Jump to content

Talk:Apple Inc./Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey everybody. Just a heads up that I'm currently checking these links, so if you see this, you don't have to :) LocalNet (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 Done :) LocalNet (talk) 21:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2017

The current photo of the Fifth Avenue Apple Store is outdated. The "Cube" previously had five glass panels per side but currently has three glass panels per side. I suggest updating to the following photo, which I believe is available for use under a CC license: "Fifth Avenue Apple Store" by Simone Lovati on Flickr Kmh2011 (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC) Kmh2011 (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now:. Please upload the new image, then reopen this request. Note that the choice of what image to use is ultimately subject to consensus, of course. I see both pros and cons here: while outdated, the current image has significantly better composition. (Having commented, I'll recuse myself from considering this request again.) RivertorchFIREWATER 02:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2017

Apple was founded by Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Ronald mcdonald in April 1976 to develop and sell personal computers. It was incorporated as Apple Computer, Inc. in January 1977, and sales of its computers saw significant momentum and revenue growth for the company. Within a few years, they had hired a staff of computer designers and had a production line. Apple went public in 1980 to instant financial success. Over the next few years, Apple shipped new computers featuring innovative graphical user interfaces, and Apple's marketing commercials for its products received widespread critical acclaim. However, the high price tag of its products and limited software titles caused problems, as did power struggles between executives at the company. for 9 years, apple changed its name to banana. 109.150.143.181 (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi there! "for 9 years, apple changed its name to banana". Funny, but untrue. :) LocalNet (talk) 12:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done LocalNet (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Wording implies Apple's internal rules are the laws of a nation-state

In the phrase:

"Apple identified a series of serious labor violations of labor laws, including Apple's own rules"

...this gives the impression that "Apple's own rules" are "labor laws," which they are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.27.22 (talk) 09:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I agree the wording is weird, but the source actually also writes it in that manner. I'm not sure how to reword it to avoid the wrong impression, but if you have a suggestion, feel free to comment! :) LocalNet (talk) 09:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

"serious violations of labor laws as well as of Apple's own rules." WritingMan (talk) 14:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Time to remove Wikipedia protection from Apple's page?

The entry on Apple is falling behind; many of the concerns raised in the last 10 pages are not properly addressed. Moreover, the spirit of Wikipedia itself seems to be undermined by the long-term protection for Apple. It would be an easy update to add the following: "Apple Becomes First U.S. Company to Top US$800 Billion Value" https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-09/apple-becomes-first-u-s-company-to-cross-800-billion-valuation 2600:1700:DC60:B960:883D:6EF1:E605:1A72 (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)RMPJ

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2017

INENVERSAYNBCN (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:06, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2017

Apple bought Shazam (company) on December 11, 2017. So, please add Shazam (company) in subsidiaries section. OopsCommander (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2018

Add that "k" + option/alt + shift creates the symbol for apple/the apple logo() Yoppyyoppyyop (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. It is not clear where this would be added. This is also not likely eligible for inclusion because it is not notable and because Wikipedia is not a how-to instruction resource. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2018

Retail locations are now 501 worldwide. 98.111.186.144 (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2018

Change amount of retail locations from: 499 to:501 98.111.186.144 (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Should discuss anti-poaching agreements - there was a settlement that allowed Apple not to talk about it. See http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/silicon-valleys-poaching-case-growing-debate-employee-mobility/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.2.42 (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Jony Ive

Seeing as how Jobs confirmed that Ive holds more power at Apple than anyone else I updated the article to include the details yet an editor almost immediately removed the entry, can someone explain why someone with more operational power at Apple than any other member of staff not be mentioned? DNA Cowboy (talk) 08:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@DNA Cowboy: As I mentioned in my edit summary, our guidelines for infoboxes on company articles specifically say that key staff should be limited to four entries, which you exceeded with your addition. Although I currently do not see any need to do so, a present entry could be replaced with that of Ive, but that would likely require consensus (not quite uncontroversial), and you could count me in on the opposing side, as the four presently listed hold executive power to some extent. Lordtobi (✉) 11:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@Lordtobi: Hello, Ive holds more executive power at Apple than all of the others combined, people assume his remit is just design, it isn't. Subsequently, I think we need to remove one of the others then as Ive is the 'key' person and with the most control at Apple as Jobs (via Isaacson)confirmed which if you don't mind, I'll quote: According to Walter Isaacson's biography of Steve Jobs, the company's late chief executive gave Ive a unique position within the company. Jobs told Isaacson: "He's not just a designer. That's why he works directly for me. He has more operational power than anyone else at Apple except me. There's no one who can tell him what to do, or to butt out. That's the way I set it up."I suggest we remove the COO and replace him with Ive but in the second entry as the Apple Leadership page states that Ive 'reports to Cook; however, we all know that is for public consumption. Thoughts?
Edit. Here is another fascinating piece on Ive's executive power within Apple. The fourth paragraph deals directly with Ive's position in relation to Tim Cook, Apple analysts go on to cite the official Apple 'leadership' website page and conclude its a crock for public consumption. DNA Cowboy (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't aware that had actually significant executive leadership within the company. If that is the case, please go ahead to add him and remove the COO. I suppose Ive is best seated below Cook. Lordtobi (✉) 17:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Fix Possible Confusion

