![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Apple doesn't manufacture its own laptops, mp3 players and so forth, nearly no major laptop company does anymore. It's too expensive so they hire out OEMs. This is basic knowledge of anyone involved in the industry. Even the old G4 was made by Quanta ( http://www.wired.com/gadgets/wireless/magazine/17-03/mf_netbooks?currentPage=2). We saw from the Unibody Apple video that the unibody was made in Taiwan (all the machines were labeled in Chinese Traditional), even the background factory had Traditional Chinese characters. It may not matter much to the layman (or some of the more rabid Apple fans here), but to experts doesn't that make the quality of this article deceiving and less believable? -- 24.193.80.232 ( talk) 21:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Lars T. ( talk) 01:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Cork (Ireland) Campus You'll find Apple's European Operations Headquarters in the beautiful, verdant city of Cork, Ireland. The campus hosts a range of divisions including [...] Manufacturing,
Folks, read Apple's most recent 10K from 11/2008 here. In it, you'll find this statement:
Final assembly of the Company’s products is currently performed in the Company’s manufacturing facility in Ireland, and by external vendors in California, the Republic of Korea (“Korea”), the People’s Republic of China (“China”) and the Czech Republic. Currently, the supply and manufacture of many critical components is performed by sole-sourced third-party vendors in the U.S., China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, and Singapore. Sole-sourced third-party vendors in China perform final assembly of substantially all of the Company’s portable products, including MacBook Pro, MacBook, MacBook Air, iPods, iPhone, and most of the Company’s iMacs.
They do still have manufacturing in Ireland. Done. -- ZimZalaBim talk 03:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
also no chip inside any Mac or PC outside the US, is made in the US. some of them are designed in the US but the US government is a bit funny when it comes to exporting chips.
I am the one who have made this post on this discussion, and I'd like to share with you the simularities more visually...
in addition to logo similarities, I've also come up with this...
There I think it makes more sense now...
Thanks
I assume that this logo has the same shape and design as this logo
end result: these two logos use the same shape and design, it's just they use a different color or theme
put that on your article and edit it. baby
70.181.106.241 ( talk) 17:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: I propose this original post to be deleted. I am the one who made this post. I made this post.
There is this tale, promoted by Sadie Plant in her book _Zeroes and Ones_, that the bitten apple logo was a reference to the way Alan Turing committed suicide, by eating a bite from an apple that was prepared with cyanide. The rainbow-colored logo was assumed to be a reference to the rainbow flag of the gay community, as Alan Turing was gay himself. Unfortunately for that tale, the rainbow Apple logo was designed by Rob Janoff in 1977, replacing the previous logo graphic of Isaac Newton under an apple tree. The rainbow flag was designed later, by Gilbert Baker, in 1978. Since this tale comes up a lot, is it worth debunking in the article? See also I Invented … the Apple Logo, Matt Rodbard, Sync Magazine.
64.103.25.233 ( talk) 20:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
64.103.25.233 ( talk) 21:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a substantial amount of Apple environmental activity stretching as far back as 1990 (see 'A history of Sound Practice' on apple.com/environment) that should be added to this section on Apple's environmental 'track record.' The whole section wreaks of Greenpeace editing and construction. Some more level-headed perspective would be an improvement here. User:Ecoscience
Currently, The Enviromental Record section has only two websites for citation, apple.com and macobserver.com both which seem rather questionable and biased sources. We should seek out more unbiased third-party sources for this section. Also, the section sounds non-NPOV, but I want someone else to verify my concerns. Walksonwalls ( talk) 22:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Similar to this i think the following section needs revising, and possibly deleting; at the very least the year in which the comments from 'Climate Counts' were made needs to be stated. By the use of the now dated term 'Macintosh' over 'Mac' it would appear that these comments were made some time ago, but we can't be sure.
"Climate Counts, a nonprofit organization dedicated to directing consumers toward the greenest companies, gave Macintosh an 11 points out of a possible 100 which places the company last among electronic corporations. Climate counts also labeled Macintosh with a "stuck icon," and the environmental group added that Macintosh was, "a choice to avoid for the climate conscious consumer."[99] Macintosh CEO Steve Jobs, stated to the environmentalists, "get out of the computer business (and) go save some whales."[98]</ref>" 90.53.5.167 ( talk) 20:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
EDIT: having looked at the ref given it would appear these comments were made in 2008 and also that most of this was simply copied and pasted from Information Week- i'm not sure how many words have to be exactly the same before there is some sort of copyright infringement on here, I hope someone more knowledgeable can sort this out. :) 90.53.5.167 ( talk) 20:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok i know this particular topic has been done to death, but i believe its an important one, and at the moment is not well written, unbiased or clear.
Firstly, the whole criticism section lacks structure, almost unreadable with huge paragraphs, no sub headings etc
Now my overall opinion on this particular criticism article is that most criticisms relate to Apples products, and NOT Apple as a whole. Product criticisms such as this one:
"Longtime Apple consumers have claimed to observe a marked decline in the reliability and durability of the company's computing and iPod lines, particularly since Apple's migration to Intel processors in 2006...."
Not just that sentence but the whole entire paragraph is pointless and needs to be removed and placed in its respective appropriate sections, ipods, Macbook Pro's etc I think criticism needs to be limited to general statements which dont target specific products if its to REMAIN in the Apple.inc section.
One such general statement could be "Apple consumers have noted a decrease in the quality and reliability of Revision A Apple products." This encompasses everything,while not going into specifics which dont belong.
Its DEFINETLY a needed part of this article, but as it stands, its too product specific. What do people think. Adderz91 ( talk) 17:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I haven't noticed a decrease of anything in apple products, they only thing I've noticed is that who ever put the lock on this article is doing a TERRIBLE job of maintaining it (the article)! -- 68.102.118.231 ( talk) 00:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
There has been much speculation and suspicion of extreme over pricing of apple products. When one looks at the hard ware of an average macbook and does some research, it becomes clear that all the components don't warrant the price. While the preloaded OS does represent a percentage of the cost it still seems like too much of a cost. In another example the Microsoft Zune and iPod (while still a quality product) are similar function and while the Zune includes a wifi receiver, FM tuner, and larger screen the price of the iPod can exceed that of the Zune. The price of production of Apple products may in fact be higher then tech experts speculate, but the fact that an Apple notebook can cost over $1,000 while a PC notebook with similar (if not faster) hardware can be as low as $600 begs to differ. There are two possibilities;Apple is pricing their products too high or, for some reason, it costs more to produce a Mac due to unique hardware. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxtrot MGS ( talk • contribs) 00:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
PRICE IS NOT LEGITIMATE CRITICISM Pricing is due to a number of factors, and should most definetly NOT be included in the criticism section. I dont see a "price" criticism section in the Audi page do you? Its the same, its just a car based of regular Volkswagon parts, why does it cost more. You have to take in design, included software etc. This topic has been done to death and is simply not criticism.
Im going to edit the criticism section soon. Delete criticism that is too related to its products. Apple Inc is about the Company, product criticism should remain on its respective product pages. Adderz91 ( talk) 02:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to add the following criticism of the criticism section: "Apple has received criticism for not notifying users of Mac OS X system vulnerabilities until a fix is released, [118] meaning users are vulnerable to known security flaws until the fix is released." This sentence is simply a non-sequitur. Regardless of whether Apple notifies consumers of vulnerabilities most users are still vulnerable to known security flaws! Candy ( talk) 07:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
In this sentence "Ultimately, all of this proved be too-little-too-late for Apple as their market share and stock prices continued to slide" you need to add a "to" in between "proved" and "be," I almost didn't even post this here as it is SO much more of a pain to do this and have you fix it, than allow us to do it. But whatever. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosmicwizard ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
the bit under software , it talks about .Mac, surely its time to update that to MobileMe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.186.110 ( talk) 16:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
How do people feel about merging the Environmental record into the criticism section?
I have read the article, and i feel it is too product specific. If it it to be in the Apple Inc. section should it not affect Apple as a whole? If its merely one or two products, it should be in the individual product wiki pages. Also i dont think Steve Jobs letter should be included. Its his personal opinions, not facts, and is obviously going to be Pro Apple, not neutral.
Also its not terribly well sourced, and as the whole Apple article needs to be shortened, i think it would be an excellent section that should be removed.
All that needs to be really noted is that Greenpeace has protested against Apple, but Apple has been making grounds.
Environment Apples products have been criticized by such groups as Greenpeace [1], and ranked lowest on its "Green Electronics Guide" in December 2006. However it should be noted that since August 2006 to June 2008 Apple has risen from 2.7 to 4.6 (out of 10) with a high of 6 in December 2007.
I think that paragraph describes perfectly that Apple HAS been targeted on its Environment record, but it IS improving. There is no need to list every little thing Apple has done, because the score shows they have improved. Therefore i have effectively summarized a pointless rambling article into one or 2 sentences. I will change this soon unless someone can provide valid arguments against it.
Ok well finally some people come here to discuss it. The problem was, especially with my criticism article above, was no one replied, no one with any sensible solutions. If you have a look at the current state of things, especially the criticism article, it is all over the place, its hardly readable. I want to discuss it, thats why i placed articles on here BEFORE i did anything. The problem was no one else cared to discuss it, im not going to wait 6 months before someone finally says something. I thank you for joining though.
Ok now do you agree that specific product criticisms should NOT be placed in the Apple Inc article? They have their respective wiki articles. The Apple Inc article should only contain information relating to Apple Inc in general, Macbook Pro criticism should stay on the Macbook Pro page should it not? Not only are they making this article excessively long, but they dont belong here.
OK next point, i know im terrible with citations. I dont know how to put them in properly, ive written down all the numbers, some articles shouldnt even be referenced. Im going to find out now how to put the citations as little numbers. Currently im putting them as whole words
I will add more information on what exactly Rev A products are. Adderz91 ( talk) 06:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey Adderz, had to resubmit this as it took me a while to write. Sorry, I'm not a one-edit kind of guy... especially not at 2:44 am.
"Apple has received criticism for not notifying users of system vulnerabilities until a fix is released,[104] meaning users are vulnerable to known security flaws until the fix is released.
Longtime Apple consumers have claimed to observe a marked decline in the reliability and durability of the company's computing and iPod lines, particularly since Apple's migration to Intel processors in 2006.[105] The MacBook and MacBook Pro series of laptop computers in particular drew considerable criticism for problems associated with malfunctioning fans, surface discolouration, excessive heat production (up to 80 degrees celsius), and warping cases and batteries, particularly among "revision A" models. The Dublin office of the European Consumer Centre (ECC) consumer body has reported a rise in complaints about products made by Apple, many of which relate to an alleged design fault in some Apple laptops that causes the computer to break down after a year's usage, just outside the company's warranty period. ECC Dublin claims there is a problem with "built-in obsolescence" in some well-known Apple products such as laptops and iPods.[106] It is difficult to estimate the proportion of faults per unit shipped due to the naturally self-selecting tendency of the sample of a consumer base reporting faults.however, the existence of a now abandoned website (it's last update was June 2007)t, AppleDefects.com, dedicatedsolely to the discussion of faults with Apple's post-Intel transition product portfolio would appear to vindicate some of the claims being made.[107][108] In conjunction with the above, Apple has been criticised for treating early adopters of new hardware like "guinea pigs" - in effect using their experiences to iron out bugs in subsequent revisions. One website states that "The conventional wisdom is to not buy "Rev A" Apple hardware".[109] The iPhone was particularly subject to this accusation after the price of the phone was reduced by $200 just two months after its release, resulting in a flood of complaints to Apple.[110] Apple did however attempt to rectify complaints by offering $100 store credit to early iPhone customers.
Apple has been accused of pressuring journalists to release their sources, with regards to leaked information about new Apple products, going as far as filing lawsuits against "John Does".[111] In particular, Apple fought a protracted battle against the Think Secret web site, eventually ending in a settlement that closed the web site but maintained the anonymity of its sources.
Apple also has received criticism for its iPhone and iPod integration with iTunes for not facilitating creation of software to run and maintain those devices using different applications tools besides iTunes.[112]
Similarly, Apple has not licensed its Fairplay DRM system to any other company, preventing users to listening to DRM protected music bought from sources other than the iTunes Store. By not allowing other companies or individuals to interoperate with its DRM system, Apple prevents competition and divides the market. For that reason, most other online music stores which use DRM use the Windows Media format, which is incompatible with Apple products.[citation needed]
Apple has been criticized for possible sweatshop conditions in factories in China where contract manufacturers make its iPod.[113] Immediately after the allegations, Apple launched an extensive investigation and worked with their manufacturers to remove all sweatshop unacceptable conditions found.[114]
Apple also has received criticism and two class-action lawsuits at both state and federal level about its iPhone product only being allowed service through a single mobile service provider in each country it has been released in (AT&T in the US, O2 in the UK), citing monopolistic and antitrust allegations between the two companies.[115] Software updates (maliciously or not) initially made unlocked iPhones unusable ("bricked"), however the most recent update revives the phone. Currently there is no official way to unlock an iPhone, and it cannot be bought unlocked for use on any network.
Another common criticism of Apple is that its products are often not user serviceable, instead requiring they be returned to Apple for repairs and upgrades.[citation needed] Typical examples include the batteries in the iPod, iPhone and MacBook Air which are non-user replaceable, and the difficulty of installing simple upgrades (e.g. replacing the hard drive) in MacBook Pros. In the past it was possible for consumers to replace iPod batteries themselves following instructions on popular websites, but more recently Apple has opted to solder batteries to the casing, forcing owners to pay a premium to Apple for the service.
