit war about the picture and the accompanying text. I am a bit disappointed that people keep reverting back and forth despite this being discussed on the talk page, which normally means that people should lay off the disputed content and talk about it. Zeeboid has pointed out that there has already been a discussion about this and, as far as I can see, there were two keeps. Would it be possible/agreeable to have a vote about keeping the image and text? I am a little bit new to wikipedia and maybe this should be done somewhere else or more formally, but if not, why don't people just register their vote below with a short precis regarding their reasoning and that will be the end of it? (Conflicting interests: Mmoneypenny owns 2 macs, 1 airport express, 1 airport extreme and 4 iPods (I know, I know...)) All the best. Mmoneypenny 20:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Keep well, the most recent user (ArnoldReinhold) removed the image and the text claiming that AppleMatters.com and Apple.com] "unsourced POV text too. Websites are not reliable sources and this one hardly supports the claim" [19] though other users have removed the image claiming the there is no text supporting it, though there was [20] or that it was a "Pointless slam by a windows uer" [21] however even though I prefer my two PCs to my iMac, I believe that its actions like these, the removal of sourced, factual information that may not support the view that the stereotypical "Cultish" user does nothing but support the stereotype. Wikipedia isn’t about supporting limited views. Its here to display the info, and let people make of it as they wish. This image met resistance when added earlier, and it was supported. It has been removed many times by many anonymous users or altered with “yea but…” statements. I’m sorry that this isn’t something that the “cultish” ones want to hear, but it is factual, and referenced, just like the BOSD on the Microsoft page.-- Zeeboid 21:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Conditional Keep- It needs a better source than AppleMatters. There has to be one out there. The link to apple's own claim is great, but AppleMatters is hardly a notable source. Ah, and my reasoning... It's a claim made by apple that Tiger doesn't crash. This is an explicit comparison to windows ("Are you just a tad too well acquainted with the notorious “blue screen of death”?"). As such, the fact that it does crash should be in there. I've had it KP a couple times, as have others, however this, along with the Apple Matters article, is anecdotal evidence. We need a better source. Hell, a PC World or even a MacLife or MacWorld article would do. There's got to be something out there about it not from a rumors site. It just needs to be found if we're going to keep it. - steventity 21:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Conditional remove - Find a reliable source before including this material. The BSOD inclusion in the Microsoft article cites CNN and the New York Times. Something comparably reliable is required that says the kernel panic screen is a notable problem. Not only is AppleMatters unsuitable as a source, the cited discussion attributes most of the observed crashes to hardware problems or improper removeal of a storage device. There is a call for addtitional reports that has 1 vote. -- agr 23:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Love it or hate it, AppleMatters is currently being used as an acceptable source, and is thus acceptable in this case. Under your reliable sources examples, by the way, it also states that blogs shouldn't be used, but they are used as well. If you take issue with AppleMatters not being acceptable, then take issue with it, and get it removed from , but until it is cited as not being appropriate and removed from the 7 examples I have given you, from what I understand, it is used as an acceptable source in several places, and thus can also be used here. It is a dark and difficult road when you start to say "Well, this source works fine for everything, except what your trying to do here..." Based on your expl, see no reason this source is deemed unacceptable. Also, as wikipedia encourages users to add or fix what other editors add, does it not? I would expect you to help me find other sources that you deem acceptable, But fortunately to make this easier for all of us, the link that is referenced from AppleMatters is not a forum. [32] it is a "Ask Apple Matters Article" which fits under news.-- Zeeboid 14:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It's clear from the above that you are trying to make an argument in this article that Apple lies. That is a serious allegation. To include it in Wikipedia you have to find a reliable source that makes that claim. And it has to be the full claim, that Apple's ads are materially false. To quote WP:NPOV:
I'm slightly nervous about wading into this discussion again, but what makes me most nervous is the suggestion that Apple still makes the claim. As far as I can see, it was part of the previous "Switch" campaign, but nowhere is it made in the current "Get a Mac" series. The link Zeeboid gave above, when investigated, points to a part of the website that is no longer accessible except by specifically typing its address (and what country is 'lae'?). Again, is it the role of Wikipedia to attempt to counter every possible misunderstanding that a reader may have? -- Walafrid 17:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Remove I am trying to be as NPOV as I can and I know Apple aren't perfect but this little piece of add-on to the software section, with the image almost as big as the blurb explaining it and the fact that Apple no longer claim this to be true just does not sit well with me. I was originally going to say keep in the interests of a balanced article, but the arguments above have swayed me. Having said all this, if Zeeboid (or someone) could come up with a Criticisms section a la Microsoft article I would be happy to endorse it. At the moment this article, in my opinion, is still too Apple-worshipping and this too is not encyclopaedic, at least the Microsoft editors have a Criticism section which quickly allows people who read the article to have a look and see what's "wrong" with Microsoft, instead of having to trudge through reams of paragraphs here on the Apple article. I do think it's funny that in the link above [37] Apple say that the Mac crashes as much as a paperback book, that is to say "almost never", because none of my paperback books have ever ever ever crashed... but my Mac has. Some more NPOV is needed here. Thanks for reading the rant. All the best. Mmoneypenny 20:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
