This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This article is about criticisms that have been leveled at Apple, Inc., rightly or wrongly, and in order to help the reader understand the criticisms, it is most helpful to present cites to material that show why such criticisms are valid or invalid. By their nature, criticisms can be inflammatory, but that fact does not make criticism necessarily invalid or non-reflective of what is a concern. For example, with regard to Apple's reputation for taking a "bullying" stance, the article is structured with headings reflective of that criticism. Such headings are descriptive only of the criticisms themselves rather than the behavior described with the context of the heading.
It is up to each editor to flesh out the "whys" and and "why nots" within the context area of that heading describing the area of criticism by citing to sources showing the reader why such criticism may or may not be valid, and to describe what is most controversial about it and why.
With regard to the unfortunate Chinese incident, the controversy and reason for the published criticism in the media is whether Apple's policy of secrecy was a primary factor in the young man's death, not whether Apple had a policy of beating its employees into a pulp. The relationships between Apple and its manufacturing partners, what sort of behavior it tolerates in its quest for profit, Apple's degree of control and influence, the financial pressure it brings to bear on such alliances to enforce its policies, and its level of responsibility for the acts of its employees and contractors are what are at issue within the context of such criticism.
To address these criticisms one must do more than engage in an edit war -- one must cite to sources showing angles of such criticisms from different points of view. Sctechlaw ( talk) 19:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if this would fit here: http://consumerist.com/2009/11/smoking-near-apple-computers-creates-biohazard-voids-warranty.html -- Austrian ( talk) 00:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Title should change to Criticism of Apple Inc. TheUnknownInternetMan ( talk) 13:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 16:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Criticism of Apple → Criticism of Apple Inc. — To maintain consistancy with the article Apple Inc., and avoid needless confusion with the fruit. — 84.92.117.93 ( talk) 15:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
It was suggested on
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 May 1#Criticism of Apple Inc. that this article be expanded to more generally apply to Apple's public image, including both criticism and praise. I'm undecided. What does everyone else think?
--
Gyrobo (
talk)
02:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I found the AFD and took a look at this page- wow. Other "criticism of company x" articles have specific instances noted and sections based on that. The article is written so that instances are listed under sections that tell the reader "this is an example of Apple doing y." The entire "Strong-arming employees" section is based off of one specific incident. When you apply your own label (strong-arming employees) to that incident based off your own observation, that is
original research.
ALI
nom
nom
13:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
In case somebody cares: Foxconn is not Apple, Foxconn is not part of Apple, and nobody working for Foxconn is an employee of Apple, just like they aren't employees for anybody else Foxconn manufactures for, which is almost every American IT company. That concept really isn't hard to grasp for a sane person. Lars T. ( talk) 23:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Are you obsessed with quelling all critisicm of Apple? Apple chooses to use Foxconn to manufacture its products. Nobody forces them to do this. It could insist on workers being paid better and treated better, it could even use some of the what-the-market-will-bear inflated price it charges for its products to fund this. It doesn't. Like most firms, Apple wants to spend as little as it can on labour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.246.83.191 ( talk) 23:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
The whole article is still non-NPOV. Lars T. ( talk) 22:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think SLAPP merits a {{
Main}}, but rather a {{
See also}} under the Vexatious Litigation header (since the article describes a practice not unique to Apple Inc). I'm a little conflicted about what to call it, "SLAPP" seems a little nondescript, but "SLAPP Lawsuit" seems grammatically redundant (like saying ATM Machine). Does anyone have any preferences?
--
Gyrobo (
talk)
00:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Is corporate secrecy, per se, a criticism that merits its own section? Most companies with new technology have stringent secrecy policies, and no one complains about it. Apple's secrecy policies do seem to create a lot of commentary, but is this really criticism? Isn't it the results of the policy that are more properly at issue? -- Sctechlaw ( talk) 09:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Some items worthy of addition to the article:
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 00:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Alright, merging is Done. elektrik SHOOS 03:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
(As the section about this criticism has now moved to this article, I have copied the discussion concerning it. GoldRenet ( talk) 16:09, 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?