Rational (in order):
1. The section on the DRM alternative is misleading because it makes it seem that the other companies use windows DRM in retaliation to itunes, which doesn't make sense because they do not have the option to follow itunes. The fact about the incompatability of windows DRM is useful, but since there is no source i opted to drop it.
2. Grammatical issues
3. iphone issues are probably not relevant even though some criticized apple's decision to go with cingular (not at&t, which should probably be explained if it didn't make this section even more inappropriate). Also, this section references "current" conditions of the iphone, which is relative to the time of writing and not a good habit for wikipedia (unless the date is written). There is a way to jailbreak the iphone right now, and there will never be an "official" way
4. "forcing owners to pay a premium to apple for the service" is biased and can easily be concluded by the reader at any rate.
As for merging environmental concerns, i think that it should be merged under another heading, separately from the other criticisms, or not at all. At any rate, an ongoing criticism by environmentalists / Green Peace is extensive enough to warrant a division of some kind. No offense to any authors, i know that finding a balance when it comes to criticizing apple (or Microsoft for that matter) is touchy. Taftgod ( talk) 07:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I have checked all the other companies listed on the greenpeace "meter" and they each have seperate environment sections so it will have to stay, but i still believe it and the criticism section need to be cleaned up. If Bold does not fit in well with the style of wikipedia articles, how do people feel about bullet points?
Here are the reasons for the RED
Reference 105 is just a blogger on a rant, no factual information
Reference 106 is dead
Apple Defects wiki articles are updated regularly, therefore it has not been abandoned
Apple defects deals with Emacs and Powerbooks, which are not post Intel transition
Reference 109 is simply a forum, not factual AT ALL therefore that entire comment holds no validity. Plus that comment has an awfully negative tone and is never mentioned in all 3 references
I also have a problem with the comments after ECC Dublin bit (the one with the dead link). It says "alleged design fault in some Apple laptops that causes the computer to break down after a year's usage, just outside the company's warranty period." The problem i have with that is Apple offer the optional Applecare warranty, thus extending it further than one year. Plus it also alludes to the fact that this is a deliberate act by Apple, yet has no sources to say so which simply means is pure speculation. The word "alleged" proves my point.
I dont think i can rewrite any of this, most of it in my opinion, is just not factual at all.
I'm not a one edit type of guy either, which makes it really difficult sometimes.
Hey Adderz!
For the most part i completely agree with you. One point, I'd include the part about the danish but rewrite it to better reflect the subject of this article: http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/05/04/danes-prove-apple-ibook-g4-has-a-defect With all these edits in mind, here is the article:
Apple has received criticism for not notifying users of system vulnerabilities until a fix is released,[104] meaning users are vulnerable to known security flaws until the fix is released. Longtime Apple consumers have claimed to observe a marked decline in the reliability and durability of the company's computing and iPod lines, particularly since Apple's migration to Intel processors in 2006. The MacBook and MacBook Pro series of laptop computers in particular drew considerable criticism for problems associated with malfunctioning fans, surface discolouration, excessive heat production (up to 80 degrees celsius), and warping cases and batteries, particularly among "revision A" models. The Dublin office of the European Consumer Centre (ECC) consumer body has reported complaints about products made by Apple, many of which relate to an alleged design fault in some Apple laptops that causes the computer to break down after a certain number of computer restarts, usually outside of the company's warranty period. ECC Dublin claims there is a problem with a soldering connection in some well-known Apple products such as laptops and iPods. The existence of AppleDefects.com, a site dedicated solely to the discussion of faults within Apple's product portfolio, would appear to vindicate some of the claims being made.[107][108] Apple has been criticized for post-launch product changes. The iPhone was particularly subject to this criticism after the price of the phone was reduced by $200 just two months after its release, resulting in a flood of complaints to Apple.[110] Apple did however attempt to rectify complaints by offering $100 store credit to early iPhone customers. Apple has been accused of pressuring journalists to release their sources, with regards to leaked information about new Apple products, going as far as filing lawsuits against "John Does".[111] In particular, Apple fought a protracted battle against the Think Secret web site, eventually ending in a settlement that closed the web site but maintained the anonymity of its sources. Apple also has received criticism for its iPhone and iPod integration with iTunes for not facilitating creation of software to run and maintain those devices using different applications tools besides iTunes.[112]Similarly, Apple has not licensed its Fairplay DRM system to any other company, preventing users to listening to DRM protected music bought from sources other than the iTunes Store. By not allowing other companies or individuals to interoperate with its DRM system, Apple prevents competition and divides the market. iTunes does, however, play non-DRM protected music. Apple has been criticized for possible sweatshop conditions in factories in China where contract manufacturers make its iPod.[113] Immediately after the allegations, Apple launched an extensive investigation and worked with their manufacturers to remove all unacceptable conditions.[114] Another common criticism of Apple is that its products are often not user serviceable, instead requiring they be returned to Apple for repairs and upgrades.[citation needed] Typical examples include the batteries in the iPod, iPhone and MacBook Air which are non-user replaceable, and the difficulty of installing simple fixes (e.g. replacing the hard drive) in MacBook Pros. In the past it was possible for consumers to replace iPod batteries themselves following instructions on popular websites, but more recently Apple has opted to solder batteries to the casing.
Much improved, in my opinion. It's not ready to be dropped in, though, because the references are messed up. Also, the paragraph should be reworked to be more cohesive or there should be bullet points. Any criticism is welcome. Taftgod 76.197.230.127 ( talk) 15:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, what do you think of this, anything missing, anything still not factual, well sourced etc?
I have rewritten the ECC Dublin section and added the source you retrieved. I dont know if the refrence links are working atm, but when its readded to the main article they should work. The paragraph in red still needs sources, its all unsubstantiated. I also added another source for the "think secret" saga. If youd like to check that for appropriateness. More sources are still needed for the other paragraphs too.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/20/apple_closes_thinksecret/
I also dont like the iphone paragraph. It simply relates to ONE Apple product, where as the start of the paragraph alludes to mutiple Apple products. Shouldnt this then be on the iphone page?
Adderz91 ( talk) 08:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph about decreased product quality seems opinionated to me. Even if there are sources on the matter it would be hard to prove with increasingly complicated technology. The early adopter abuse seems noteworthy but another example would be helpful. I think that what we have now is necessary for the time being. We need someone with better apple experience to point out another abusive launch. Otherwise the issue is specific to the iphone and thereby not suitable for this article. The bullet-points are great, the revisions are great. I'd say just put it in the official article. Thanks
76.197.238.164 (
talk)
03:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
OK it has been added, with a few more sources it should be quite fine. Im a rather active Apple supporter, and know quite alot about its history, but as far as i am aware, they have not "substantially changed their products after launch" apart from the iphone. Im not sure "product change is the correct wording" it should be "price changes". I will change the wording to price changes, but that paragraph still needs other examples of when they have done this...i just cant think of any.
The Powerbook Aluminum had Rev A issues, ill have to find some sources backing it up though. Adderz91 ( talk) 05:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I wrote product changes because I'm pretty sure they've been accused of changing the components that go into the product after launch without making notice of it. I'm not sure, though, so price changes is better. I'll be moving on. Thanks 76.197.200.144 ( talk) 04:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Moving onto the Environment section
Here is the original version:
Apple has a track record of being an environmentally conscious company. Four areas of particular attention are product and packaging design, responsible manufacturing, energy efficiency, and recycling. Design dictates the quantity of raw materials, type and recyclability of materials, energy consumption required for manufacturing and use, and the ease of recycling. Like other flat panel displays and Apple's displays eliminate more than two pounds of lead, consume up to 80% less energy in sleep mode. Apple plans to completely eliminate the use of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) in its products, and arsenic in the glass of flat-panel displays by the end of 2008.[88] The EPA rates Apple Computer highest amongst producers of notebook computers, and fairly well compared to producers of desktop computers and LCD displays.[89] Since 2004, Greenpeace has confronted Apple for not setting a timeline to remove PVC and BFRs, which still exist in recent products such as the iPod nano and MacBook; and for not promoting a global end-of-life take back plan for Apple hardware (although it does within Europe and Japan where this is required by law); as well as for not having reusable components.[90] As of December 2006, Greenpeace ranked Apple last out of ten electronics companies in dealing with toxic substances in their products, mostly due to a lack of relevant documentation and timelines.[91] On May 2, 2007, Steve Jobs released an open letter named A Greener Apple,[92] responding to some of the allegations. In his letter, Jobs stated: In one environmental group’s recent scorecard, Dell, HP and Lenovo all scored higher than Apple because of their plans (or “plans for releasing plans” in the case of HP). Apple claims to be ahead of all of these companies in eliminating toxic chemicals from its products.[92] A study in January 2006 by the United States Environmental Protection Agency found that Apple's hardware compares favorably with that of its major competitors on environmental friendliness.[93] On June 5, 2007, Apple updated their MacBook Pro product line. This hardware update is environmentally notable because LEDs fully replaced cold cathode lamps in the 15 inch MacBook Pro's display backlighting,[94] a first for Apple laptops (the iPod has had LED backlighting since its creation in 2001). This ameliorates Apple's environmental stance, as cold cathode lamps contain mercury, whereas LEDs do not. In addition to the 2007 update, in 2008 Apple released its first MacBook Pro with arsenic free LCD.[95] At the 2007 Macworld Expo, environmentalists such as Greenpeace presented a critique of Apple. Rick Hind, the legislative director of Greenpeace's toxics campaign, said, "(The company) is getting greener, but not green enough." Hind commented further, "The Macbook Air has less toxic PVC plastic and less toxic BFRs, but it could have zero and that would make Apple an eco-leader."[96] Climate Counts, a nonprofit organization dedicated to directing consumers toward the greenest companies, gave Macintosh an 11 points out of a possible 100 which places the company last among electronic corporations. Climate counts also labeled Macintosh with a "stuck icon," and the environmental group added that Macintosh was, "a choice to avoid for the climate conscious consumer."[97] On the other hand, Macintosh CEO Steve Jobs, stated to the environmentalists, "get out of the computer business (and) go save some whales."[96]
And here is my proposed rewrite, if youd like to alter it, criticize it, obviously that will be fine.
I have deleted the first paragraph as i feel it does not have a neutral point of view. The first sentence says it all "Apple has a track record of being an environmentally conscious company.". The source was taken from Apples own website and therefore not neutral. I have also deleted the excerpt from "The greener Apple" as, again, it is not neutral and taken from Apples own website. Also i dont think it can hold much validty because it states "One environments scorecard" but fails to mention that source. I have changed some paragraphs around. I feel its necessary to group together the criticisms AGAINST Apple first and THEN detail what they have done or "said" in response. I have also added more sources for the Greenpeace paragraph. Just so you know, the Greenpeace scores arent finished yet
Also something fun to note, two paragraphs BOTH reference the same source, its simply worded differently. If you read the original one above, the bits in red are about the SAME study by the EPA.
Greenpeace, an environmental organization, have confronted Apple on various environmental issues including not promoting a global end-of-life take back plan (Other than Europe and Japan where it is requires by law), non reusable components and toxins within the iphone hardware. [11] [12]. Since 2003 they have campaigned against Apple on areas including their chemical policies, in particular the inclusion of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and brominated flame retardants (BFR's) [13]. On 2nd May 2007 Steve Jobs released a report (A Greener Apple) detailing that they plan to completely eliminate PVC and BFR's by the end of 2008. [14] with Greenpeace responding to the report that same day. [15]
Greenpeace also run a "Guide to Greener Electronics", released once every 3 months, in which Apple feature. The First Edition, released in August 2006 place Apple fourth last at 2.7 out of ten [16] . In subsequent 3 month editions Apple have scored 2.7 [17], 2.7 [18], 5.3 [19], 4.1, 6 [20]
At the 2007 Macworld Expo, Greenpeace presented a critique of Apple. Rick Hind, the legislative director of Greenpeace's toxics campaign, said, "(The company) is getting greener, but not green enough." Hind commented further, "The Macbook Air has less toxic PVC plastic and less toxic BFRs, but it could have zero and that would make Apple an eco-leader."[96]
Climate Counts, a nonprofit organization dedicated to directing consumers toward the greenest companies, gave Macintosh an 11 points out of a possible 100 which places the company last among electronic corporations. Climate counts also labeled Macintosh with a "stuck icon," and the environmental group added that Macintosh was, "a choice to avoid for the climate conscious consumer."[97] On the other hand, Macintosh CEO Steve Jobs, stated to the environmentalists, "get out of the computer business (and) go save some whales."[96]
The United States Environmental Protection Agency rates Apple Computer highest amongst producers of notebook computers, and fairly well compared to producers of desktop computers and LCD displays.[89] [93]
In 2007 [94] and 2008 [95], Apple updated the Macbook Pro's backlighting and LCD screens, updating from cold cathode lamps to mercury-free LED's and arsenic free LCD's respectively.
Adderz91 ( talk) 05:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Not quite sure why I can't make this edit myself since I'm a registered user and logged in, but anyway...
Missing from the Apple Fellows list is Al Alcorn. I know this first-hand since I worked with Al while at Apple. Numerous other sources for this including Al's Wikipedia entry, Googling "Al Alcorn Apple Fellow", and the Wired article at http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.10/atari.html.