You've made it very clear that the reason you want to include this image is to prove your theory that Apple lies. That is highly POV and an improper use of Wikipedia. Information here must be sourced, particularly negative information. I have no problem with a criticism section if the information comes from reliable sources. That should not be difficult. There is plenty negative written about Apple. If you think the existance of a crash screen in OS X proves Apple is engaged in false advertising take it up with the FTC. Here is a link to their on-line consumer complaint form [39]. Or write an article and get it published. Wikipedia is not the place to pursue your cause. -- agr 00:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Based on opinion earlier in this discussion, I have moved this information to a Critism section, and have also included the link to Apple's website showing the KP and the Regester. If you take issue with the AppleMatters source, then I would question why no one has had an issue with AppleMatters as a source until now.-- Zeeboid 13:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Based on opinion in this discussion, I have removed AppleMatters, since it quotes both answer and question directly from forums. Please reread why I am taking issue with the use of AppleMatters in this case. I have added a verify tag. I have also Added some wikilinks and clarified the language surrounding the Reg's article. - steventity 14:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
"Some of Apple Inc's Advertising claims have been the subject of lawsuites including false advertising and fraud [42]. Apple's past claims "it doesn't crash" [43] and current claims of being "Crash Free" [44] are refuted by The Regester [45] and AppleMatters [46]. This was featured as..." Oh, and the apple matters site link, is an article that refrences a forum, not a forum. Wiki rules don't state that a news article can't refrence a forum, only that you can not refrence a forum. Add onto this Apple Matters being used in 7 other places without being balked until now, it [47], and it is backed up by The Regester, I don't see why it doesn't work.-- Zeeboid 20:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Only if you can point out to all of us, Like I asked before, where it says on the page or in the URL that this [48] is an archive. You can't show us because it is not an archive. Otherwise, just like anyother website that is an Archive, you could tell by the URL or on the page itself. If its not an archive, its a "Current Claim" unless, of corse, you can point out to all of us, like I asked before, where it says on the page or in the URL that it is an archive... How is it, Orangemike, that you KNOW it is an Archive?-- Zeeboid 20:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Any Problems with this one: "Some of Apple Inc's Advertising claims have been the subject of lawsuites including false advertising and fraud [49]. Apple's past claims "it doesn't crash" [50] and current claims of being "Crash Free" [51] are refuted by The Register [52] and AppleMatters [53]. This was featured as..." -- Zeeboid 16:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, everybody slow down, take the long view and mind the three revert rule. We should wait for more people to voice opinions. steventity 19:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I initially proposed the removal of the image on two grounds. One was that the Microsoft article does not include the BDOD, which was an error on my part. I checked but did not see the image. The other, however, was that it's not really relevant to Apple Inc. This article discusses the company: the image refers to a rare occurrence in one of their many products. This image belongs on the OSX page, not on the Apple Inc. page. For the record, I do not think the BSOD belongs on the Microsoft page, either, but rather on the Windows page.
Further, I just looked at TheRegister's linked article, which apparently is the justification of the criticisms section, and it mentions false advertising in passing, with no specifics. It does not mention crashes, and it certainly does not mention the Get a Mac or Switch campaign: the way the article is written, it makes it out as though TheRegister directly attacked those campaigns, which is not the case judging by the linked sources. The link from TheRegister article leads to a dead URL. If this section is to stay, it needs a better reference for the criticisms... if this is the best we can do, then the entire bit about crashing should go. Demosthenes X 22:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
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? Scrum shus Talk to me→ 00:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. [54] 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)
I'm gonna post a request for the mediation cabal to look at this, as I feel we have reached an impasse. Any objections? - steventity 16:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I am offering to help as a mediator in this case after seeing the notice posted up on Mediation Cabal. I will wait for the involved parties to accept the offer before we proceed with the discussion, but I do look forward to helping you all reach an agreeable conclusion to this matter. I will be posting a notice on the talk pages of the parties listed as participants to the dispute. Arkyan • (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Zeeboid:
Orangemike:
agr: I don't think another debate is wanted, but I wish to clarify my position here. I am not saying that the Register is not a reliable source, just that the articles cited by Zeeboid are not pertinent to the crashing ads. There are two register articles in question. One is from 2002, before Apple released the versions of OS X that are the basis of the ad campaign in question. So it can hardly refute the ads as claimed in Zeeboid's proposed wording linked above.