Under the iPhone section, when talking about iPhone 8 and X, we currently mention wireless charging after the iPhone X, formatted as just another feature for it. Perhaps note that both models have wireless charging.

Elijahciali (talk) 17:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done--5 albert square (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Confusion!

Hello,

I am a bit confused as to how the Apple, Inc. page is roughly 7 to 8 pages long, containing an excessive amount of information that is hard to navigate through, when there is a similar page (American Diabetes Association) that was recently edited down to 3 paragraphs. Is there a specific reason as to why this page is able to contain so much information on the company, while the ADA page has been shortened down so drastically? Thank you! ElisabethF (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Hello @ElisabethF, as you might have seen on this article, most if not all content is supported by reliable, secondary sources. The article has a long and significantly detail history that has been covered by those sources. The article you are referring to, ADA, was primarily held up by references to its own webpage, or no sources at all. The user in question, Jytdog, has taken measures against this state-of-sourcing by removing everything only covered on the website and retaining what is stated in secondary sources. This are the three paragraphs that are left. You are always welcome to check out WP:RS and related guidelines to find out how to source properly and restore the content that was cut with such reliable sources. Lordtobi (✉) 19:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The Apple II shown in 1977 is actually an Apple II+

Should an Apple II+ be shown in the picture talking about the introduction of the Apple II in 1977? The Apple II+ was introduced in 1979 I believe. cbmeeks 13:32, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Good catch. It would be better to find a picture of the original Apple II. — JFG talk 08:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Information on repairability of Apple products

It seems important to have some information on the repairability of Apple products and Apple's release of software updates which break 3rd party components. It would also be interesting to include information on things like Apple's lobbying against right to repair bills and suing repair businesses. Here are a few references, there are lots more available:

John Cummings (talk) 09:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this should be noted somewhere, but where exactly? Also, of the sources you listed, I believe only Vice is reliable; iFixit is a repair tool shop so they will be POV'd, and Medium is a self-publishing vehicle (WP:SPS?). Either way, there are probably more sources available. Lordtobi (✉) 10:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Apple is the first US and also first non-state company to be worth $1 Trillion

That should be added. Thanks. BBMatBlood (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2018

Say that it's the first company to be worth a trillion dollars because it is. T34cu9M41t3s3 (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Can you provide a source for this?
I've marked this as answered, but wouldn't be averse to anybody changing it in case of other opinions. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Correction

The article states that Steve Jobs visited the Xerox Parc system; apparently alluding that he actually went to Xerox in Palo Alto.

He actually visited The Navy Personnel Research and Development Center (NPRDC) in December of 1989. NPRDC was located in Point Loma (San Diego, CA). It consisted of about 20 WWII barracks buildings and in a large corner room on the first floor of one of these buildings was an installation of the XEROX PARC system. I don't remember how may systems there were, but at least 5 or 6. I met Steve Jobs in the hallway of the 2nd floor and personally directed him to the XEROX room.

Incidentally, Bill Gates also visited this facility around the same time and I personally showed him the XEROX PARC System.

Our facility also received Apple Lisa serial numbers 1 and 2 a few years later. Neither work and getting them opened so we could fix them was a pain, but we did succeed as the problem was minor. If I remember correctly, the RS232 signals were inverted.

47.156.197.229 (talk) 18:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

MacKeeper needs more editors

Could use more editors at the MacKeeper article due to ongoing disputes. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adoring nanny (talk • contribs) 13:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Hostility to repairing devices

I feel like it would be helpful to document in the article Apple's lobbying of governments and businesses, updates which brick phones with 3rd party repairs, suing of companies and other efforts to prevent repair of its products, there are several references linked to from this article.

https://boingboing.net/2018/11/09/straight-to-landfill.html

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 12:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


Critism Of Apple Inc.