There has been talk from Apple CEO of a gaming console to show up in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RupertApple ( talk • contribs) 04:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately Wikipedia isnt a rumour site, once it become officially announced and preferably released, then it will be added to the article. Adderz91( talk) 17:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but, at the same time, there should be a mention of it once it becomes widespread enough, even if its just a small section. KP317 22:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I just attempted to improve the Corporate Affairs intro and would appreciate comments and help. It needs to be reorganized and more concise, and it still has several unsourced claims. Joshuagross ( talk) 21:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
"think different" should be mentioned as the most important and recognized slogan, don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.47.179.145 ( talk) 05:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there any reason that most or all of the History section shouldn't be moved to History_of_Apple? Joshuagross ( talk) 07:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Something else to be mindful of - if text is removed from the main article, we should make sure (if it's relevant) that it's on the history page. Joshuagross ( talk) 01:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Removed the current information from "the early years" section:
This information is covered in other articles. Joshuagross ( talk) 04:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Other removals:
Irrelevant. Joshuagross ( talk) 23:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy with the first section now, and I'm improving the second section. Removed text:
This is irrelevant to Apple and should be on different pages. Joshuagross ( talk) 00:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't the origins of Apple's name (as a tribute to the Beatles) mentioned in the article? The reference to Alan's Turing's apple is bizarre and obviously false. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97064,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.114.31 ( talk) 07:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Can the size of that illustration on the Timeline of Apple Products section be increased, so that the text is about the same size as the text in the article? It's difficult to read for the visually impaired, but need not be. Yes. I am visually impaired. Kaiwhakahaere ( talk) 03:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Or, maybe it can have a little box in the right hand bottom corner which can be clicked to expand the illustration to full width of the article. Kaiwhakahaere ( talk) 03:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I want to renominate this article for good article status within the next few days, so I'd appreciate advice before I do so. The To-do list only has four items left, the first three of which I think can be ignored. The only thing left should be adding info about Pystar, right? Joshuagross ( talk) 18:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following sentence from the section "Corporate affairs":
A PS/2 port was replaced with the ADB, the Parallel port was replaced with a largely identical but proprietary SCSI port and DVI with the Apple Display Connector<ref>http://lawlor.cs.uaf.edu/~olawlor/ref/mac_ports/index.html</ref>
Not only is the ADB older than PS/2 (which also is less versatile because not a bus) but comparing the parallel port with SCSI is even sillier. Lars T. ( talk) 15:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
This individual is listed as a founder of Apple, but the "history of Apple" books do not mention him. What's the deal? George415 ( talk) 16:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Something needs to be done with the Logo. The current one is almost NEVER seen on any current Mac products. No startup logos, no documentation and no products.
I think, although the current logo is pretty, its not representative of the current company.
I switched it to the black one, but it almost hurt your eyes to look at it. I think we need to find the grey version. What do people think? Adderz91 ( talk) 17:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
This page appears to have been vandalized:
"Apple Inc., (NASDAQ: AAPL) formerly Apple Computer, Inc., is an American multinational corporation with a focus on designing and manufacturing useless consumer electronics and software products for overly high prices. "
Is there anything to be done about this? Aleceiffel1066 ( talk) 17:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/16883/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.253.68 ( talk) 02:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
www.zlok.net I Invented … the Apple Logo 29-Mar-09
"Name: Rob Janoff Age: 57 Invention: The Apple Logo"
Coolest citation: "What thanks did Janoff, now the owner of his own Chicago-based graphic design firm, get for all his hard work? “Not even a holiday card.”"
[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvlx ( talk • contribs) 08:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The image File:IPod Touch 2.0.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 03:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
This article (and nearly every other article in Wikipedia that touches on this subject) viiolates Apple's trademark naming conventions, as regards its iPod models. Apple is very clear about capitalization, e.g., "iPod touch"; not "iPod Touch"; iPod nano, not iPod Nano, etc. I can start fixing these, but have to be very cautious about what I change, as changing capitalization breaks links to filenames. I'll start fixing these, but I want to bring it up publically, as I expect, otherwise, some more "senior" editor might take it upon him/herself to go around behind me and "fix" my corrections. This is not a trivial matter, and is not a matter of Wikipedia guidelines or naming conventions. As things stand, by not acknowledging Apple's policies in the naming of its products, Wikipedia is guilty of spreading misinformation. Since Wikipedia is used as a usage standard, it's important to us to get this right. rowley ( talk) 20:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The last sentence in the Criticism section says "Apple products - particularly its computers - are criticized as being overpriced in comparison to competitor products of similar specification". That is not what the reference says. It says Apple's 'high end' products are often deemed overpriced . There is no mention of comparisons with competitor products. Someone please fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.165.220 ( talk) 20:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the quote needs to be struck out. It is an opinion and the writer fails to produce any evidence to support this. Therefore, I would say that it was an unreliable source at best. Even as it stands though, it is a strange source for the criticisms section! -- Candy ( talk) 16:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I heard on the news that they are bring back the i phone with the 2G to sell for a lower price Tj1224 ( talk) 13:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
i highly doubt it, as the 2G component price has actually gone up vs 3g "and future chipsets are only going to become cheaper, instead of more expensive" Markthemac ( talk) 05:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
This section is totally unnessesary.
All allegations were proven false.
Its like me saying Apple are a 6 legged monster with macs for eyes and poops ipods. Obviously it would be proven false. So why does it have its own section??
I vote for the removal of it, or at least move it down to a "lesser" bullet point in the criticism section. Adderz91 ( talk) 03:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes if the allegations were proven to be true then it deserves its own section but as it stands it does not. Making it a bullet point in the Criticism section would be a happy medium i think. 58.110.36.34 ( talk) 02:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
One of the most basic things you can tell someone about a company is, without judgment, where the company makes their products. Someone (who works for Apple?) keeps deleting that information from the article. If someone wants to add, "they also manufacture in [list of countries], that would be fine. The primary manufacturing location for Apple, dwarfing all other locations, is China, which is a significant bit of information that belongs in the article.
![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
I don't think that the infobox should be so wide... it's practically taking up more space that the content. Does anyone else feel this way? — cosmotron ( talk | contribs ) 03:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, looks like it's fixed now on the page! Airplaneman talk 16:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Does anybody know how the company got "apple" in its name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.69.189.25 ( talk) 08:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}}
In the iPod section, there is an uncapitalized Apple. Would someone please capitalize it? 98.230.214.136 ( talk) 13:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Apple (computers) page attributes an opinion to Brian Bagnall, but there's no indication of who he is or why his opinion matters. The article used to link to the now-deleted Brian Bagnall page, I guess. I think "(the author of several computer books for McGraw-Hill)" should be added to xhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_computers, but I'm unable to edit the page at this time.
The error is that Apple Inc. was established in Silicon Valley, it is the southern part of the San Francisco Bay Area in Northern California, United States. And not in Cupertino, California. Y.harrif ( talk) 14:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks like you're right:). It was fixed. Airplaneman talk 22:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
In the Mac and accessories section, there's no mention about the Magic Mouse. Would someone please add it in? 69.254.153.143 ( talk) 14:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Xerox granted Apple engineers three days of access to the anted Apple engineers three days of access to the PARC facilities in return for the option to buy 100,000 share of apple at the pre-IPO price of $10 a share. apple doesn't do market research
Prof256 ( talk) 00:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Apple being Apple has always been keen to be a little different. and it is worth pointing out that they don't use THE infront of their product titles. as a result, in the intro for example:
The company's best-known hardware products include Macintosh computers, iPod, and iPhone
Would be better suited as from their Guided Tour videos amongst other sources they talk about how iPhone is the worlds most bla bla bla not THE iPhone.
Its up for discussion but I think its a valid point. thanks.
81.86.243.148 ( talk) 17:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Under the picture of the Apple 1, the grammar is incorrect.
The iPod Touch section reads only 8, 32 and 64 gB. I believe it is still available in 16 gB format which is not addressed. Can it please be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.16.75 ( talk) 02:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The iPod Touch section is correct. It is now only available in 8, 32, and 64 GB flavors. Swanduck ( talk) 23:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Now there's confirmation from a primary source about the origin of the logo, should the speculation about Alan Turing etc be removed? Etrigan ( talk) 13:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Done - hope you all approve.
Etrigan (
talk)
00:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Apple takes a lot of effort in order to spread speculation about up and coming products. Maybe this article should include a section (Part of Products section maybe?) that talks about what the market thinks Apple is coming out with. For now it can be stuff about the percieved iSlate and iPhone 4G, But it can be updated to talk about everything Apple MAY be coming out with. Just an Idea. What do you people think? Utkarshshah007 ( talk) 19:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Can the detail in the criticism section not be worked into the stuff on the AppStore and possibly the History section for the ThinkSecret stuff? -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 10:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
-- Ecoscience ( talk) 03:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Hi. I noticed a number of papers and reports on Apple's transition to toxic free products. Below is a summary of this milestone with links to the reports
In October 2009 Apple completes its transition to mercury free LED displays across its entire Mac product line with the introduction of new MacBook and iMac models. In 2009 Apple became the first in the industry to ship all portables, desktops and handhelds free of toxic brominated flame retardants and mercury. In October 2009 Environmental NGOs, Clean Production Action and ChemSec announce Apple as a leader in having successfully banned families of toxic compounds, brominated flame retardants, mercury, arsenic, chlorinated flame retardants, phthalates and PVC. Apple introduces an innovative method by restricting compounds by looking for toxic elements bromine and chlorine. http://www.cleanproduction.org/Electronics.GreeningConsumer.php http://www.cleanproduction.org/library/GCE_Release_FINAL.pdf http://goodelectronics.org/news-en/new-report-on-the-greening-of-electronic-products http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2010/01/07/239853/IT-companies-still-dragging-feet-on-removal-of-toxic.htm
I suggest that the software "Aperture" be added to the opening paragraph, as it is the professional equivalent of "Final Cut Studio" and "Logic Studio" for the photographers. Yantougas ( talk) 21:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the MacBook should be added to the list. 76.170.165.95 ( talk) 01:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The image caption refers to "The first Macintosh, also known as the Macintosh 128K." In fact, the first Macintosh was just Macintosh. It wasn't named the 128 until there was a choice between 128 and 512. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.27.40 ( talk) 04:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest "The first Macintosh, known simply as the Macintosh" or "The first Macintosh, released in 1984" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.27.40 ( talk) 04:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Why is this page semi-protected? There hasn't been any vandalism since November 2009... -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 13:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
What exactly was wrong with it? -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 19:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
It was unsourced. And I made small the semi-protect because put the exactly date of unprotection just only do IPs still vandalazing. Tbhotch Talk C. 04:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know it. And when the protection run there will be vandalism (at first low but it will increase). Tbhotch Talk C. 16:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Is it OK to auto-archive on 90 days/5 threads minimum? -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 22:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that the last 4-5 years shouldn't all be stuck under the Intel transition. After all Macintosh models were updated to Intel, Apple moved on to focus more on consumer devices, bringing about the name change to Apple, Inc. Maybe that section could be restructured to reflect that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.173.52.23 ( talk) 20:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Finished :)
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Drumpat01 (
talk •
contribs)
11:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Would someone please update the number of actual open Apple Stores? In the last quarter (Q1 of FY2010) the average number was 278. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.63.66.14 ( talk) 03:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Would someone please add or update the financial numbers? The FY 2008 is outdated now (Apple Inc. FY starts with the last quarter of the year therefore the FY 2009 is already known for over 2 months now). Thanks. And maybe the Non-GAAP numbers could also be included. This would give a more accurate picture of the financial performance of the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.128.51 ( talk) 20:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
just for layout: normally it's "net income" instead of "profit" examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.217.58.211 ( talk) 00:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The Request was accepted and executed. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
wikipedia is supposed to be 'non censored'. if there are notable articles from notable sources about a notable problem at a notable company, and you fail to include it, then wikipedia loses credibility as a neutral source of accurate information and it loses credibility as an encyclopedia. Decora ( talk) 23:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
IE: Foxconn suicides, the foxconn employee who claimed he was beaten and interrogated because he lost an iphone prototype, the conditions at Foxconn plants, etc etc etc. Articles in dozens of mainstream newspapers, the world over, about these alleged incidents. The Apple, Inc. article should at least make mention of the massive manufacturing facilities that produce just about every modern apple product that has been sold in the last few years. It would make a crude mockery of an 'Encyclopedic article' to have a situation where you deem the de-facto manufacturing wing of an entire company (nay, sector of the economy) to be unworthy of more than a passing mention in the articles on the company. Decora ( talk) 23:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Apple's current logo is just a black apple. The article logo does not match See the logos below, they are all:
Mineralè ( talk) 15:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I have changed the logo to the grey monochrome version. This matches the logo shown in the iPhone 4 commercials as well as most reent print media Mineralè ( talk) 19:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Guys for the love of god don't reverse this for a second time, I've included below screenshots from various sources to prove that the current apple logo is monochrome. Mineralè ( talk) 04:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
But the apple logo on the web page is glossy: Yes but it's embedded in a navigation ribbon. All sources below are monochrome:
File:Screen shot 2010-06-11 at 12.36.09 AM.png File:Screen shot 2010-06-11 at 12.32.52 AM.png File:Screen shot 2010-06-11 at 12.39.10 AM.png
After providing no less than 16 different sources of apples current logo, including print ads, print, business cards, tv ads, web pages etc -- the change was reverted: "provide a third party source" . I'm only a casual editor -- but I'm trying to help here. I give up Mineralè ( talk) 05:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps that section of the article could be updated, copying some or most of the caption under the monochrome icon. As I remarked about provisional/contextual use of a simplified logo in traditional print, the same variations may be used on other marketing materials like packaging, brochures, etc, so I would concede that the hazy distinctions between icon and logo become even more blurred in the nebulous sense of overall branding. But for the record: I still think it's best (ie, simplest) to go with the mirror/glass logo unless and until there is a definitive Apple website page (or reliable third party) stating otherwise. - PrBeacon (talk) 09:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/technology/27apple.html
This should be in the article. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 22:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Very relevant info for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.207.70 ( talk) 15:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Given the suicide rate in China is 14 per 100,000 ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704026204575267603576594936.html) and even in the UK it is 11.5 per 100,000 ( http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1092) that 9 people out of 400,000 workers at Foxconn have committed suicide this year doesn't seem significant enough to warrant inclusion here. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 23:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I retract the above per further discussions on Talk:iPad -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 21:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Moore, Malcolm (27 Feb 2010). "Apple admits using child labour". Telegraph.co.uk.