The second Register article says absolutely nothing about crashing. It merely describes a lawsuit by aggrieved Apple resellers. Their complaint does not mention crashing. According to Apple's 2006 10K, all the suits in question have been settled, however the prior owner of one of the resellers is appealing a bankruptcy judge's approval of the settlement. If this lawsuit belongs in Wikipedia at all, it would be in the Notable litigation of Apple Inc. article, with an explanation of the issues raised and the suit's current status. This suit has nothing to do with the crashing ads, unless we accept the notion that once a company has been accused of false advertising in some law suit, any of their ads is subject to review for truthfulness by Wikipedia editors, who may then respond in the article about the company.
While I have not intention of editing the Apple Inc article as long as the mediation proceeds, I do wish to object to the disputed text remaining in the article during the process. If, as I claim, the current version violates Wikipedia policy, more damage is done every day the text appears and the disputed tag merely draws attention to it.-- agr 20:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
steventity Pretty much what Orangemike and Mmoneypenny said, but I'll lay it out in my own words, just in case we differ somewhere.
- steventity 01:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
walafrid: I think the main points of debate have been laid down fairly clearly already, so I don't have much to add. The main facts here as I see them:
The difficulty as far as I can see it, however, is that there has not been notable criticism of Apple in the media for these claims (or at least they're appearing hard to find!). The result is that this article's criticism section is less reporting actual criticism of Apple (surely its real role) and more making its own criticism of Apple in this regard, fundamentally challenging the article's impartial nature.
In addition—and I think I've said this before—it doesn't seem like the proper role of a wikipedia article to exist as a means to pre-empt misunderstandings about whether OS X crashes or not, since it is a fact that it does. And it is surely not a criticism of Apple that its operating system does crash, for it is widely expected that operating systems will, and one might even class it as a feature!
I also wanted to echo orangemike's concerns about methodology. For instance, it has been stated here before that the Apple page should have the Kernel Panic image because the Microsoft page has one for the 'BSOD'; it seems to be in the same spirit that the Kernel Panic image is annotated 'the equivalent of a BSOD'. This may be in the genuine pursuit of understanding for the reader, but it makes me feel uneasy—is it really the article's job to be 'fair' in this kind of way? I think this is more equivalence than fairness, and the two companies are not equivalent. I hope we are able to reach a consensus on this matter, and thank you Arkyan for stepping to mediate here.-- Walafrid 09:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
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
Points we do not all agree on
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 :
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)
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)
The mediator has closed this case. His final proposal is at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-04-20 Apple Inc.#Wrapping up. He also concluded:
Zeeboid has voiced strong disagreement with the moderator's most recent proposal. Are there other objections?--
agr
16:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that the new PC World information that has been put up should stay. I say we give this criticism section a bit more time. Mediation has just ended, and already one editor seems to be going crazy trying to fill it. There's no hurry! Please let's not have the same arguments over and over again—Zeeboid, you're really not doing your case any favours with this combative approach. -- Walafrid | talk 22:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Zeeboid, if you're interested, I have spent some time this morning combing through the article and trying to balance out some of the more obvious points where there seemed to be bias coming through. You've suggested repeatedly that everyone else has been sitting on their hands not attempting to battle bias, so I've responded. As to the points you've directed at agr just above, you might want to see my comments below. Yours, Walafrid | talk 10:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Over 100 million units have been sold even though it was not originally perceived to be a successful product. [3]
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)
As the Environmental issues is critism of apple, it should be under apple's Critism section.-- Zeeboid 17:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, its been moved. Thoughts?-- Zeeboid 20:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm about to revert the move. The information is doing just fine under environmental. I don't think we've established that a Criticism section is best practice. It's surely madness to artificially separate the article into a 'good' section and a 'bad' section. -- Walafrid | talk 22:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
I haven't had time to think about it a great deal, but this may be the kind of thing on which a Criticism section could be built. I can hear myself saying earlier that the section should report on notable instances of criticism against Apple, of which that article's content could be an example.