Should there be a section for the criticism received for apple's religious-like advertising and its cult-like following=P? Smallman12q ( talk) 21:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
This article sorely needs some updates. Some recent criticisms include:
Also, with the release of Lion, OS X security is much better: OS X now has complete DEP and ASLR. The new Safari web browser now makes extensive use of Sandboxing, right down to the level of tabbed web pages, which makes it more secure.
203.129.60.48 (
talk)
I don't see why it's tagged as the neutrality being disputed. No unnessesary attacks are made, it simply describes fully sourced truths. Apple does aggressively advertise that their products are more secure than PCs, OS X does have a growing number of vulnerabilities, etc. They are all real concerns, and are phrased in an encyclopedic fashion (rather than "Mac OS has been proven to have extremely poor security."). The content of the section is about as neutral as one can get considering the article is focussed upon critiscism of Apple. 174.112.29.90 ( talk) 19:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
There seem to have been several problems with iPhone models which have led to criticisms of Apple, e.g. when customers were told that they were "holding it the wrong way", or when the glass surfaces on some models could become scratched, leading to breaks when the phone was dropped, or the current problem with batteries being drained by frequent web accesses etc. Also Apple's response to allegations of malware attacks on Mac OS was apparently sub-optimal. Apple has been criticised for slow and/or poor responses to these and maybe other problems. Should these criticisms be mentioned here? -- TraceyR ( talk) 09:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
There are huge problems with inappropriate language and material that should not even be here. I have added a POV tag. It should stay until these issues are addressed. Tt121673 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC).
I request a section that take up the fact that Apple gets a lot of critic for taking a lot of undeserved credits for innovation they them selves has not invented or improved drastically just re-branded.
First example is the Mac OS X that basically is a Unix clone, much like Linux and it's different distributions, and that very much in Mac OS X, both design and functionality, that is praised to be innovations made by apple, not to mention Steve Jobs himself, actually resembles allot of the GUIs that was used in the Unix and Linux sphere at the time for Mac OS X "birth" and before. Example of this is the placing of the menus, the uses of different desks, the Exposé (Mac OS X), the open windows overview, the look and feel as well as function of the "system-settings dialog", several small helping and/or system softwares, the terminal etc. This has lead to the critic that Apple just took the free Unix and put together a distribution like any other (much like Linux Ubuntu, Mint or Fedora), re-branded it and falsely call it a "innovation" and "revolutionary new OS".
Also many pro-Apple states that Apple is the founder of the smartphone which is in fact incorrect as there was phones on the market classified as " Smartphones" long before Iphone ( Symbian, Windows mobiles, Blackberry to mention a few earlier Smartphone OS). However the smartphone models were often mostly targeting "business people" and not "ordinary users", as Iphone did, and are therefor less known to the general population. Also here Apple is accused of copying, re-brand, take credit as the innovator, create a hype and earn a lot of money and get undeserved credits. The same pattern can be found when it comes to Tablet computers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.80.136 ( talk) 13:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Why isn't there any mention in this article of the Flashback Trojan? The Flashback Trojan is a very notable occurence, infecting over 670,000 Macs worldwide. I personally think it should be mentioned in this article somehow, due to many Mac users refusing to use antivirus software. ANDROS1337 TALK 14:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Apple is a well known bigotted company with its censorship policies especially regarding its app store. it should be mentioned in the article.-- 85.106.193.247 ( talk) 10:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
An editor removed 21 thousand characters without discussion ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Criticism_of_Apple_Inc.&diff=547065710&oldid=546058950), arguing that the information was inaccurate and/or that information on Foxconn does not belong here (something which was discussed previously here, in the Foxconn section, without reaching a consensus). I'm reverting what he did, since the edit was not discussed and all the removed sections were rich of citations. -- Blaisorblade ( talk) 17:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Apr 2012: How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes The NY Times and a good summary
While reading a blog about planned obsolescence I came across a link to this article [6] about the replacement of normal screws by non-standard ones when some Apple products were repaired, which made it difficult for the products' owners to open their Apple products. Should this be mentioned here? -- TraceyR ( talk) 19:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Should a section on patent trolling be included in this article? I think it should, or at least be included as a subsection of the vexatious litigation section, since they've been suing so many other phone manufacturers (including those that manufacture Android devices) and going after them in regards to mostly software related patents. Kenny Strawn ( talk) 19:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
“ | Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company who enforces patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered aggressive or opportunistic with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention. | ” |
Agreed!