This should be included in the Criticism summary section here, since that section's content so far is not a remotely truthful summary of the criticism point of view fork "article". It clearly suggests to readers that basically all criticism of Apple is related to product management in some way or other.
Now that Apple Inc. has admitted that they did in fact use child labour, this is clearly a far, far more serious type of criticism than everything currently mentioned in this main article's criticism summary section. The explicit word "child labor" should be mentioned in this article. -- 78.34.240.197 ( talk) 22:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Decora is right, just because it was something that happened in the past doesn't mean a thing; simply shrugging it off just because of that is rather egregious bias. This was huge news when it came out. Of course, this article has had this problem for years, it has always needed more contributers that can edit in a neutral manner.... RN 06:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Windows has a habit of copying apple. (Example: apple comes out with new software, windows does the same shortly following. ) Tj1224 ( talk) 17:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Eraserhead. The Environmental Record section is only partially covering Apple's environmental history. There are a number of activities and programs that have been carried out since 1992. As it stands the entries start at 2003. I found a good summary of their activities in the 1990s here http://www.apple.com/environment/news/. Are you able to add something here or would you like me to propose some text and references? Ecoscience-- Ecoscience ( talk) 22:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I heard somewhere that the logo depicting an apple with a bite taken out is an allusion to the death of Alan Turing (the so-called 'father of Computer Science'), who committed suicide by biting a cyanide-laced apple after being arrested for being gay.
Can anyone confirm this? Or is it just an interesting coincidence? 86.42.87.1 ( talk) 22:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Nope, it was all to do with it proving it was an apple and not a cherry, for example. Source: http://creativebits.org/interview/interview_rob_janoff_designer_apple_logo 84.92.73.137 ( talk) 10:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Other than the main title and paragraph below summarizing the criticism, I see no reason why those two specific allegations should be in the main article other than the fact that they both relate to more recent events. I'm proposing moving that information to the main Criticism of Apple article, which was created specifically to contain this content. elektrik SHOOS 17:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
(For further discussion, please see the talk page of Criticism of Apple. GoldRenet ( talk) 16:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC))
I am a little surprised that in this article there is little or no mention of the security problems that Apple has in combination of the false image the company projects. Here are a couple news (reliable) sources i.e. from CNN, theinquirer, Washington post etc ect
The truth is that Mac OS has as many vulnerabilities as Windows, according to Nigam -- Apple patches its products just often as Microsoft does.
According to Maiffret it doesn't take long for talented coders to find holes in Apple's software at various hacking events.
To round things out he says that security prospects are "scarier with them [Apple]", as Jobs' Mob "market themselves as more secure than the PC". Given the ignorance of Apple fanbois everywhere and the growth of Mac OS X, it's highly likely that the security through obscurity approach that Apple has taken won't hold up for much longer.
By keeping users in the dark, Apple is putting its customers at risk unnecessarily by lulling them in to a false sense of security. David Harley, another security wonk from anti-virus vendor ESET puts it like this: "Any computer user who believes a system is so safe that they don't have to care about security is prime material for exploitation by social engineering."
"This lack of awareness isn't helped when Apple issues an anti-malware security update by stealth, rather than informing the public what it has done."
One thing the hard figures have shown is that OS X's reputation as a relatively secure operating system is unwarranted, Secunia said. This year and last year Secunia tallied 36 advisories on security issues with the software, many of them allowing attackers to remotely take over the system - comparable to figures on operating systems such as Windows XP Professional and Red Hat Enterprise Server. "Secunia is now displaying security statistics that will open many eyes, and for some it might be very disturbing news," said Secunia chief executive Niels Henrik Rasmussen. "The myth that Mac OS X is secure, for example, has been exposed."
A zero-day security hole is a weakness in software that neither the makers of the software nor other individuals have any knowledge of. Hackers then take advantage of the exploit on the day it becomes general knowledge. Miller revealing that Mac OS X has twenty of them makes Apple look like they didn't do the job right the first time and also suggests Apple needs glasses to see what they've missed – and he's not wrong.
"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town," Miller said, suggesting that while both OSes have their security flaws, the Mac OS is safer because of the lack of people threatening to exploit it.
And if you do not believe these articles check out below the humongous number of security holes apple had per year (and i only spent 5mins in google). Moreover, if you want to compare the number of security problems that pops up every year (more than 50 per year for Apple) with other operating systems then compare it with OpenBSD, which had 2 since 1997...
And if you don't like news sources here is a book bluntly stating the illusion Apple creates over its security:
Look at Apple. People often find security vulnerabilities in the products, often dozens at a time. And while the security industry knows this, the world sees Apple as a more secure platform.
Anyhow these are my 2 cents... A.Cython ( talk) 14:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with basically everything GoldRenet (excellent explinations btw) says, and also could point out a few more things if I was more focused on this article, I just restored the link and cleaned up the refs. As in my edit summary, I was about to tag it myself but figured maybe the person was working on it so give it a few hours, but I fell asleep ;p. It could turn into something useful but right now isn't too hot; perhaps removing it and putting it on the talk page or similar is the best course unless it gets cleaned up. It really isn't that bad of a stab at the issue though, it's just hard to do correctly. RN 13:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I suspect my english were terrible. I do hope that I have provided enough material that show that Apple is not as secure as Apple wants to project.
Look at Apple. People often find security vulnerabilities in the products, often dozens at a time. And while the security industry knows this, the world sees Apple as a more secure platform.
"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town," Miller said, suggesting that while both OSes have their security flaws, the Mac OS is safer because of the lack of people threatening to exploit it.
In essence if there was a hacker, who have built a virus to target Apple products, then the Apple guy will sneeze just like the PC guy in the ad. Lie number 3. In total, Apple lied three times and on my perspective and also it seems the authors of the sources I have used, Apple manufactures a false image. I do not know if Apple crosses the line on legal terms for false claims but on my opinion certainly crossed it in terms of morality, respect, and trust between the company-client relation. All these different sources found and provided reflect that. Now some people might want to shoot me for using hard language. I am willing to dilute the language used so long we do not dilute facts.
According to Maiffret it doesn't take long for talented coders to find holes in Apple's software at various hacking events. If Apple was taking security seriously, he said, then "they wouldn't claim to be more secure than Microsoft because they are very much not."
and the nurture of unawareness in the Apple's culture:
To round things out he says that security prospects are "scarier with them [Apple]", as Jobs' Mob "market themselves as more secure than the PC". Given the ignorance of Apple fanbois everywhere and the growth of Mac OS X, it's highly likely that the security through obscurity approach that Apple has taken won't hold up for much longer.
Ok here is where Apple bluntly claims: Mac OS X doesn’t get PC viruses. This is not true. The user GoldRenet has already searched at the McAfree site some viruses that exist at Apple products. Although he claims that is not entirely related Apple products since the Trojan horse is an application rather than on the operating system. But that crazy logic i.e then PCs are also immune from viruses since if you do not have any application running then you not do anything or being infected. If there is at least one virus (unfortunately it is much more than one) that through a program, a corrupt file or other possible way does something that the user does not want on the computer without Apple being able to protect him/her then Apple should advertise Mac OS X does get PC viruses! Moreover, the user GoldRenet only looked for the cases where there is an actual virus infecting Macs with a very specific keyword. However, the sources used talk for all the security holes Apple has not only the one being exploited already! Finally, if you type "MacOS" at the McAfree security center it gives you 130 results of which most of them are viruses specifically for Macintosh. At that is my understanding when it says Type: Virus, Subtype: Macintosh! A.Cython ( talk) 19:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Another source from the Macworld.com written on 2 Jun, 2009:
On May 26, Macworld republished a controversial Computerworld article by Ira Winkler suggesting that Apple is “grossly negligent” when it comes to security, and should be investigated by the Federal Trade Commission for false advertising. The author was motivated to write this piece based on Apple’s recent failure to patch a known Java security flaw that was fixed on other platforms nearly six months ago.
...
The article is absolutely correct in that Apple clearly bungled the Java security patch, placing Mac users at risk in the process. This isn’t the first time Apple has failed to patch a known security issue in a timely fashion, and it reveals a major weakness in the company’s security program.
...
Apple has a poor history here, often failing to provide OS X security fixes for flaws fixed on other platforms days, weeks, or even months earlier. We’ve seen Mac users exposed to known vulnerabilities in WebKit (Safari), Samba (Windows file sharing), DNS (networking), MDNS (Bonjour), Apache (web server), Java, and more. This is an extremely serious problem, and one Apple is rightly criticized for.
Now if a magazine for Macs say these things and still people disagree then what can I say... A.Cython ( talk) 21:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
One more source:
In June, Dai Zovi reported on a new local privilege escalation vulnerability researchers had discovered that gives local root access on Mac OS X Tiger and Leopard.
...
The security level in Leopard falls in between Windows XP Service Pack 2 and Vista, he said. If Snow Leopard has full ASLR and DEP, it would bring its security close to the level of Vista, he added.
...
"Microsoft has had a head start. That's why they had ASLR and DEP first," Miller said. "It's not because they're geniuses. They just started caring about it sooner."
"These things go lock in step and it doesn't make sense for businesses to expend a ton of resources when the threat is not there," said Dai Zovi. "So far, Apple has been keeping up pretty well with the level of threats in the wild."
...
In the meantime, more and more Mac malware is appearing. Earlier this week, TrendMicro reported that it found a new variant of the JAHLAV family of Trojans that pose as pirated versions of legitimate applications, modify a computer's domain name system (DNS) settings and enabling successful phishing attacks and redirects to sites hosting malware. Earlier versions of the Trojan masqueraded as versions of QuickTime, but this one passes as Foxit Reader or an antivirus program.
Some malware is written for both Windows and Mac platforms and downloads the correct version depending on the browser. Last week, Symantec reported that sites purporting to show streams of new movies were actually feeding up a DNS-changing Trojan instead called OSX.RSPlug.A for Mac and Trojan.Fakeavalert for Windows. Last month, a McAfee blog post wrote about the OSX/Puper.a Trojan that is downloaded onto Mac systems when users download what they think is a video player.
And if people are curious about viruses at Macintosh before 2000 look here p. 169-17?... The more I search the web the more dirty things I find about Apple. A.Cython ( talk) 22:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok give a couple of days and I will try to improve the paragraph based on your constructive criticise. :)
A.Cython (
talk)
23:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
A.Cython ( talk) 16:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Our analysis of the 0-day patch performance and the number of concurrently unpatched vulnerabilities covered 658 high- and medium risk vulnerabilities of Microsoft and 738 of Apple.
1. Check this report and here... moreover... JAVA and any multi-platform applications/framework are targets. If the OS is not able to handle the these applications properly it can be damaging to the user.
5. Well not in those words. But to convict a murderer you do not need a smoking gun. It would be nice and easier but not necessary. If you ask any Mac user about the huge number security vulnerabilities he/she will only reply with ignorance. What makes things worse is that they insist as well. Second, sources I have supplied above do state that Apple somehow is responsible for the ignorance of its users. I doubt I would be able to trace the steps of their marketing campaign... but at least I guess we could add the removal antivirus suggestions on Macs after the first virus appeared check here. Why Macs users do not need options for anti-virus? Indirectly it says Macs are so secure that the user does not need more protections... go figure. Yeah I know what a guy from Apple said who will remember in a week or two. Everybody will remember Hi I am a PC and I am a Mac... Anyhow you do not like McAfee's report well here is a more recent report from the Swiss Federal Institute.
Just because there is no interest by hackers to attack Apple it does not mean Apple cannot get infected by viruses/malware etc. This is not what Apple projects!
Concerning the McAfee report I would also say that anything Apple says is very suspicious. No doubt since me and you are not experts, we should include both the report and the article you found in the paragraph in order to provide the reader a full view of the situation.
Here is another misleading ad... 1st of all a PC is also linux e.g. OpenBSD, which is far superior in terms of security than Macs in any possible way. It can be installed everywhere any desktop, laptops big screen small screens slow processors fast processors... even on a Mac with intel processor. So why it is not mentioned? One word... misleading!
You complained about Apple said only it does not get PC viruses? What about spyware?