Hi all

I edited the Apple Inc. page to balance the article as I noted there is there is plently written about Apple being a large dominant company on the lead of the article but just one line criticism (without a new paragraph). This is as opposed to a large critical paragraph with new para on the lead of both rivals ZTE and Huawei pages. This does seem biased and needs a revisit so I added one more line of criticism but it was removed by User One Factor who has also suggested editor consensus for proposed changes. The addition info which is below I added was an extra line ending the lead:

It is also accused of, amongst other multiple allegations, of cooperating with PRISM, the United States National Security Agency (NSA) programme which authorises the American government to secretly access data of non-American citizens hosted by American companies without a warrant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciybersal (talk • contribs) 16:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

That just seems like such a specific thing to add to the lead. Per MOS:LEAD, the lead should paint in broad strokes, summarizing the major points of the article. I think the presence of information at other technology companies doesn't warrant its inclusion on the Apple article. Thoughts? I think that its sufficiently cover on this front as is. One Factor (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2019

Currently the line about the Apple Watch Series 4 links to the Apple Watch Series 3 as seen in the line 


    On September 12, 2018, Apple introduced the [[Apple Watch Series 3|Apple Watch Series 4]]

I think it should be directed to the Apple Watch page at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Apple_Watch#Fourth_generation Zach (talk) 05:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

RikerConcept,  Done. Lordtobi (✉) 10:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2019

Add to Apple TV section: On March 25th, 2019 Apple announced Apple TV+ will arrive Fall 2019 which features exclusive original shows, movies and documentaries.[1] Seany2 (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Release, Press. "Apple unveils Apple TV+, the new home for the world's most creative storytellers". Apple. Apple Inc. Retrieved 28 March 2019.
 Done Sam Sailor 11:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Ownership at Apple Inc.

Hi there. Thanks for your addition of the Ownership section to Apple Inc.

I was wondering if there was any specific reason for the order of the directors and executives? I don't currently see one that is obvious, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something before making a change (likely to alphabetical, with some minor changes such as keeping Cook and Levinson at the top).

Also, I added a question to the stock listing as a commented out note in the code, but since I'm here anyway I figured I'd directly ask you about it too: Assuming duplicated names here (such as Vanguard, Fidelity, and BlackRock) are considered separate owners, it may be worthwhile to distinctly mention this in a footnote at the bottom of the list. It might also be useful to sum the totals for those duplicates, just as a courtesy/convienience for the curious. Not a huge deal either way, but I think it might be useful. What do you think?

Thanks again for the contributions. They are super useful. - PaulT+/C 20:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