There should also be a secion on Apple stealing peoples ideas/IP and getting away with it. For the most part they are start ups and small companies and cannot afford to sue apple for copywright/IP infringement. There is yet another example today http://www.news.com.au/finance/small-business/apple-swallows-aussie-startup-companys-name-healthkit-and-their-worldembracing-idea/story-fn9evb64-1226943793182 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.168.135.1 ( talk) 05:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I understand that the tone of the content regarding neutrality has been a major issue previously, but after editing significant tone issues in the Labour practices section today, I realized that outstanding content may exist in other sections, but have not had the time to check. Even though this is an article about the criticisms of the corporation, we need to keep it encyclopedic. Thanks. Regards,-- Soulparadox ( talk) 14:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Criticism of Apple Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Apple are often cited for stealing other companies ideas and claiming them as their own innovation. Discussion of this should be included in this wiki page, even if only to mention the PARC Xerox / Apple Lisa/Macintosh situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.130.205.167 ( talk) 14:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I thought this contribution was needed, considering the fact that what Apple has done may not seem good, but their reasoning is justifiable.
"Apple has been criticized on bottlenecking Qualcomm chips in iPhone 7 model to be on par with Intel chips. Qualcomm sued Apple for the act as it showed a false display of the power of Qualcomm's chips. [1] Apple claimed they wanted their phones to be streamlined across all devices. Apple later countersued as Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, said they had no choice but to sue Qualcomm for unwarranted royalties on things it did not have, i.e. fingerprint reader and camera. Recent reports even say that Apple will now exclusively use Intel chips in their phones, and not Qualcomm’s, due the recent events. [2]"
Tike22 ( talk) 02:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
References
This is meant as an addition to the existing subcategory since I believe it is not totally up-to-date.
"Apple has also been heavily criticized and under investigation and lawsuits for slowing down older iPhone models. Benchmarks from individual surfaced when iPhones (such as the 6 and 6s) were tested when on the previous update compared to the latest iOS 11 update and found dramatic decreases in performance on updated models. Apple claims that only in the latest iOS 11 update, it slowed down iPhone 6, 6+, 6s, 6s+, SE, and 7 models to ensure the battery life stayed consistent to how the owners have been accustomed too. Backlash came towards Apple as many claimed they had no right to slow down their phones without their consent and many thought Apple did this nudged those people on older phones to buy their latest products that conveniently released with the update (the iPhone 8 and iPhone X). [1] They later sent out a statement saying they will send out an update to allow customers to choose whether they want their smartphones to be slowed or perform the best it can at all times, but in until that happens they will issue out a batery replacement program reducing the price to replace batteries of affected phones. The company is also under investigation over the incident by the US Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Apple is also dealing with lawsuits from individuals in New York, Israel, and even France is looking into Apple if the violated their laws. [2] [3] [4]"
Tike22 ( talk) 02:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
References
There's no hard criticism of general practice by Apple (those done to all of their customers) and that bugs me. How does the free encyclopedia work if there is no hard criticism on a page CALLED criticism? I guess the only place to put this hard criticism would be here on the discuss page and somebody else for the sake of humanity could put it on the main page for me.