(For further discussion, please see the talk page of Criticism of Apple. GoldRenet ( talk) 16:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC))
{{
citation}}
: Check |isbn=
value: length (
help)
AppleConf
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).usstores
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).2009Q1transcript
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).ApplePR20081021
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Apple doesn't manufacture its own laptops, mp3 players and so forth, nearly no major laptop company does anymore. It's too expensive so they hire out OEMs. This is basic knowledge of anyone involved in the industry. Even the old G4 was made by Quanta ( http://www.wired.com/gadgets/wireless/magazine/17-03/mf_netbooks?currentPage=2). We saw from the Unibody Apple video that the unibody was made in Taiwan (all the machines were labeled in Chinese Traditional), even the background factory had Traditional Chinese characters. It may not matter much to the layman (or some of the more rabid Apple fans here), but to experts doesn't that make the quality of this article deceiving and less believable? -- 24.193.80.232 ( talk) 21:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Lars T. ( talk) 01:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Cork (Ireland) Campus You'll find Apple's European Operations Headquarters in the beautiful, verdant city of Cork, Ireland. The campus hosts a range of divisions including [...] Manufacturing,
Folks, read Apple's most recent 10K from 11/2008 here. In it, you'll find this statement:
Final assembly of the Company’s products is currently performed in the Company’s manufacturing facility in Ireland, and by external vendors in California, the Republic of Korea (“Korea”), the People’s Republic of China (“China”) and the Czech Republic. Currently, the supply and manufacture of many critical components is performed by sole-sourced third-party vendors in the U.S., China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, and Singapore. Sole-sourced third-party vendors in China perform final assembly of substantially all of the Company’s portable products, including MacBook Pro, MacBook, MacBook Air, iPods, iPhone, and most of the Company’s iMacs.
They do still have manufacturing in Ireland. Done. -- ZimZalaBim talk 03:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
also no chip inside any Mac or PC outside the US, is made in the US. some of them are designed in the US but the US government is a bit funny when it comes to exporting chips.
I am the one who have made this post on this discussion, and I'd like to share with you the simularities more visually...
in addition to logo similarities, I've also come up with this...
There I think it makes more sense now...
Thanks
I assume that this logo has the same shape and design as this logo
end result: these two logos use the same shape and design, it's just they use a different color or theme
put that on your article and edit it. baby
70.181.106.241 ( talk) 17:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: I propose this original post to be deleted. I am the one who made this post. I made this post.
There is this tale, promoted by Sadie Plant in her book _Zeroes and Ones_, that the bitten apple logo was a reference to the way Alan Turing committed suicide, by eating a bite from an apple that was prepared with cyanide. The rainbow-colored logo was assumed to be a reference to the rainbow flag of the gay community, as Alan Turing was gay himself. Unfortunately for that tale, the rainbow Apple logo was designed by Rob Janoff in 1977, replacing the previous logo graphic of Isaac Newton under an apple tree. The rainbow flag was designed later, by Gilbert Baker, in 1978. Since this tale comes up a lot, is it worth debunking in the article? See also I Invented … the Apple Logo, Matt Rodbard, Sync Magazine.
64.103.25.233 ( talk) 20:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
64.103.25.233 ( talk) 21:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a substantial amount of Apple environmental activity stretching as far back as 1990 (see 'A history of Sound Practice' on apple.com/environment) that should be added to this section on Apple's environmental 'track record.' The whole section wreaks of Greenpeace editing and construction. Some more level-headed perspective would be an improvement here. User:Ecoscience
Currently, The Enviromental Record section has only two websites for citation, apple.com and macobserver.com both which seem rather questionable and biased sources. We should seek out more unbiased third-party sources for this section. Also, the section sounds non-NPOV, but I want someone else to verify my concerns. Walksonwalls ( talk) 22:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Similar to this i think the following section needs revising, and possibly deleting; at the very least the year in which the comments from 'Climate Counts' were made needs to be stated. By the use of the now dated term 'Macintosh' over 'Mac' it would appear that these comments were made some time ago, but we can't be sure.
"Climate Counts, a nonprofit organization dedicated to directing consumers toward the greenest companies, gave Macintosh an 11 points out of a possible 100 which places the company last among electronic corporations. Climate counts also labeled Macintosh with a "stuck icon," and the environmental group added that Macintosh was, "a choice to avoid for the climate conscious consumer."[99] Macintosh CEO Steve Jobs, stated to the environmentalists, "get out of the computer business (and) go save some whales."[98]</ref>" 90.53.5.167 ( talk) 20:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
EDIT: having looked at the ref given it would appear these comments were made in 2008 and also that most of this was simply copied and pasted from Information Week- i'm not sure how many words have to be exactly the same before there is some sort of copyright infringement on here, I hope someone more knowledgeable can sort this out. :) 90.53.5.167 ( talk) 20:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok i know this particular topic has been done to death, but i believe its an important one, and at the moment is not well written, unbiased or clear.
Firstly, the whole criticism section lacks structure, almost unreadable with huge paragraphs, no sub headings etc
Now my overall opinion on this particular criticism article is that most criticisms relate to Apples products, and NOT Apple as a whole. Product criticisms such as this one:
"Longtime Apple consumers have claimed to observe a marked decline in the reliability and durability of the company's computing and iPod lines, particularly since Apple's migration to Intel processors in 2006...."
Not just that sentence but the whole entire paragraph is pointless and needs to be removed and placed in its respective appropriate sections, ipods, Macbook Pro's etc I think criticism needs to be limited to general statements which dont target specific products if its to REMAIN in the Apple.inc section.
One such general statement could be "Apple consumers have noted a decrease in the quality and reliability of Revision A Apple products." This encompasses everything,while not going into specifics which dont belong.
Its DEFINETLY a needed part of this article, but as it stands, its too product specific. What do people think. Adderz91 ( talk) 17:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I haven't noticed a decrease of anything in apple products, they only thing I've noticed is that who ever put the lock on this article is doing a TERRIBLE job of maintaining it (the article)! -- 68.102.118.231 ( talk) 00:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
There has been much speculation and suspicion of extreme over pricing of apple products. When one looks at the hard ware of an average macbook and does some research, it becomes clear that all the components don't warrant the price. While the preloaded OS does represent a percentage of the cost it still seems like too much of a cost. In another example the Microsoft Zune and iPod (while still a quality product) are similar function and while the Zune includes a wifi receiver, FM tuner, and larger screen the price of the iPod can exceed that of the Zune. The price of production of Apple products may in fact be higher then tech experts speculate, but the fact that an Apple notebook can cost over $1,000 while a PC notebook with similar (if not faster) hardware can be as low as $600 begs to differ. There are two possibilities;Apple is pricing their products too high or, for some reason, it costs more to produce a Mac due to unique hardware. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxtrot MGS ( talk • contribs) 00:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
PRICE IS NOT LEGITIMATE CRITICISM Pricing is due to a number of factors, and should most definetly NOT be included in the criticism section. I dont see a "price" criticism section in the Audi page do you? Its the same, its just a car based of regular Volkswagon parts, why does it cost more. You have to take in design, included software etc. This topic has been done to death and is simply not criticism.
Im going to edit the criticism section soon. Delete criticism that is too related to its products. Apple Inc is about the Company, product criticism should remain on its respective product pages. Adderz91 ( talk) 02:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to add the following criticism of the criticism section: "Apple has received criticism for not notifying users of Mac OS X system vulnerabilities until a fix is released, [118] meaning users are vulnerable to known security flaws until the fix is released." This sentence is simply a non-sequitur. Regardless of whether Apple notifies consumers of vulnerabilities most users are still vulnerable to known security flaws! Candy ( talk) 07:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
In this sentence "Ultimately, all of this proved be too-little-too-late for Apple as their market share and stock prices continued to slide" you need to add a "to" in between "proved" and "be," I almost didn't even post this here as it is SO much more of a pain to do this and have you fix it, than allow us to do it. But whatever. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosmicwizard ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
the bit under software , it talks about .Mac, surely its time to update that to MobileMe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.186.110 ( talk) 16:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
How do people feel about merging the Environmental record into the criticism section?
I have read the article, and i feel it is too product specific. If it it to be in the Apple Inc. section should it not affect Apple as a whole? If its merely one or two products, it should be in the individual product wiki pages. Also i dont think Steve Jobs letter should be included. Its his personal opinions, not facts, and is obviously going to be Pro Apple, not neutral.
Also its not terribly well sourced, and as the whole Apple article needs to be shortened, i think it would be an excellent section that should be removed.
All that needs to be really noted is that Greenpeace has protested against Apple, but Apple has been making grounds.
Environment Apples products have been criticized by such groups as Greenpeace [1], and ranked lowest on its "Green Electronics Guide" in December 2006. However it should be noted that since August 2006 to June 2008 Apple has risen from 2.7 to 4.6 (out of 10) with a high of 6 in December 2007.
I think that paragraph describes perfectly that Apple HAS been targeted on its Environment record, but it IS improving. There is no need to list every little thing Apple has done, because the score shows they have improved. Therefore i have effectively summarized a pointless rambling article into one or 2 sentences. I will change this soon unless someone can provide valid arguments against it.
Ok well finally some people come here to discuss it. The problem was, especially with my criticism article above, was no one replied, no one with any sensible solutions. If you have a look at the current state of things, especially the criticism article, it is all over the place, its hardly readable. I want to discuss it, thats why i placed articles on here BEFORE i did anything. The problem was no one else cared to discuss it, im not going to wait 6 months before someone finally says something. I thank you for joining though.
Ok now do you agree that specific product criticisms should NOT be placed in the Apple Inc article? They have their respective wiki articles. The Apple Inc article should only contain information relating to Apple Inc in general, Macbook Pro criticism should stay on the Macbook Pro page should it not? Not only are they making this article excessively long, but they dont belong here.
OK next point, i know im terrible with citations. I dont know how to put them in properly, ive written down all the numbers, some articles shouldnt even be referenced. Im going to find out now how to put the citations as little numbers. Currently im putting them as whole words
I will add more information on what exactly Rev A products are. Adderz91 ( talk) 06:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey Adderz, had to resubmit this as it took me a while to write. Sorry, I'm not a one-edit kind of guy... especially not at 2:44 am.
"Apple has received criticism for not notifying users of system vulnerabilities until a fix is released,[104] meaning users are vulnerable to known security flaws until the fix is released.
Longtime Apple consumers have claimed to observe a marked decline in the reliability and durability of the company's computing and iPod lines, particularly since Apple's migration to Intel processors in 2006.[105] The MacBook and MacBook Pro series of laptop computers in particular drew considerable criticism for problems associated with malfunctioning fans, surface discolouration, excessive heat production (up to 80 degrees celsius), and warping cases and batteries, particularly among "revision A" models. The Dublin office of the European Consumer Centre (ECC) consumer body has reported a rise in complaints about products made by Apple, many of which relate to an alleged design fault in some Apple laptops that causes the computer to break down after a year's usage, just outside the company's warranty period. ECC Dublin claims there is a problem with "built-in obsolescence" in some well-known Apple products such as laptops and iPods.[106] It is difficult to estimate the proportion of faults per unit shipped due to the naturally self-selecting tendency of the sample of a consumer base reporting faults.however, the existence of a now abandoned website (it's last update was June 2007)t, AppleDefects.com, dedicatedsolely to the discussion of faults with Apple's post-Intel transition product portfolio would appear to vindicate some of the claims being made.[107][108] In conjunction with the above, Apple has been criticised for treating early adopters of new hardware like "guinea pigs" - in effect using their experiences to iron out bugs in subsequent revisions. One website states that "The conventional wisdom is to not buy "Rev A" Apple hardware".[109] The iPhone was particularly subject to this accusation after the price of the phone was reduced by $200 just two months after its release, resulting in a flood of complaints to Apple.[110] Apple did however attempt to rectify complaints by offering $100 store credit to early iPhone customers.
Apple has been accused of pressuring journalists to release their sources, with regards to leaked information about new Apple products, going as far as filing lawsuits against "John Does".[111] In particular, Apple fought a protracted battle against the Think Secret web site, eventually ending in a settlement that closed the web site but maintained the anonymity of its sources.
Apple also has received criticism for its iPhone and iPod integration with iTunes for not facilitating creation of software to run and maintain those devices using different applications tools besides iTunes.[112]
Similarly, Apple has not licensed its Fairplay DRM system to any other company, preventing users to listening to DRM protected music bought from sources other than the iTunes Store. By not allowing other companies or individuals to interoperate with its DRM system, Apple prevents competition and divides the market. For that reason, most other online music stores which use DRM use the Windows Media format, which is incompatible with Apple products.[citation needed]
Apple has been criticized for possible sweatshop conditions in factories in China where contract manufacturers make its iPod.[113] Immediately after the allegations, Apple launched an extensive investigation and worked with their manufacturers to remove all sweatshop unacceptable conditions found.[114]
Apple also has received criticism and two class-action lawsuits at both state and federal level about its iPhone product only being allowed service through a single mobile service provider in each country it has been released in (AT&T in the US, O2 in the UK), citing monopolistic and antitrust allegations between the two companies.[115] Software updates (maliciously or not) initially made unlocked iPhones unusable ("bricked"), however the most recent update revives the phone. Currently there is no official way to unlock an iPhone, and it cannot be bought unlocked for use on any network.
Another common criticism of Apple is that its products are often not user serviceable, instead requiring they be returned to Apple for repairs and upgrades.[citation needed] Typical examples include the batteries in the iPod, iPhone and MacBook Air which are non-user replaceable, and the difficulty of installing simple upgrades (e.g. replacing the hard drive) in MacBook Pros. In the past it was possible for consumers to replace iPod batteries themselves following instructions on popular websites, but more recently Apple has opted to solder batteries to the casing, forcing owners to pay a premium to Apple for the service.