VaultGold (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC) Hello there. You're welcome. It's ok to arrange the directors in alphabetical order, maybe with Cook and Levinson at the top due to the seniority of the positions they hold but no problem at all.
For firms like BlackRock, Vanguard and Fidelity, they hold shares of AAPL as corporations but also separately manage ETFs and Funds who also hold AAPL shares, for example, BlackRock as a corporation currently holds 6.29% of AAPL shares but BlackRock also manages an ETF Fund called iShares Core S&P 500, this ETF separately holds 0.65% AAPL shares, this is the same with Vanguard, Fidelity, others and when listing ownership at the SEC and NASDAQ they're not filed as duplicates as, they're separate as in Vanguard Inc. holds a certain % of AAPL shares but also manages separately an Index Fund called Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund.
More at NASDAQ https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/aapl/institutional-holdings and Yahoo Finance https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/holders?p=AAPL
Thanks man, Cheers. VaultGold (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. In the future (and in general, though there are a few small, very specific exceptions), you can simply reply directly under the comment that you are replying to; see Help:Talk pages for more information if you are curious. I understand the rationale for listing the firms out separately – technically they are separate legal entities and that is how the shares are listed in the regulatory filings. And I'm not suggesting that we remove the separate listing by any means. My point is that, as a coutesy/convienience for the curious reader of the article, it may make sense to add (WP:CALC/WP:SYNTH) totals for the shares listed under the various Vanguard, Fidelity, and BlackRock entities in addition to the full listing currently in the article. As an example, it would show Vanguard's aggregated holdings are a lot higher than 7% and are likely closer to 10% or more. Anyway, that can be discussed at the article's talk page if it ends up being disputed. (And if I'm totally misunderstanding why this would be a bad idea, please do let me know!)
My main question was about the listed names. So, just to be clear, it was a random order? Or was it listed in that order in the filings? Or some other reason? Thanks. - PaulT+/C 21:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
VaultGold (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC) For the board of directors it is random and for the executive management it follows seniority from CEO to senior vice president to vice president to chief officers.
The best way I can say regarding the owners is; A is father of 4 daughters B, C, D, E. A has a house worth 7.18%, daughter B has her own house worth 2.34%, daughter C own house worth 1.81%, daughter D own house worth 0.93% and the last born daughter E has her own house worth 0.65%.
Then we can say A+B+C+D+E = A+B+C+D+E and not A=B=C=D=E which would imply A=B=C=D=E = A = A+A+A+A+A = 5A
Thanks VaultGold (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
That makes sense. Continuing your analogy, I agree that we don't want to imply A=B=C=D=E ... =5A. And I also want to make it clear that A does not also include B+C+D+E. Hence, showing A+B+C+D+E= A's family's holdings (and not =5A, and A != ("A"-(B+C+D+E))). - PaulT+/C 02:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I see your point, you're right. It would make it more clearer for the reader. It's true. VaultGold (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to un-archive (perhaps it would be better to move this whole discussion to Talk:Apple Inc.?), but I wanted to make sure to finish the discussion on this. I did the work to combine the related funds in this edit. After reading it over I don't think it is accurate to say what we were discussing above. "A" already includes B+C+D+E along with other funds, so to say that A's family's holdings is >A seems inaccurate and potentially double-counts contributions from the holdings of B+C+D+E since they are already incorporated in A proper. Also it looks like you are mixing two different types of holdings in this list - institutional investors and their funds. I modified the list to indicate the difference between these two types of entries. I think it is more accurate now. Let me know what you think. (And 100% totally feel free to move this discussion to the talk page if you don't want to have it on your talk page. Sorry again for bringing it back up.) - PaulT+/C 19:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Psantora, no problem at all. I have seen your update, it's good actually, it's now more clearer. For the data, as of today, March 31, 2019 the most recent data there is, on AAPL shareholders is from December 31, 2018 and that includes everything including outstanding shares which stand currently at 4,715,280,000. The data comes from a 13F filing that Apple Inc. does with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), then the data is also published on Wall Street by Nasdaq Stock Exchange on which Apple Inc. trades its stock. March 2019 is just the month the data was retrieved not that it was published in March 2019. As Apple Inc. updates its 13F filing with the SEC, NASDAQ also does the same to reflect new data, so if you go to https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/aapl/institutional-holdings you will always find updated data and that includes all data including outstanding shares which are now at 4,715,280,000, you will find this data on NASDAQ https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/aapl/institutional-holdings by clicking "Stock Report" on the page's menu on your left and you will find data on institutional investors by clicking "Institutional Holdings" on the same left menu. The data on Yahoo Finance is also the same as on NASDAQ because they all use the SEC 13F filing from Apple Inc. VaultGold (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for detailing it. What is unclear is that the stock totals for each of the institutions look like they are as of December 2018 but the outstanding share amounts are as of March 2019. I don't think it is proper to combine those numbers to calculate a percentage. They both need to be the same "as of" date. - PaulT+/C 20:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Could you (Psantora) elaborate further on how you're seeing December 2018 and March 2019, I can help. Thanks VaultGold (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The table on https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/aapl/institutional-holdings has a "date" column for each of the institutions. They all list "12/31/2018" and the share amounts match what is currently listed in the article. The denominator for the percentage is the total outstanding share amount from March 2019. If we can't find share amounts as of that March date we should use the outstanding share amount from December 2018 instead, even if we separately list the current number of outstanding shares above it in the prose. - PaulT+/C 20:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
(Psantora) The 4,715,280,000 in https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/aapl/stock-report is also from 12-31-18 and not from March 2019 because they come together in a 13F filing, they're not reported separately. The 2019 outstanding number is now approximately at 4,745,400,000 (https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/?symbol=AAPL&qsearchterm=aapl&tab=ownership)
December 31, 2018 = 4,715,280,000
March 31, 2019 = 4,745,400,000 (approximate because new official data will be reported soon as we've just ended a quarter March 31, 2019) VaultGold (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Given that, I think I found (and fixed) the problem. The "as of" date is 12-31-18 for all the share-related information (even if it was accessed months later). I've made that clear in the article. Thanks for pointing out the differences. - PaulT+/C 21:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Cheers VaultGold (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Concluded. VaultGold (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead on executive departures

Joey1niner reverted some language in the lead that I think deserves further discussion. The current version has this passage:

However, the high price of its products and limited application library caused problems, as did power struggles between executives. In 1985, Wozniak departed Apple but remained an honorary employee, while Jobs and others resigned to found NeXT.