On top of the allegations of immoralities and illegalities and failure of management denying consumers warranty, some claim that Apple is simply a criminal gang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.112.240.232 ( talk) 16:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Criticism of Apple Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Criticism of Apple Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://expressbuzz.com/tech/big-suppliers-in-china-hold-sway-over-apple/154133.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
This article is about criticisms that have been leveled at Apple, Inc., rightly or wrongly, and in order to help the reader understand the criticisms, it is most helpful to present cites to material that show why such criticisms are valid or invalid. By their nature, criticisms can be inflammatory, but that fact does not make criticism necessarily invalid or non-reflective of what is a concern. For example, with regard to Apple's reputation for taking a "bullying" stance, the article is structured with headings reflective of that criticism. Such headings are descriptive only of the criticisms themselves rather than the behavior described with the context of the heading.
It is up to each editor to flesh out the "whys" and and "why nots" within the context area of that heading describing the area of criticism by citing to sources showing the reader why such criticism may or may not be valid, and to describe what is most controversial about it and why.
With regard to the unfortunate Chinese incident, the controversy and reason for the published criticism in the media is whether Apple's policy of secrecy was a primary factor in the young man's death, not whether Apple had a policy of beating its employees into a pulp. The relationships between Apple and its manufacturing partners, what sort of behavior it tolerates in its quest for profit, Apple's degree of control and influence, the financial pressure it brings to bear on such alliances to enforce its policies, and its level of responsibility for the acts of its employees and contractors are what are at issue within the context of such criticism.
To address these criticisms one must do more than engage in an edit war -- one must cite to sources showing angles of such criticisms from different points of view. Sctechlaw ( talk) 19:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if this would fit here: http://consumerist.com/2009/11/smoking-near-apple-computers-creates-biohazard-voids-warranty.html -- Austrian ( talk) 00:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Title should change to Criticism of Apple Inc. TheUnknownInternetMan ( talk) 13:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 16:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Criticism of Apple → Criticism of Apple Inc. — To maintain consistancy with the article Apple Inc., and avoid needless confusion with the fruit. — 84.92.117.93 ( talk) 15:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
It was suggested on
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 May 1#Criticism of Apple Inc. that this article be expanded to more generally apply to Apple's public image, including both criticism and praise. I'm undecided. What does everyone else think?
--
Gyrobo (
talk)
02:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I found the AFD and took a look at this page- wow. Other "criticism of company x" articles have specific instances noted and sections based on that. The article is written so that instances are listed under sections that tell the reader "this is an example of Apple doing y." The entire "Strong-arming employees" section is based off of one specific incident. When you apply your own label (strong-arming employees) to that incident based off your own observation, that is
original research.
ALI
nom
nom
13:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
In case somebody cares: Foxconn is not Apple, Foxconn is not part of Apple, and nobody working for Foxconn is an employee of Apple, just like they aren't employees for anybody else Foxconn manufactures for, which is almost every American IT company. That concept really isn't hard to grasp for a sane person. Lars T. ( talk) 23:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Are you obsessed with quelling all critisicm of Apple? Apple chooses to use Foxconn to manufacture its products. Nobody forces them to do this. It could insist on workers being paid better and treated better, it could even use some of the what-the-market-will-bear inflated price it charges for its products to fund this. It doesn't. Like most firms, Apple wants to spend as little as it can on labour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.246.83.191 ( talk) 23:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
The whole article is still non-NPOV. Lars T. ( talk) 22:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think SLAPP merits a {{
Main}}, but rather a {{
See also}} under the Vexatious Litigation header (since the article describes a practice not unique to Apple Inc). I'm a little conflicted about what to call it, "SLAPP" seems a little nondescript, but "SLAPP Lawsuit" seems grammatically redundant (like saying ATM Machine). Does anyone have any preferences?
--
Gyrobo (
talk)
00:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Is corporate secrecy, per se, a criticism that merits its own section? Most companies with new technology have stringent secrecy policies, and no one complains about it. Apple's secrecy policies do seem to create a lot of commentary, but is this really criticism? Isn't it the results of the policy that are more properly at issue? -- Sctechlaw ( talk) 09:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Some items worthy of addition to the article:
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 00:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Alright, merging is Done. elektrik SHOOS 03:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
(As the section about this criticism has now moved to this article, I have copied the discussion concerning it. GoldRenet ( talk) 16:09, 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?