Rational (in order):
1. The section on the DRM alternative is misleading because it makes it seem that the other companies use windows DRM in retaliation to itunes, which doesn't make sense because they do not have the option to follow itunes. The fact about the incompatability of windows DRM is useful, but since there is no source i opted to drop it.
2. Grammatical issues
3. iphone issues are probably not relevant even though some criticized apple's decision to go with cingular (not at&t, which should probably be explained if it didn't make this section even more inappropriate). Also, this section references "current" conditions of the iphone, which is relative to the time of writing and not a good habit for wikipedia (unless the date is written). There is a way to jailbreak the iphone right now, and there will never be an "official" way
4. "forcing owners to pay a premium to apple for the service" is biased and can easily be concluded by the reader at any rate.
As for merging environmental concerns, i think that it should be merged under another heading, separately from the other criticisms, or not at all. At any rate, an ongoing criticism by environmentalists / Green Peace is extensive enough to warrant a division of some kind. No offense to any authors, i know that finding a balance when it comes to criticizing apple (or Microsoft for that matter) is touchy. Taftgod ( talk) 07:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I have checked all the other companies listed on the greenpeace "meter" and they each have seperate environment sections so it will have to stay, but i still believe it and the criticism section need to be cleaned up. If Bold does not fit in well with the style of wikipedia articles, how do people feel about bullet points?
Here are the reasons for the RED
Reference 105 is just a blogger on a rant, no factual information
Reference 106 is dead
Apple Defects wiki articles are updated regularly, therefore it has not been abandoned
Apple defects deals with Emacs and Powerbooks, which are not post Intel transition
Reference 109 is simply a forum, not factual AT ALL therefore that entire comment holds no validity. Plus that comment has an awfully negative tone and is never mentioned in all 3 references
I also have a problem with the comments after ECC Dublin bit (the one with the dead link). It says "alleged design fault in some Apple laptops that causes the computer to break down after a year's usage, just outside the company's warranty period." The problem i have with that is Apple offer the optional Applecare warranty, thus extending it further than one year. Plus it also alludes to the fact that this is a deliberate act by Apple, yet has no sources to say so which simply means is pure speculation. The word "alleged" proves my point.
I dont think i can rewrite any of this, most of it in my opinion, is just not factual at all.
I'm not a one edit type of guy either, which makes it really difficult sometimes.
Hey Adderz!
For the most part i completely agree with you. One point, I'd include the part about the danish but rewrite it to better reflect the subject of this article: http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/05/04/danes-prove-apple-ibook-g4-has-a-defect With all these edits in mind, here is the article:
Apple has received criticism for not notifying users of system vulnerabilities until a fix is released,[104] meaning users are vulnerable to known security flaws until the fix is released. Longtime Apple consumers have claimed to observe a marked decline in the reliability and durability of the company's computing and iPod lines, particularly since Apple's migration to Intel processors in 2006. The MacBook and MacBook Pro series of laptop computers in particular drew considerable criticism for problems associated with malfunctioning fans, surface discolouration, excessive heat production (up to 80 degrees celsius), and warping cases and batteries, particularly among "revision A" models. The Dublin office of the European Consumer Centre (ECC) consumer body has reported complaints about products made by Apple, many of which relate to an alleged design fault in some Apple laptops that causes the computer to break down after a certain number of computer restarts, usually outside of the company's warranty period. ECC Dublin claims there is a problem with a soldering connection in some well-known Apple products such as laptops and iPods. The existence of AppleDefects.com, a site dedicated solely to the discussion of faults within Apple's product portfolio, would appear to vindicate some of the claims being made.[107][108] Apple has been criticized for post-launch product changes. The iPhone was particularly subject to this criticism after the price of the phone was reduced by $200 just two months after its release, resulting in a flood of complaints to Apple.[110] Apple did however attempt to rectify complaints by offering $100 store credit to early iPhone customers. Apple has been accused of pressuring journalists to release their sources, with regards to leaked information about new Apple products, going as far as filing lawsuits against "John Does".[111] In particular, Apple fought a protracted battle against the Think Secret web site, eventually ending in a settlement that closed the web site but maintained the anonymity of its sources. Apple also has received criticism for its iPhone and iPod integration with iTunes for not facilitating creation of software to run and maintain those devices using different applications tools besides iTunes.[112]Similarly, Apple has not licensed its Fairplay DRM system to any other company, preventing users to listening to DRM protected music bought from sources other than the iTunes Store. By not allowing other companies or individuals to interoperate with its DRM system, Apple prevents competition and divides the market. iTunes does, however, play non-DRM protected music. Apple has been criticized for possible sweatshop conditions in factories in China where contract manufacturers make its iPod.[113] Immediately after the allegations, Apple launched an extensive investigation and worked with their manufacturers to remove all unacceptable conditions.[114] Another common criticism of Apple is that its products are often not user serviceable, instead requiring they be returned to Apple for repairs and upgrades.[citation needed] Typical examples include the batteries in the iPod, iPhone and MacBook Air which are non-user replaceable, and the difficulty of installing simple fixes (e.g. replacing the hard drive) in MacBook Pros. In the past it was possible for consumers to replace iPod batteries themselves following instructions on popular websites, but more recently Apple has opted to solder batteries to the casing.
Much improved, in my opinion. It's not ready to be dropped in, though, because the references are messed up. Also, the paragraph should be reworked to be more cohesive or there should be bullet points. Any criticism is welcome. Taftgod 76.197.230.127 ( talk) 15:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, what do you think of this, anything missing, anything still not factual, well sourced etc?
I have rewritten the ECC Dublin section and added the source you retrieved. I dont know if the refrence links are working atm, but when its readded to the main article they should work. The paragraph in red still needs sources, its all unsubstantiated. I also added another source for the "think secret" saga. If youd like to check that for appropriateness. More sources are still needed for the other paragraphs too.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/20/apple_closes_thinksecret/
I also dont like the iphone paragraph. It simply relates to ONE Apple product, where as the start of the paragraph alludes to mutiple Apple products. Shouldnt this then be on the iphone page?
Adderz91 ( talk) 08:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The first paragraph about decreased product quality seems opinionated to me. Even if there are sources on the matter it would be hard to prove with increasingly complicated technology. The early adopter abuse seems noteworthy but another example would be helpful. I think that what we have now is necessary for the time being. We need someone with better apple experience to point out another abusive launch. Otherwise the issue is specific to the iphone and thereby not suitable for this article. The bullet-points are great, the revisions are great. I'd say just put it in the official article. Thanks
76.197.238.164 (
talk)
03:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
OK it has been added, with a few more sources it should be quite fine. Im a rather active Apple supporter, and know quite alot about its history, but as far as i am aware, they have not "substantially changed their products after launch" apart from the iphone. Im not sure "product change is the correct wording" it should be "price changes". I will change the wording to price changes, but that paragraph still needs other examples of when they have done this...i just cant think of any.
The Powerbook Aluminum had Rev A issues, ill have to find some sources backing it up though. Adderz91 ( talk) 05:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I wrote product changes because I'm pretty sure they've been accused of changing the components that go into the product after launch without making notice of it. I'm not sure, though, so price changes is better. I'll be moving on. Thanks 76.197.200.144 ( talk) 04:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Moving onto the Environment section
Here is the original version:
Apple has a track record of being an environmentally conscious company. Four areas of particular attention are product and packaging design, responsible manufacturing, energy efficiency, and recycling. Design dictates the quantity of raw materials, type and recyclability of materials, energy consumption required for manufacturing and use, and the ease of recycling. Like other flat panel displays and Apple's displays eliminate more than two pounds of lead, consume up to 80% less energy in sleep mode. Apple plans to completely eliminate the use of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) in its products, and arsenic in the glass of flat-panel displays by the end of 2008.[88] The EPA rates Apple Computer highest amongst producers of notebook computers, and fairly well compared to producers of desktop computers and LCD displays.[89] Since 2004, Greenpeace has confronted Apple for not setting a timeline to remove PVC and BFRs, which still exist in recent products such as the iPod nano and MacBook; and for not promoting a global end-of-life take back plan for Apple hardware (although it does within Europe and Japan where this is required by law); as well as for not having reusable components.[90] As of December 2006, Greenpeace ranked Apple last out of ten electronics companies in dealing with toxic substances in their products, mostly due to a lack of relevant documentation and timelines.[91] On May 2, 2007, Steve Jobs released an open letter named A Greener Apple,[92] responding to some of the allegations. In his letter, Jobs stated: In one environmental group’s recent scorecard, Dell, HP and Lenovo all scored higher than Apple because of their plans (or “plans for releasing plans” in the case of HP). Apple claims to be ahead of all of these companies in eliminating toxic chemicals from its products.[92] A study in January 2006 by the United States Environmental Protection Agency found that Apple's hardware compares favorably with that of its major competitors on environmental friendliness.[93] On June 5, 2007, Apple updated their MacBook Pro product line. This hardware update is environmentally notable because LEDs fully replaced cold cathode lamps in the 15 inch MacBook Pro's display backlighting,[94] a first for Apple laptops (the iPod has had LED backlighting since its creation in 2001). This ameliorates Apple's environmental stance, as cold cathode lamps contain mercury, whereas LEDs do not. In addition to the 2007 update, in 2008 Apple released its first MacBook Pro with arsenic free LCD.[95] At the 2007 Macworld Expo, environmentalists such as Greenpeace presented a critique of Apple. Rick Hind, the legislative director of Greenpeace's toxics campaign, said, "(The company) is getting greener, but not green enough." Hind commented further, "The Macbook Air has less toxic PVC plastic and less toxic BFRs, but it could have zero and that would make Apple an eco-leader."[96] Climate Counts, a nonprofit organization dedicated to directing consumers toward the greenest companies, gave Macintosh an 11 points out of a possible 100 which places the company last among electronic corporations. Climate counts also labeled Macintosh with a "stuck icon," and the environmental group added that Macintosh was, "a choice to avoid for the climate conscious consumer."[97] On the other hand, Macintosh CEO Steve Jobs, stated to the environmentalists, "get out of the computer business (and) go save some whales."[96]
And here is my proposed rewrite, if youd like to alter it, criticize it, obviously that will be fine.
I have deleted the first paragraph as i feel it does not have a neutral point of view. The first sentence says it all "Apple has a track record of being an environmentally conscious company.". The source was taken from Apples own website and therefore not neutral. I have also deleted the excerpt from "The greener Apple" as, again, it is not neutral and taken from Apples own website. Also i dont think it can hold much validty because it states "One environments scorecard" but fails to mention that source. I have changed some paragraphs around. I feel its necessary to group together the criticisms AGAINST Apple first and THEN detail what they have done or "said" in response. I have also added more sources for the Greenpeace paragraph. Just so you know, the Greenpeace scores arent finished yet
Also something fun to note, two paragraphs BOTH reference the same source, its simply worded differently. If you read the original one above, the bits in red are about the SAME study by the EPA.
Greenpeace, an environmental organization, have confronted Apple on various environmental issues including not promoting a global end-of-life take back plan (Other than Europe and Japan where it is requires by law), non reusable components and toxins within the iphone hardware. [11] [12]. Since 2003 they have campaigned against Apple on areas including their chemical policies, in particular the inclusion of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and brominated flame retardants (BFR's) [13]. On 2nd May 2007 Steve Jobs released a report (A Greener Apple) detailing that they plan to completely eliminate PVC and BFR's by the end of 2008. [14] with Greenpeace responding to the report that same day. [15]
Greenpeace also run a "Guide to Greener Electronics", released once every 3 months, in which Apple feature. The First Edition, released in August 2006 place Apple fourth last at 2.7 out of ten [16] . In subsequent 3 month editions Apple have scored 2.7 [17], 2.7 [18], 5.3 [19], 4.1, 6 [20]
At the 2007 Macworld Expo, Greenpeace presented a critique of Apple. Rick Hind, the legislative director of Greenpeace's toxics campaign, said, "(The company) is getting greener, but not green enough." Hind commented further, "The Macbook Air has less toxic PVC plastic and less toxic BFRs, but it could have zero and that would make Apple an eco-leader."[96]
Climate Counts, a nonprofit organization dedicated to directing consumers toward the greenest companies, gave Macintosh an 11 points out of a possible 100 which places the company last among electronic corporations. Climate counts also labeled Macintosh with a "stuck icon," and the environmental group added that Macintosh was, "a choice to avoid for the climate conscious consumer."[97] On the other hand, Macintosh CEO Steve Jobs, stated to the environmentalists, "get out of the computer business (and) go save some whales."[96]
The United States Environmental Protection Agency rates Apple Computer highest amongst producers of notebook computers, and fairly well compared to producers of desktop computers and LCD displays.[89] [93]
In 2007 [94] and 2008 [95], Apple updated the Macbook Pro's backlighting and LCD screens, updating from cold cathode lamps to mercury-free LED's and arsenic free LCD's respectively.
Adderz91 ( talk) 05:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Not quite sure why I can't make this edit myself since I'm a registered user and logged in, but anyway...
Missing from the Apple Fellows list is Al Alcorn. I know this first-hand since I worked with Al while at Apple. Numerous other sources for this including Al's Wikipedia entry, Googling "Al Alcorn Apple Fellow", and the Wired article at http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.10/atari.html.