I think there should be some mention of the difference in tenor between how Woz left and how Jobs left. My most recent preferred version is:

However, the high price of its products and limited application library caused problems, as did power struggles between executives. In 1985, Wozniak departed Apple on reasonably good terms and remained an honorary employee, while Jobs and others resigned to found NeXT.

but an older version read:

However, the high price of its products and limited application library caused problems, as did power struggles between executives. In 1985, Wozniak departed Apple amicably and remained an honorary employee, while Jobs and others resigned to found NeXT.

Perhaps "reasonably good terms" or "amicably" isn't the best way to get the point across, but I'm hopeful we can come to a fair compromise here. Woz also founded other companies after he left, but the difference is that he still remained publicly associated with the company while Jobs was ousted and sold all but one of his shares (not to mention founding a company directly in competition with Apple). Jobs was essentially kicked out while Woz left on his own terms. And, while he may have had disagreements about what was happening at the company, he still remained on good terms. What do others think about this point? Is there a better phrasing that I haven't considered? Thanks. - PaulT+/C 16:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree with your reasoning, although personally prefer "amicably" instead of "reasonably good terms". The latter sounds too vague. Amicable departures are a real thing and a commonly used phrase. --Btcgeek (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
That was my original language and what I think works better as well, but the reasonably good terms was in response to Joey1niner's edit summary: I don't think you could call Wozniak's departure as completely amicable when he expressed frustration with the company's treatment of the Apple II division and stated, upon his leaving, that the company had "been going in the wrong direction for the last five years." - PaulT+/C 16:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with "amicably" I just don't see any reason why this should be included in the lead. To me, the lead is better as just "In 1985, Wozniak departed Apple but remained an honorary employee..." and that stating that he remained as an honorable employee implies that his departure was, at least for the most part, amicable. As for the section in the body of the article that covers this, that could then be changed to: "Despite these grievances, Wozniak left the company amicably and both Jobs and Wozniak remained Apple shareholders.". Thanks. - Joey1niner 21:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

There should be CONCURRENT criticism to the company on this page.

This is an ongoing company doing things every single second. They sell things each second on this planet.

So why does it seem like there is absolutely no criticism of them involved on this page? There should be criticism to their current practice. For example, for immoral and or illegal things we have the war on right to repair, butterfly keyboard twice as unreliable as used to be according to Apple's own stats, tax practices globally and that Irish distribution, their huge fees on subscriptions from all others exempting in practice Apple music, etc.

Then there are statements that Apple is simply a racketeer influenced and corrupt organization aka criminal gang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.227.75.14 (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Apple (Italia) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Apple (Italia). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Apple (Japan) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Apple (Japan). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 21:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2019

Change 'protest' to 'protested' Partha Pahari (talk) 07:11, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: "Following a Greenpeace protest..." is correct use of the word protest, and is the only place the word appears in the article. RudolfRed (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2019

Jony Ive no longer CDO under listed Key People at Apple. He should be removed but with possible addition of someone else listed as the third? 2601:282:400:145E:4993:4FB1:E7A3:4045 (talk) 03:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Jeff Williams - Chief Operating Officer is a logical choice. Ruslik_Zero 21:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 Done I've removed Ive and added Williams per Ruslik's suggestion. NiciVampireHeart 22:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

safety edit educational rules for kids

2A00:23C4:4A94:3D00:5548:C2AA:8A91:EA90 (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. General Ization Talk 18:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2019

Hi! Just wanted to add a source for the Intel smartphone modem acquisition. As follows: [1]

Thank you! PK650 (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Axon, Samuel. "Apple acquires Intel's 5G smartphone modem business for $1 billion". ars Technica. Retrieved 31 July 2019.
 Done Melmann 16:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Hong Kong