Should there be a section for the criticism received for apple's religious-like advertising and its cult-like following=P? Smallman12q ( talk) 21:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
This article sorely needs some updates. Some recent criticisms include:
Also, with the release of Lion, OS X security is much better: OS X now has complete DEP and ASLR. The new Safari web browser now makes extensive use of Sandboxing, right down to the level of tabbed web pages, which makes it more secure.
203.129.60.48 (
talk)
I don't see why it's tagged as the neutrality being disputed. No unnessesary attacks are made, it simply describes fully sourced truths. Apple does aggressively advertise that their products are more secure than PCs, OS X does have a growing number of vulnerabilities, etc. They are all real concerns, and are phrased in an encyclopedic fashion (rather than "Mac OS has been proven to have extremely poor security."). The content of the section is about as neutral as one can get considering the article is focussed upon critiscism of Apple. 174.112.29.90 ( talk) 19:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
There seem to have been several problems with iPhone models which have led to criticisms of Apple, e.g. when customers were told that they were "holding it the wrong way", or when the glass surfaces on some models could become scratched, leading to breaks when the phone was dropped, or the current problem with batteries being drained by frequent web accesses etc. Also Apple's response to allegations of malware attacks on Mac OS was apparently sub-optimal. Apple has been criticised for slow and/or poor responses to these and maybe other problems. Should these criticisms be mentioned here? -- TraceyR ( talk) 09:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
There are huge problems with inappropriate language and material that should not even be here. I have added a POV tag. It should stay until these issues are addressed. Tt121673 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC).
I request a section that take up the fact that Apple gets a lot of critic for taking a lot of undeserved credits for innovation they them selves has not invented or improved drastically just re-branded.
First example is the Mac OS X that basically is a Unix clone, much like Linux and it's different distributions, and that very much in Mac OS X, both design and functionality, that is praised to be innovations made by apple, not to mention Steve Jobs himself, actually resembles allot of the GUIs that was used in the Unix and Linux sphere at the time for Mac OS X "birth" and before. Example of this is the placing of the menus, the uses of different desks, the Exposé (Mac OS X), the open windows overview, the look and feel as well as function of the "system-settings dialog", several small helping and/or system softwares, the terminal etc. This has lead to the critic that Apple just took the free Unix and put together a distribution like any other (much like Linux Ubuntu, Mint or Fedora), re-branded it and falsely call it a "innovation" and "revolutionary new OS".
Also many pro-Apple states that Apple is the founder of the smartphone which is in fact incorrect as there was phones on the market classified as " Smartphones" long before Iphone ( Symbian, Windows mobiles, Blackberry to mention a few earlier Smartphone OS). However the smartphone models were often mostly targeting "business people" and not "ordinary users", as Iphone did, and are therefor less known to the general population. Also here Apple is accused of copying, re-brand, take credit as the innovator, create a hype and earn a lot of money and get undeserved credits. The same pattern can be found when it comes to Tablet computers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.80.136 ( talk) 13:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Why isn't there any mention in this article of the Flashback Trojan? The Flashback Trojan is a very notable occurence, infecting over 670,000 Macs worldwide. I personally think it should be mentioned in this article somehow, due to many Mac users refusing to use antivirus software. ANDROS1337 TALK 14:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Apple is a well known bigotted company with its censorship policies especially regarding its app store. it should be mentioned in the article.-- 85.106.193.247 ( talk) 10:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
An editor removed 21 thousand characters without discussion ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Criticism_of_Apple_Inc.&diff=547065710&oldid=546058950), arguing that the information was inaccurate and/or that information on Foxconn does not belong here (something which was discussed previously here, in the Foxconn section, without reaching a consensus). I'm reverting what he did, since the edit was not discussed and all the removed sections were rich of citations. -- Blaisorblade ( talk) 17:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Apr 2012: How Apple Sidesteps Billions in Taxes The NY Times and a good summary
While reading a blog about planned obsolescence I came across a link to this article [6] about the replacement of normal screws by non-standard ones when some Apple products were repaired, which made it difficult for the products' owners to open their Apple products. Should this be mentioned here? -- TraceyR ( talk) 19:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Should a section on patent trolling be included in this article? I think it should, or at least be included as a subsection of the vexatious litigation section, since they've been suing so many other phone manufacturers (including those that manufacture Android devices) and going after them in regards to mostly software related patents. Kenny Strawn ( talk) 19:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
“ | Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company who enforces patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered aggressive or opportunistic with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention. | ” |
Agreed!