There has been talk from Apple CEO of a gaming console to show up in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RupertApple ( talk • contribs) 04:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately Wikipedia isnt a rumour site, once it become officially announced and preferably released, then it will be added to the article. Adderz91( talk) 17:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but, at the same time, there should be a mention of it once it becomes widespread enough, even if its just a small section. KP317 22:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I just attempted to improve the Corporate Affairs intro and would appreciate comments and help. It needs to be reorganized and more concise, and it still has several unsourced claims. Joshuagross ( talk) 21:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
"think different" should be mentioned as the most important and recognized slogan, don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.47.179.145 ( talk) 05:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Is there any reason that most or all of the History section shouldn't be moved to History_of_Apple? Joshuagross ( talk) 07:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Something else to be mindful of - if text is removed from the main article, we should make sure (if it's relevant) that it's on the history page. Joshuagross ( talk) 01:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Removed the current information from "the early years" section:
This information is covered in other articles. Joshuagross ( talk) 04:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Other removals:
Irrelevant. Joshuagross ( talk) 23:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm happy with the first section now, and I'm improving the second section. Removed text:
This is irrelevant to Apple and should be on different pages. Joshuagross ( talk) 00:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't the origins of Apple's name (as a tribute to the Beatles) mentioned in the article? The reference to Alan's Turing's apple is bizarre and obviously false. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97064,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.114.31 ( talk) 07:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Can the size of that illustration on the Timeline of Apple Products section be increased, so that the text is about the same size as the text in the article? It's difficult to read for the visually impaired, but need not be. Yes. I am visually impaired. Kaiwhakahaere ( talk) 03:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Or, maybe it can have a little box in the right hand bottom corner which can be clicked to expand the illustration to full width of the article. Kaiwhakahaere ( talk) 03:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I want to renominate this article for good article status within the next few days, so I'd appreciate advice before I do so. The To-do list only has four items left, the first three of which I think can be ignored. The only thing left should be adding info about Pystar, right? Joshuagross ( talk) 18:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following sentence from the section "Corporate affairs":
A PS/2 port was replaced with the ADB, the Parallel port was replaced with a largely identical but proprietary SCSI port and DVI with the Apple Display Connector<ref>http://lawlor.cs.uaf.edu/~olawlor/ref/mac_ports/index.html</ref>
Not only is the ADB older than PS/2 (which also is less versatile because not a bus) but comparing the parallel port with SCSI is even sillier. Lars T. ( talk) 15:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
This individual is listed as a founder of Apple, but the "history of Apple" books do not mention him. What's the deal? George415 ( talk) 16:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Something needs to be done with the Logo. The current one is almost NEVER seen on any current Mac products. No startup logos, no documentation and no products.
I think, although the current logo is pretty, its not representative of the current company.
I switched it to the black one, but it almost hurt your eyes to look at it. I think we need to find the grey version. What do people think? Adderz91 ( talk) 17:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
This page appears to have been vandalized:
"Apple Inc., (NASDAQ: AAPL) formerly Apple Computer, Inc., is an American multinational corporation with a focus on designing and manufacturing useless consumer electronics and software products for overly high prices. "
Is there anything to be done about this? Aleceiffel1066 ( talk) 17:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/16883/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.253.68 ( talk) 02:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
www.zlok.net I Invented … the Apple Logo 29-Mar-09
"Name: Rob Janoff Age: 57 Invention: The Apple Logo"
Coolest citation: "What thanks did Janoff, now the owner of his own Chicago-based graphic design firm, get for all his hard work? “Not even a holiday card.”"
[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvlx ( talk • contribs) 08:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The image File:IPod Touch 2.0.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 03:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
This article (and nearly every other article in Wikipedia that touches on this subject) viiolates Apple's trademark naming conventions, as regards its iPod models. Apple is very clear about capitalization, e.g., "iPod touch"; not "iPod Touch"; iPod nano, not iPod Nano, etc. I can start fixing these, but have to be very cautious about what I change, as changing capitalization breaks links to filenames. I'll start fixing these, but I want to bring it up publically, as I expect, otherwise, some more "senior" editor might take it upon him/herself to go around behind me and "fix" my corrections. This is not a trivial matter, and is not a matter of Wikipedia guidelines or naming conventions. As things stand, by not acknowledging Apple's policies in the naming of its products, Wikipedia is guilty of spreading misinformation. Since Wikipedia is used as a usage standard, it's important to us to get this right. rowley ( talk) 20:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The last sentence in the Criticism section says "Apple products - particularly its computers - are criticized as being overpriced in comparison to competitor products of similar specification". That is not what the reference says. It says Apple's 'high end' products are often deemed overpriced . There is no mention of comparisons with competitor products. Someone please fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.165.220 ( talk) 20:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the quote needs to be struck out. It is an opinion and the writer fails to produce any evidence to support this. Therefore, I would say that it was an unreliable source at best. Even as it stands though, it is a strange source for the criticisms section! -- Candy ( talk) 16:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I heard on the news that they are bring back the i phone with the 2G to sell for a lower price Tj1224 ( talk) 13:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
i highly doubt it, as the 2G component price has actually gone up vs 3g "and future chipsets are only going to become cheaper, instead of more expensive" Markthemac ( talk) 05:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
This section is totally unnessesary.
All allegations were proven false.
Its like me saying Apple are a 6 legged monster with macs for eyes and poops ipods. Obviously it would be proven false. So why does it have its own section??
I vote for the removal of it, or at least move it down to a "lesser" bullet point in the criticism section. Adderz91 ( talk) 03:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes if the allegations were proven to be true then it deserves its own section but as it stands it does not. Making it a bullet point in the Criticism section would be a happy medium i think. 58.110.36.34 ( talk) 02:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
One of the most basic things you can tell someone about a company is, without judgment, where the company makes their products. Someone (who works for Apple?) keeps deleting that information from the article. If someone wants to add, "they also manufacture in [list of countries], that would be fine. The primary manufacturing location for Apple, dwarfing all other locations, is China, which is a significant bit of information that belongs in the article.
![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
I don't think that the infobox should be so wide... it's practically taking up more space that the content. Does anyone else feel this way? — cosmotron ( talk | contribs ) 03:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, looks like it's fixed now on the page! Airplaneman talk 16:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Does anybody know how the company got "apple" in its name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.69.189.25 ( talk) 08:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}}
In the iPod section, there is an uncapitalized Apple. Would someone please capitalize it? 98.230.214.136 ( talk) 13:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Apple (computers) page attributes an opinion to Brian Bagnall, but there's no indication of who he is or why his opinion matters. The article used to link to the now-deleted Brian Bagnall page, I guess. I think "(the author of several computer books for McGraw-Hill)" should be added to xhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_computers, but I'm unable to edit the page at this time.
The error is that Apple Inc. was established in Silicon Valley, it is the southern part of the San Francisco Bay Area in Northern California, United States. And not in Cupertino, California. Y.harrif ( talk) 14:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Looks like you're right:). It was fixed. Airplaneman talk 22:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
In the Mac and accessories section, there's no mention about the Magic Mouse. Would someone please add it in? 69.254.153.143 ( talk) 14:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Xerox granted Apple engineers three days of access to the anted Apple engineers three days of access to the PARC facilities in return for the option to buy 100,000 share of apple at the pre-IPO price of $10 a share. apple doesn't do market research
Prof256 ( talk) 00:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Apple being Apple has always been keen to be a little different. and it is worth pointing out that they don't use THE infront of their product titles. as a result, in the intro for example:
The company's best-known hardware products include Macintosh computers, iPod, and iPhone
Would be better suited as from their Guided Tour videos amongst other sources they talk about how iPhone is the worlds most bla bla bla not THE iPhone.
Its up for discussion but I think its a valid point. thanks.
81.86.243.148 ( talk) 17:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Under the picture of the Apple 1, the grammar is incorrect.
The iPod Touch section reads only 8, 32 and 64 gB. I believe it is still available in 16 gB format which is not addressed. Can it please be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.16.75 ( talk) 02:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The iPod Touch section is correct. It is now only available in 8, 32, and 64 GB flavors. Swanduck ( talk) 23:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Now there's confirmation from a primary source about the origin of the logo, should the speculation about Alan Turing etc be removed? Etrigan ( talk) 13:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Done - hope you all approve.
Etrigan (
talk)
00:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Apple takes a lot of effort in order to spread speculation about up and coming products. Maybe this article should include a section (Part of Products section maybe?) that talks about what the market thinks Apple is coming out with. For now it can be stuff about the percieved iSlate and iPhone 4G, But it can be updated to talk about everything Apple MAY be coming out with. Just an Idea. What do you people think? Utkarshshah007 ( talk) 19:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Can the detail in the criticism section not be worked into the stuff on the AppStore and possibly the History section for the ThinkSecret stuff? -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 10:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
-- Ecoscience ( talk) 03:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Hi. I noticed a number of papers and reports on Apple's transition to toxic free products. Below is a summary of this milestone with links to the reports
In October 2009 Apple completes its transition to mercury free LED displays across its entire Mac product line with the introduction of new MacBook and iMac models. In 2009 Apple became the first in the industry to ship all portables, desktops and handhelds free of toxic brominated flame retardants and mercury. In October 2009 Environmental NGOs, Clean Production Action and ChemSec announce Apple as a leader in having successfully banned families of toxic compounds, brominated flame retardants, mercury, arsenic, chlorinated flame retardants, phthalates and PVC. Apple introduces an innovative method by restricting compounds by looking for toxic elements bromine and chlorine. http://www.cleanproduction.org/Electronics.GreeningConsumer.php http://www.cleanproduction.org/library/GCE_Release_FINAL.pdf http://goodelectronics.org/news-en/new-report-on-the-greening-of-electronic-products http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2010/01/07/239853/IT-companies-still-dragging-feet-on-removal-of-toxic.htm
I suggest that the software "Aperture" be added to the opening paragraph, as it is the professional equivalent of "Final Cut Studio" and "Logic Studio" for the photographers. Yantougas ( talk) 21:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the MacBook should be added to the list. 76.170.165.95 ( talk) 01:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
The image caption refers to "The first Macintosh, also known as the Macintosh 128K." In fact, the first Macintosh was just Macintosh. It wasn't named the 128 until there was a choice between 128 and 512. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.27.40 ( talk) 04:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest "The first Macintosh, known simply as the Macintosh" or "The first Macintosh, released in 1984" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.27.40 ( talk) 04:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Why is this page semi-protected? There hasn't been any vandalism since November 2009... -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 13:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
What exactly was wrong with it? -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 19:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
It was unsourced. And I made small the semi-protect because put the exactly date of unprotection just only do IPs still vandalazing. Tbhotch Talk C. 04:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know it. And when the protection run there will be vandalism (at first low but it will increase). Tbhotch Talk C. 16:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Is it OK to auto-archive on 90 days/5 threads minimum? -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 22:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that the last 4-5 years shouldn't all be stuck under the Intel transition. After all Macintosh models were updated to Intel, Apple moved on to focus more on consumer devices, bringing about the name change to Apple, Inc. Maybe that section could be restructured to reflect that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.173.52.23 ( talk) 20:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Finished :)
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Drumpat01 (
talk •
contribs)
11:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Would someone please update the number of actual open Apple Stores? In the last quarter (Q1 of FY2010) the average number was 278. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.63.66.14 ( talk) 03:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Would someone please add or update the financial numbers? The FY 2008 is outdated now (Apple Inc. FY starts with the last quarter of the year therefore the FY 2009 is already known for over 2 months now). Thanks. And maybe the Non-GAAP numbers could also be included. This would give a more accurate picture of the financial performance of the company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.128.51 ( talk) 20:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
just for layout: normally it's "net income" instead of "profit" examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.217.58.211 ( talk) 00:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The Request was accepted and executed. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
wikipedia is supposed to be 'non censored'. if there are notable articles from notable sources about a notable problem at a notable company, and you fail to include it, then wikipedia loses credibility as a neutral source of accurate information and it loses credibility as an encyclopedia. Decora ( talk) 23:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
IE: Foxconn suicides, the foxconn employee who claimed he was beaten and interrogated because he lost an iphone prototype, the conditions at Foxconn plants, etc etc etc. Articles in dozens of mainstream newspapers, the world over, about these alleged incidents. The Apple, Inc. article should at least make mention of the massive manufacturing facilities that produce just about every modern apple product that has been sold in the last few years. It would make a crude mockery of an 'Encyclopedic article' to have a situation where you deem the de-facto manufacturing wing of an entire company (nay, sector of the economy) to be unworthy of more than a passing mention in the articles on the company. Decora ( talk) 23:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Apple's current logo is just a black apple. The article logo does not match See the logos below, they are all:
Mineralè ( talk) 15:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I have changed the logo to the grey monochrome version. This matches the logo shown in the iPhone 4 commercials as well as most reent print media Mineralè ( talk) 19:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Guys for the love of god don't reverse this for a second time, I've included below screenshots from various sources to prove that the current apple logo is monochrome. Mineralè ( talk) 04:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
But the apple logo on the web page is glossy: Yes but it's embedded in a navigation ribbon. All sources below are monochrome:
File:Screen shot 2010-06-11 at 12.36.09 AM.png File:Screen shot 2010-06-11 at 12.32.52 AM.png File:Screen shot 2010-06-11 at 12.39.10 AM.png
After providing no less than 16 different sources of apples current logo, including print ads, print, business cards, tv ads, web pages etc -- the change was reverted: "provide a third party source" . I'm only a casual editor -- but I'm trying to help here. I give up Mineralè ( talk) 05:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps that section of the article could be updated, copying some or most of the caption under the monochrome icon. As I remarked about provisional/contextual use of a simplified logo in traditional print, the same variations may be used on other marketing materials like packaging, brochures, etc, so I would concede that the hazy distinctions between icon and logo become even more blurred in the nebulous sense of overall branding. But for the record: I still think it's best (ie, simplest) to go with the mirror/glass logo unless and until there is a definitive Apple website page (or reliable third party) stating otherwise. - PrBeacon (talk) 09:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
See: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/technology/27apple.html
This should be in the article. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 22:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Very relevant info for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.207.70 ( talk) 15:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Given the suicide rate in China is 14 per 100,000 ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704026204575267603576594936.html) and even in the UK it is 11.5 per 100,000 ( http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1092) that 9 people out of 400,000 workers at Foxconn have committed suicide this year doesn't seem significant enough to warrant inclusion here. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 23:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I retract the above per further discussions on Talk:iPad -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 21:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Moore, Malcolm (27 Feb 2010). "Apple admits using child labour". Telegraph.co.uk.