No mention in this or the related "criticism" article about Apple's handling of the Hong Kong Live app. I am alone in thinking this is worthy of inclusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.150.218 (talk) 09:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Criticism_of_Apple_Inc.#Removal_of_HKmap.live_from_App_Store. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Bob Iger

ANSWERED
Closing completed edit request so no further edits occur at this section.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Bob Iger is no longer on the board of directors at Apple and "Bob Iger (non-executive director)" needs to be removed from the Board of directors. [1] Willmills517 (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Philroc (c) 20:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.apple.com/leadership/
Done, but as per @Philroc:, please format your edit requests according to the proper standard Phil outlined. --Doug Mehus (talk) 08:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 24 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per unanimous opposition. — JFG talk 06:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Apple Inc. → Apple (company) – Per Amazon (company) and Twitch (service). Although the incorporated title is a natural disambiguation, the company is most-often referred to as only "Apple" in common usage, which outweighs the WP:OFFICIALNAME. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose per WP:NATURAL. The Amazon discussion is sort of red herring here, because no one really calls it Amazon.com anymore. Apple Inc. is still used somewhat regularly [1] [2] [3]. We also have Apple Corps and other companies named "Apple" to consider. Calidum 18:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NATURAL. It's true that the company is most often referred to as only "Apple", but Apple is unavailable, so the choice is between the current natural and not obscure title, or an artificial disambiguator. Station1 (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose while the company is most often called simply "Apple", Encyclopædia Britannica uses "Apple Inc." despite the fact that they can have more than 1 article with the same title. WP:COMMONNAME says Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used. "Apple Inc." is used sometimes with their products, for example you sometimes see something like "Copyright Apple Inc.". So either "Apple Inc." is the best title for this article or its a near equal choice which makes WP:NATURAL suitable. While its true that EB also uses "Amazon.com", it has a different URL in different countries. WP:CONCISE gives "Rhode Island" as an example but EB uses the concise name there but doesn't for Apple Inc. If it was "Apple.com" then it would be different but "Apple Inc." is the name of the company, not website. The American website is titled "Apple Inc." (in Google results) but the British one is "Apple (United Kingdom)". As noted there is also Apple Corps so therefore the proposed title creates a WP:PDAB although there is consensus to use them in limited cases there best avoided. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME. While it's true that we normally include corporate extensions from the page name, in this case, I feel that Inc. is more useful than (company). Doug Mehus (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I would, however, support moving Amazon (company) to Amazon Inc. if nom wants to propose that.Doug Mehus (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
As noted if you aren't in the US its not "Amazon.co.", see #Amazon (company)Website so that's not analog to this case even if that's where its based and the domain its most commonly associated with. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
True, but I'd disagree since Amazon.com Inc. is the indirect or direct ultimate parent company of the overseas subsidiaries, so I'd argue it is analogous. Subsidiary articles could easily be created for Amazon.com.ca Inc. (the legal name) if they are standalone notable. -DM
But Amazon is more than just a website, its also a company that exists outside its domain name. The "(company)" appears to be more useful there since the article deals with the other domais (and Amazon Inc. doesn't appear correct) even if .com is the parent one. Although it is mainly a website it does appear to operate out side one, noting the American domain title for Apple would be Apple.com and the British one Apple.co.uk. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Amazon Inc. would not be correct, but I didn't propose that. Ultimately, this article is more than just a company. It probably should be further split, but I'm not sure how, with this surviving article focusing on the U.S. domiciled publicly-traded parent company. In short, it needs cleanup. I note, too, that A9.com Inc. is named A9.com and Audible.com was renamed in an undiscussed page move, which I am considering proposing to revert, per WP:BRD. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as I do not think this would improve discoverability. Just "Apple" may be more frequent, but "Apple Inc." is undoubtedly the tech company. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the need to draw clear lines between Apple Inc. and Apple Corps is necessary. Without the "Inc." as others have mentioned earlier, more confusion would ensue in the future. Additionally, Apple's trademark policies on their [legal page] refer to the company as "Apple Inc." It would be ideal to be consistent with the company's preferred name in its legal page (Apple Inc.), even if Wikipedia isn't necessarily subject to one specific nation's copyright laws. RayDeeUx (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
@RayDeeUx: Excellent point. Doug Mehus (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Don't really see the use. The current title is shorter and about as recognizable, and it doesn't seem like a disambiguator is necessary. RayDeeUx's comment is also sensible. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Twitch is a bad comparison here because it was moved from an unofficial name derived from the site's web address to the only official and common name, which enforced the usage of a non-natural disambiguator. Amazon is slightly different: it was formerly at "Amazon.com", an official name because the company is incorporated as "Amazon.com, Inc." (and that company does more than operate the Amazon.com website, like build Echo and Kindle devices and operate regional websites; there is no "Amazon.co.ca Inc." as claimed above), and it was moved to "Amazon (company)" to display the trade name/common name, even if it meant adding an non-natural disambiguator. In this case here, the page is already locates at its official name (its corporate name), which acts as a disambiguated common name. The disambiguation is natural, even if it feels like non-natural one. A move to "Apple (company)" would still be both official (the trade name) and common, just disambiguated differently. The sole question here is "natural disambiguator vs. non-natural disambiguator", the answer to which is often rooted in personal preference, supported by guidelines. Whatever the outcome, it should be kept in line with articles like Alphabet Inc. or Future plc. Lordtobi (✉) 07:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
    I think the title in Encyclopædia Britannica says a lot for keeping this as is. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I dont understand why you would want to do that. There’s literally no point. True, most/all of their products involve technology, but a full classification is not neccassary. SilentRevisions (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Procedural Update: I've reached out to the appropriate noticeboard requesting a non-involved administrator or experienced editor assess consensus, which seems to be trending entirely in one direction, and initiate closure as soon as practicable. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Coordinates