Let me be clear that I am not saying that the business about suppressing stories should go in there. That is unfounded allegation at best, and may never be proved. Rather, I am saying that the section could be used to highlight instances of criticism for Apple in the press. In doing so, of course, we leave the reader to make up their mind about what they think about the content of such pieces, and refrain from commenting or perhaps even listing the content. In this way we draw attention to the kinds of criticisms that may be made of the company.
There is a danger, though, that this would leave the section to be a kind of 'recent bad press for Apple' thing. That should be avoided. What do people think, in general, about the kind of proposal I have outlined? Yours, Walafrid | talk 10:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Below is the text as it currently exists. Do with it as you wish here, lets try to keep from revert-waring:
The 12 year Editor-in-Chief of PC World, Harry McCracken, quit PC World May 2 2007, when PC World's new chief executive Colin Crawford, a former CEO of Macworld, tried to kill a story about Apple and Steve Jobs titled "10 Things We Hate About Apple." [4] PC World later published this article [5] on their website on May 7 2007. Steve Jobs, according to Wired News [6], would call Crawford (then working for the Mac magazine) "any time he had a problem with a story the magazine was running about Apple."
last change-- Zeeboid 13:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I have today been bold and removed the criticism section to the advertising page as per the mediation. I appreciate this was not a consensus decision, but I do believe that the article is the better for it. As the mediation was not entirely successful and the arbitration committee will not look at disputes about content, I believe we will just have to continue to edit and improve the article as we have in the past. All the best. Mmoneypenny 05:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I want to propose a final solution to the problem causing this lengthy debate. What it all boils down to, as I see it, is different views on how well grounded allegations and insinuations against a company should be. Being in an encyclopedia all allegations of this kind should be very well grounded. Almost all editors agree here. However, as well as there are people that praise Apple for everything they do (which is described in a special section in the article with a link to the Cult of Mac) I think the article should mention that there are also an anti-cult of Apple. It's a fact that there has been an anti-cult of the Macintosh since the very beginning. Being a sociological phenomenon, the various "truths" the members of that group share doesn't have to be well grounded and sourced to be worth mentioning. On a page devoted to that, for example with a title like Anti-cult of Mac, we could collect all the different rumours and allegations both new and old. A page like that could be very interesting to read, I think. iNic 15:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree that this argument isabout keeping criticism of Apple out of the article. It's about having well sourced and notable criticsm. As I have mentioned before, there are controversies about Apple that belong in here. For example:
I believe there is abundant secondary source material on both sides for all of these issues. Whether they should be in a separate criticism section or integrated into the article is a separate question. I believe there is a preference for the latter on Wikipedia, but clearly there are examples of both. I'd like to invite comments on this question first.-- agr 16:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
As I promised above, here's my first tentative suggestion for the kind of shape a criticism section should take:
In May 2007, PC World magazine featured an article on its website entitled “10 Things We Hate About Apple”, [7] which, as the title suggests, listed the 10 things its authors found objectionable about the company. Other publications, the UK magazine PC Pro for instance, have had similar features. [8] This section includes critism of Apple Inc.
Apple Inc Recieved critism for blaiming Microsoft for some video iPods released with a virus. To quote PC World [9]:
""That Apple would blame Microsoft demonstrates a lack of understanding of remedial security and manufacturing processes. Virus was only a symptom of the problem. Apple didn't know what they were shipping," Abrams said.
Apple did not respond to phone and e-mail requests for comment before this story filed."
There's not a great deal of text there, but I would suggest it's a start towards a section whose aim is to report on the way in which Apple has been publicly criticised. For additional material, how about these issues? [ [70]] and [ [71]] Yours, Walafrid | talk 18:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Here is my version of that fleshed out:
In May 2007, PC World magazine featured an article on its website entitled “10 Things We Hate About Apple”, [10] which, as the title suggests, listed the 10 things its authors found objectionable about the company. Other publications, the UK magazine PC Pro for instance, have had similar features. [11] This section includes criticism of Apple Inc.