There should also be a secion on Apple stealing peoples ideas/IP and getting away with it. For the most part they are start ups and small companies and cannot afford to sue apple for copywright/IP infringement. There is yet another example today http://www.news.com.au/finance/small-business/apple-swallows-aussie-startup-companys-name-healthkit-and-their-worldembracing-idea/story-fn9evb64-1226943793182 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.168.135.1 ( talk) 05:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I understand that the tone of the content regarding neutrality has been a major issue previously, but after editing significant tone issues in the Labour practices section today, I realized that outstanding content may exist in other sections, but have not had the time to check. Even though this is an article about the criticisms of the corporation, we need to keep it encyclopedic. Thanks. Regards,-- Soulparadox ( talk) 14:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Criticism of Apple Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Apple are often cited for stealing other companies ideas and claiming them as their own innovation. Discussion of this should be included in this wiki page, even if only to mention the PARC Xerox / Apple Lisa/Macintosh situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.130.205.167 ( talk) 14:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I thought this contribution was needed, considering the fact that what Apple has done may not seem good, but their reasoning is justifiable.
"Apple has been criticized on bottlenecking Qualcomm chips in iPhone 7 model to be on par with Intel chips. Qualcomm sued Apple for the act as it showed a false display of the power of Qualcomm's chips. [1] Apple claimed they wanted their phones to be streamlined across all devices. Apple later countersued as Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, said they had no choice but to sue Qualcomm for unwarranted royalties on things it did not have, i.e. fingerprint reader and camera. Recent reports even say that Apple will now exclusively use Intel chips in their phones, and not Qualcomm’s, due the recent events. [2]"
Tike22 ( talk) 02:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
References
This is meant as an addition to the existing subcategory since I believe it is not totally up-to-date.
"Apple has also been heavily criticized and under investigation and lawsuits for slowing down older iPhone models. Benchmarks from individual surfaced when iPhones (such as the 6 and 6s) were tested when on the previous update compared to the latest iOS 11 update and found dramatic decreases in performance on updated models. Apple claims that only in the latest iOS 11 update, it slowed down iPhone 6, 6+, 6s, 6s+, SE, and 7 models to ensure the battery life stayed consistent to how the owners have been accustomed too. Backlash came towards Apple as many claimed they had no right to slow down their phones without their consent and many thought Apple did this nudged those people on older phones to buy their latest products that conveniently released with the update (the iPhone 8 and iPhone X). [1] They later sent out a statement saying they will send out an update to allow customers to choose whether they want their smartphones to be slowed or perform the best it can at all times, but in until that happens they will issue out a batery replacement program reducing the price to replace batteries of affected phones. The company is also under investigation over the incident by the US Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Apple is also dealing with lawsuits from individuals in New York, Israel, and even France is looking into Apple if the violated their laws. [2] [3] [4]"
Tike22 ( talk) 02:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
References
There's no hard criticism of general practice by Apple (those done to all of their customers) and that bugs me. How does the free encyclopedia work if there is no hard criticism on a page CALLED criticism? I guess the only place to put this hard criticism would be here on the discuss page and somebody else for the sake of humanity could put it on the main page for me.
On top of the allegations of immoralities and illegalities and failure of management denying consumers warranty, some claim that Apple is simply a criminal gang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.112.240.232 ( talk) 16:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Criticism of Apple Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Criticism of Apple Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://expressbuzz.com/tech/big-suppliers-in-china-hold-sway-over-apple/154133.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)