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for


—42.115.49.85 (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

You haven't said what you think is wrong with the coordinates. The only ones in the article are those of the company's heaquarters in Cupertino, and they appear to be correct. If you still think that there is an error, you'll need to provide a clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Privacy stance

In #Privacy stance: 1)”impossible for the company” should be replaced with “impossible for a time for the company”, as Apple is not encrypting iCloud backups, so it’s no longer impossible, and not clear (to me anyway) when it became possible. 2)”However, Apple aids law enforcement in criminal investigations by providing iCloud backups of users' devices” should cite the Reuters article Exclusive that broke the story, not just follow-up reporting in other media. Specifically, add: [1] --50.201.195.170 (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Menn, Joseph (21 January 2020). "Exclusive: Apple dropped plan for encrypting backups after FBI complained - sources". Reuters. Retrieved 15 April 2020.
 Done Aasim 23:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2020

154.236.164.3 (talk) 05:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jack Frost (talk) 06:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2020

188.211.55.22 (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 00:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Apple TV+

Should we include a section about Apple TV+ in the products section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.129.7 (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

unclear and somewhat odd wording

The phrase "Jobs pensively regained leadership status" makes no sense. What was "pensively" really supposed to convey? If he wasn't really the leader until later, maybe "ostensibly"? Or "eventually"? "in principle"? "in practice"? If the idea is that he had to think over returning to the company, maybe "after careful consideration, Jobs regained leadership status"? The intended meaning is not at all obvious as this is currently written. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.130.146 (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

PRISM sources

The article reads "It has been criticized for its alleged collaboration with the U.S. surveillance program PRISM.[677][678]", but the two listed sources contain no mention of PRISM and are in fact about seemingly unrelated problems. The register article is about Apple suing tech news sites, and the techcrunch article is about certain apps being removed from the store. Nothing to do with PRISM whatsoever. Seems to me like "citation needed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.129.95 (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Key people

Another key person in Apple is the CFO (chief financial officer) Luca Maestri. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:B07:A56:D81A:69D6:5402:6E7E:993A (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Apple won't play on Anything Else.

I noticed that the Apple page doesn't mention why the products are selling so much. They insist on it. It doesn't mention that "no item created on an Apple product will play on a non-apple product." For instance, a recording created on an iPhone will not play on an mp3 player, on an Android phone, on a PC, or on any other non-apple product. It said it would play on a PC if it had iTunes installed. Shelly1985 (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit by TheTAF109, Apple techinally can play on other devices, but is a very long and hefty process, or requires usage of third-party apps. TheTAF109 (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Assertions like that have to be backed by reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Concur. The burden is on the editor who wants to add a specific factual assertion like that to find a reliable source backing it. I vaguely recall I've seen some journalists complain about that issue over the years, but it's not a priority for me to track that down right now. Right now my priority is improving the articles on the histories of the various University of California campuses. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Concur. But I'm thinking that the people who say this sort of thing haven't bothered to look at the devices in question. My work iPhone, running iOS 13.7, records stills/video in HEIF/HEVC format, which isn't very compatible. You can select "Most Compatible" in the Camera settings, though, and stills/video will be encoded using JPEG/H.264, which will play on nearly anything. I can't tell, though, if Shelly1985 is talking about that or something else, because s/he didn't say. My Android (11) phone has a similar setting: if you tell it to store videos "efficiently", it will compress them using H.265/HVEC, which may not be playable everywhere. A simple flip of the switch, though, selects good ol' H.264/AVC, which is far more compatible. Sorry for the diatribe, but I've long ago lost most of my patience with folks who won't bother to learn about their devices, but instead spend their time complaining about what said device won't do. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 18:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
And I just realized this is getting perilously close to WP:NOTFORUM territory, so I apologize... — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 18:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2020