Apple Inc received criticism for blaming Microsoft for some video iPods released with a virus. To quote PC World [12]:
""That Apple would blame Microsoft demonstrates a lack of understanding of remedial security and manufacturing processes. Virus was only a symptom of the problem. Apple didn't know what they were shipping," Abrams said. Apple did not respond to phone and e-mail requests for comment before this story filed."
According to the BBC: [13]
Apple recently plugged holes in Mac software such as iChat and Finder and a flaw in the user notification process that could potentially grant system privileges to malicious users.
All three problems were highlighted by Finisterre, and a fellow researcher known only as LMH. Finisterre said: "Try calling any Apple store and ask any sales rep what you would do with regard to security, ask if there is anything you should have to worry about? "They will happily reinforce the feeling of 'Security on a Mac? What? Me worry?'." He said the Month of Apple Bugs (MOAB) project had succeeded in its original aim of raising the level of awareness around Mac security.
"I would really hope that people got the point that there are most definitely some things under the OSX hood that need a closer look," he said.
Apple has also received criticism for failing to notify users ahead of time for system patches. To quote PC World [14]:
"Does anyone want to tell us when the next Mac OS X software updates will hit? What security vulnerabilities Apple is working on fixing? In April, Apple released a patch that plugged more than two dozen vulnerabilities--with absolutely zero advance notice. Mac users were wide open to attacks, and they never knew it. Even Microsoft (usually) tells people when to expect patches, and often tells you how to protect yourself until the patches are ready"
Apple has also received criticism for having a "closed door policy" on aspects of technology, having a limited number of systems to choose from, not being good for gaming, and occasionally having design mistakes like their round "puck mouse."
-- Zeeboid 13:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
(Revert Criticism section to version that is actually backed up by sources, that doesn't cite "fluff" pieces and that isn't written by editor with obvious chip on shoulder about Apple.)
I'm sorry but the PC World article is a fluff piece... Number two on the list: "secrets". Seriously, out of all the things that piss people off about Apple, number two in being secretive? And whether a guy resigned over the article doesn't prove whether or not the criticism is serious.
And for gods sake, if you are going to use an article as a source please try reading it first. Paul Roberts, who is not a Microsoft employee, wrote that article for InfoWorld, not PC World (who re-published his article, it even says so on the PC World version). Also the only sources he had for his article rebutting Apple's criticism of Microsoft happen to be Microsoft employees (past and present), .
I'm sorry, but I'm sick of seeing people with obvious chips on their shoulder being treated as if they have legitimate contributions to make. You personally don't like Apple, we all get it. You're so desperate you didn't even get that Lars was taking the piss when he suggested the article that says Apple have "ties to the forces of darkness" because they called a piece of software Darwin. Please stop wasting people's time. AlistairMcMillan 17:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The only reason for having criticism in an article is to note where a subject has been criticized. Just because other articles have criticism sections doesn't automatically mean all articles need them. My edits attempt to make the article content fit the cited sources. My edits also come from actually reading the bloody sources. You have noticed that the PC World article and the InfoWorld article are identical, right? You do see that the PC World article has InfoWorld written under the byline, right? You do notice the "Copyright InfoWorld Media Group" written at the bottom of the PC World article right? Don't try to include both to make it look like two different sources. And the word "allegedly" belongs in there because although Roberts glosses over it Apple didn't just blame Microsoft, they quite clearly take blame themselves. AlistairMcMillan 18:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Lets take this point by point then. (1) There is no-one criticizing Apple in the internetnews article you just cited. (2) Why you continue to insert the PC World link, which is just a mirror of the InfoWorld article escapes me. (3) "received criticism from multiple sources" is still followed by only one article. (4) PLEASE READ YOUR SOURCES. (5) The InfoWorld article written by Paul F. Roberts is the same article as the Paul F. Roberts article that PC World published. The PC World article that has "InfoWorld" under the byline and "InfoWorld" down at the bottom. Oo, just got deja vu there. (6) And if you think the fluff piece in PC World about "10 things we hate..." is worth noting, then why isn't "10 things we love..." which was written by the same authors, for the same publication at the same time? AlistairMcMillan 19:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
This just gets better and better. Are you serious? You want to add a link to a Slashdot article that points to an ArsTechnica article that points to the quotes from Microsoft's Jonathan Poon in the InfoWorld article, as proof that there are multiple sources? Really? AlistairMcMillan 20:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Criticism clearly states:
and, for this reason, I believe that all content which presently exists in this section should be moved to other, more appropriate parts of the article. Iccdel 02:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
i heard such arumor, is it true?
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)