This should be included in the Criticism summary section here, since that section's content so far is not a remotely truthful summary of the criticism point of view fork "article". It clearly suggests to readers that basically all criticism of Apple is related to product management in some way or other.
Now that Apple Inc. has admitted that they did in fact use child labour, this is clearly a far, far more serious type of criticism than everything currently mentioned in this main article's criticism summary section. The explicit word "child labor" should be mentioned in this article. -- 78.34.240.197 ( talk) 22:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Decora is right, just because it was something that happened in the past doesn't mean a thing; simply shrugging it off just because of that is rather egregious bias. This was huge news when it came out. Of course, this article has had this problem for years, it has always needed more contributers that can edit in a neutral manner.... RN 06:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Windows has a habit of copying apple. (Example: apple comes out with new software, windows does the same shortly following. ) Tj1224 ( talk) 17:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Eraserhead. The Environmental Record section is only partially covering Apple's environmental history. There are a number of activities and programs that have been carried out since 1992. As it stands the entries start at 2003. I found a good summary of their activities in the 1990s here http://www.apple.com/environment/news/. Are you able to add something here or would you like me to propose some text and references? Ecoscience-- Ecoscience ( talk) 22:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I heard somewhere that the logo depicting an apple with a bite taken out is an allusion to the death of Alan Turing (the so-called 'father of Computer Science'), who committed suicide by biting a cyanide-laced apple after being arrested for being gay.
Can anyone confirm this? Or is it just an interesting coincidence? 86.42.87.1 ( talk) 22:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Nope, it was all to do with it proving it was an apple and not a cherry, for example. Source: http://creativebits.org/interview/interview_rob_janoff_designer_apple_logo 84.92.73.137 ( talk) 10:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Other than the main title and paragraph below summarizing the criticism, I see no reason why those two specific allegations should be in the main article other than the fact that they both relate to more recent events. I'm proposing moving that information to the main Criticism of Apple article, which was created specifically to contain this content. elektrik SHOOS 17:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
(For further discussion, please see the talk page of Criticism of Apple. GoldRenet ( talk) 16:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC))
I am a little surprised that in this article there is little or no mention of the security problems that Apple has in combination of the false image the company projects. Here are a couple news (reliable) sources i.e. from CNN, theinquirer, Washington post etc ect
The truth is that Mac OS has as many vulnerabilities as Windows, according to Nigam -- Apple patches its products just often as Microsoft does.
According to Maiffret it doesn't take long for talented coders to find holes in Apple's software at various hacking events.
To round things out he says that security prospects are "scarier with them [Apple]", as Jobs' Mob "market themselves as more secure than the PC". Given the ignorance of Apple fanbois everywhere and the growth of Mac OS X, it's highly likely that the security through obscurity approach that Apple has taken won't hold up for much longer.
By keeping users in the dark, Apple is putting its customers at risk unnecessarily by lulling them in to a false sense of security. David Harley, another security wonk from anti-virus vendor ESET puts it like this: "Any computer user who believes a system is so safe that they don't have to care about security is prime material for exploitation by social engineering."
"This lack of awareness isn't helped when Apple issues an anti-malware security update by stealth, rather than informing the public what it has done."
One thing the hard figures have shown is that OS X's reputation as a relatively secure operating system is unwarranted, Secunia said. This year and last year Secunia tallied 36 advisories on security issues with the software, many of them allowing attackers to remotely take over the system - comparable to figures on operating systems such as Windows XP Professional and Red Hat Enterprise Server. "Secunia is now displaying security statistics that will open many eyes, and for some it might be very disturbing news," said Secunia chief executive Niels Henrik Rasmussen. "The myth that Mac OS X is secure, for example, has been exposed."
A zero-day security hole is a weakness in software that neither the makers of the software nor other individuals have any knowledge of. Hackers then take advantage of the exploit on the day it becomes general knowledge. Miller revealing that Mac OS X has twenty of them makes Apple look like they didn't do the job right the first time and also suggests Apple needs glasses to see what they've missed – and he's not wrong.
"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town," Miller said, suggesting that while both OSes have their security flaws, the Mac OS is safer because of the lack of people threatening to exploit it.
And if you do not believe these articles check out below the humongous number of security holes apple had per year (and i only spent 5mins in google). Moreover, if you want to compare the number of security problems that pops up every year (more than 50 per year for Apple) with other operating systems then compare it with OpenBSD, which had 2 since 1997...
And if you don't like news sources here is a book bluntly stating the illusion Apple creates over its security:
Look at Apple. People often find security vulnerabilities in the products, often dozens at a time. And while the security industry knows this, the world sees Apple as a more secure platform.
Anyhow these are my 2 cents... A.Cython ( talk) 14:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with basically everything GoldRenet (excellent explinations btw) says, and also could point out a few more things if I was more focused on this article, I just restored the link and cleaned up the refs. As in my edit summary, I was about to tag it myself but figured maybe the person was working on it so give it a few hours, but I fell asleep ;p. It could turn into something useful but right now isn't too hot; perhaps removing it and putting it on the talk page or similar is the best course unless it gets cleaned up. It really isn't that bad of a stab at the issue though, it's just hard to do correctly. RN 13:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I suspect my english were terrible. I do hope that I have provided enough material that show that Apple is not as secure as Apple wants to project.
Look at Apple. People often find security vulnerabilities in the products, often dozens at a time. And while the security industry knows this, the world sees Apple as a more secure platform.
"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town," Miller said, suggesting that while both OSes have their security flaws, the Mac OS is safer because of the lack of people threatening to exploit it.
In essence if there was a hacker, who have built a virus to target Apple products, then the Apple guy will sneeze just like the PC guy in the ad. Lie number 3. In total, Apple lied three times and on my perspective and also it seems the authors of the sources I have used, Apple manufactures a false image. I do not know if Apple crosses the line on legal terms for false claims but on my opinion certainly crossed it in terms of morality, respect, and trust between the company-client relation. All these different sources found and provided reflect that. Now some people might want to shoot me for using hard language. I am willing to dilute the language used so long we do not dilute facts.
According to Maiffret it doesn't take long for talented coders to find holes in Apple's software at various hacking events. If Apple was taking security seriously, he said, then "they wouldn't claim to be more secure than Microsoft because they are very much not."
and the nurture of unawareness in the Apple's culture:
To round things out he says that security prospects are "scarier with them [Apple]", as Jobs' Mob "market themselves as more secure than the PC". Given the ignorance of Apple fanbois everywhere and the growth of Mac OS X, it's highly likely that the security through obscurity approach that Apple has taken won't hold up for much longer.
Ok here is where Apple bluntly claims: Mac OS X doesn’t get PC viruses. This is not true. The user GoldRenet has already searched at the McAfree site some viruses that exist at Apple products. Although he claims that is not entirely related Apple products since the Trojan horse is an application rather than on the operating system. But that crazy logic i.e then PCs are also immune from viruses since if you do not have any application running then you not do anything or being infected. If there is at least one virus (unfortunately it is much more than one) that through a program, a corrupt file or other possible way does something that the user does not want on the computer without Apple being able to protect him/her then Apple should advertise Mac OS X does get PC viruses! Moreover, the user GoldRenet only looked for the cases where there is an actual virus infecting Macs with a very specific keyword. However, the sources used talk for all the security holes Apple has not only the one being exploited already! Finally, if you type "MacOS" at the McAfree security center it gives you 130 results of which most of them are viruses specifically for Macintosh. At that is my understanding when it says Type: Virus, Subtype: Macintosh! A.Cython ( talk) 19:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Another source from the Macworld.com written on 2 Jun, 2009:
On May 26, Macworld republished a controversial Computerworld article by Ira Winkler suggesting that Apple is “grossly negligent” when it comes to security, and should be investigated by the Federal Trade Commission for false advertising. The author was motivated to write this piece based on Apple’s recent failure to patch a known Java security flaw that was fixed on other platforms nearly six months ago.
...
The article is absolutely correct in that Apple clearly bungled the Java security patch, placing Mac users at risk in the process. This isn’t the first time Apple has failed to patch a known security issue in a timely fashion, and it reveals a major weakness in the company’s security program.
...
Apple has a poor history here, often failing to provide OS X security fixes for flaws fixed on other platforms days, weeks, or even months earlier. We’ve seen Mac users exposed to known vulnerabilities in WebKit (Safari), Samba (Windows file sharing), DNS (networking), MDNS (Bonjour), Apache (web server), Java, and more. This is an extremely serious problem, and one Apple is rightly criticized for.
Now if a magazine for Macs say these things and still people disagree then what can I say... A.Cython ( talk) 21:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
One more source:
In June, Dai Zovi reported on a new local privilege escalation vulnerability researchers had discovered that gives local root access on Mac OS X Tiger and Leopard.
...
The security level in Leopard falls in between Windows XP Service Pack 2 and Vista, he said. If Snow Leopard has full ASLR and DEP, it would bring its security close to the level of Vista, he added.
...
"Microsoft has had a head start. That's why they had ASLR and DEP first," Miller said. "It's not because they're geniuses. They just started caring about it sooner."
"These things go lock in step and it doesn't make sense for businesses to expend a ton of resources when the threat is not there," said Dai Zovi. "So far, Apple has been keeping up pretty well with the level of threats in the wild."
...
In the meantime, more and more Mac malware is appearing. Earlier this week, TrendMicro reported that it found a new variant of the JAHLAV family of Trojans that pose as pirated versions of legitimate applications, modify a computer's domain name system (DNS) settings and enabling successful phishing attacks and redirects to sites hosting malware. Earlier versions of the Trojan masqueraded as versions of QuickTime, but this one passes as Foxit Reader or an antivirus program.
Some malware is written for both Windows and Mac platforms and downloads the correct version depending on the browser. Last week, Symantec reported that sites purporting to show streams of new movies were actually feeding up a DNS-changing Trojan instead called OSX.RSPlug.A for Mac and Trojan.Fakeavalert for Windows. Last month, a McAfee blog post wrote about the OSX/Puper.a Trojan that is downloaded onto Mac systems when users download what they think is a video player.
And if people are curious about viruses at Macintosh before 2000 look here p. 169-17?... The more I search the web the more dirty things I find about Apple. A.Cython ( talk) 22:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok give a couple of days and I will try to improve the paragraph based on your constructive criticise. :)
A.Cython (
talk)
23:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
A.Cython ( talk) 16:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Our analysis of the 0-day patch performance and the number of concurrently unpatched vulnerabilities covered 658 high- and medium risk vulnerabilities of Microsoft and 738 of Apple.
1. Check this report and here... moreover... JAVA and any multi-platform applications/framework are targets. If the OS is not able to handle the these applications properly it can be damaging to the user.
5. Well not in those words. But to convict a murderer you do not need a smoking gun. It would be nice and easier but not necessary. If you ask any Mac user about the huge number security vulnerabilities he/she will only reply with ignorance. What makes things worse is that they insist as well. Second, sources I have supplied above do state that Apple somehow is responsible for the ignorance of its users. I doubt I would be able to trace the steps of their marketing campaign... but at least I guess we could add the removal antivirus suggestions on Macs after the first virus appeared check here. Why Macs users do not need options for anti-virus? Indirectly it says Macs are so secure that the user does not need more protections... go figure. Yeah I know what a guy from Apple said who will remember in a week or two. Everybody will remember Hi I am a PC and I am a Mac... Anyhow you do not like McAfee's report well here is a more recent report from the Swiss Federal Institute.
Just because there is no interest by hackers to attack Apple it does not mean Apple cannot get infected by viruses/malware etc. This is not what Apple projects!
Concerning the McAfee report I would also say that anything Apple says is very suspicious. No doubt since me and you are not experts, we should include both the report and the article you found in the paragraph in order to provide the reader a full view of the situation.
Here is another misleading ad... 1st of all a PC is also linux e.g. OpenBSD, which is far superior in terms of security than Macs in any possible way. It can be installed everywhere any desktop, laptops big screen small screens slow processors fast processors... even on a Mac with intel processor. So why it is not mentioned? One word... misleading!
You complained about Apple said only it does not get PC viruses? What about spyware?
(For further discussion, please see the talk page of Criticism of Apple. GoldRenet ( talk) 16:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC))
{{
citation}}
: Check |isbn=
value: length (
help)
AppleConf
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).usstores
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).2009Q1transcript
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).ApplePR20081021
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).