Change title 'List of chief executive's' to grammatically correct 'List of chief executives' 109.147.187.195 (talk) 16:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Herbfur (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2020

Change this text to the text edited below, as it does not explain how the lawsuit ended.

Throughout this period, Microsoft continued to gain market share with Windows by focusing on delivering software to cheap commodity personal computers, while Apple was delivering a richly engineered but expensive experience.[90] Apple relied on high profit margins and never developed a clear response; instead, they sued Microsoft for using a GUI similar to the Apple Lisa in Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.[91] The lawsuit dragged on for years before it was finally dismissed when Microsoft aided Apple in August 1997, donating $150 Million to Apple. As part of the deal, Apple ended the lawsuit against Microsoft. At this time, a series of major product flops and missed deadlines sullied Apple's reputation, and Sculley was replaced as CEO by Michael Spindler.[92]


Source for the lawsuit ending: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/29/steve-jobs-and-bill-gates-what-happened-when-microsoft-saved-apple.html TheTAF109 (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The proposed source and the source in the article do not agree and the proposed source does not state quite what it is proposed to state. The Low end Mac article says that Microsoft won the lawsuit in 1993, not 1997. The CNBC article says that Microsoft invested $150M into Apple (not donated) and that the investment was after the settlement. The proposed edit is therefore WP:SYNTH and fails verification. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:03, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2020

"The rainbow color of the logo portrays the message that the its computer monitor could be produce producing color images."

109.175.155.98 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. (CC) Tbhotch™ 23:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Apple knew a supplier was using child labor but took 3 years to fully cut ties, despite the company's promises to hold itself to the 'highest standards,' report says

Not sure where to include this information, please do use it

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2020

Apple's software includes macOS, iOS, iPadOS, watchOS, and tvOS operating systems, the iTunes media player, the Safari web browser, the Shazam music identifier and the iLife and iWork creativity and productivity suites, as well as professional applications like Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro, and Xcode.

to

Apple's software includes macOS, iOS, iPadOS, watchOS, and tvOS operating systems, the iTunes media player, the Safari web browser, the Shazam music identifier, and the iLife and iWork creativity and productivity suites, as well as professional applications like Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro, and Xcode. Ajuma.app (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ajuma.app: That looks the same to me. What is the difference between the old and new sentence? RudolfRed (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
There's a comma after the word "identifier". (I had to look more than once). Station1 (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 Done Thanks for the explanation. RudolfRed (talk) 01:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

PRISM Sources still invalid

I've pointed this out before but it was never discussed and eventually archived by a bot.

The article reads "It has been criticized for its alleged collaboration with the U.S. surveillance program PRISM.[693][694]", but the two listed sources contain NO mention of PRISM and are in fact about seemingly UNRELATED problems. The register article is about Apple suing tech news sites, and the techcrunch article is about certain apps being removed from the store. Nothing to do with PRISM whatsoever. These sources should be removed and replaced by "citation needed" or actual sources. 159.28.87.223 (talk) 05:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Removed sources and replaced with a cn tag. (CC) Tbhotch™ 19:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It is stated that "The only thing to change with the logo since 1977 has been the color."

However, this is false. It's plainly clear by examining the logos in this article that the shape has been subtly redrawn with new proportions several times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctbeiser (talk • contribs) 03:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Ctbeiser, can you find a source? Thanoscar21talkcontributions 00:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not have a source. I should disclose, I have a connection with the subject and am mentioning this here rather than changing it for that reason. However, the current item is unsourced and false.

I should also say—the entire "Brand Semiotics" section reads like a personal essay, seems to contain original research, and it's embarrassing that the whole thing hasn't been scrapped yet; the "Apple" article is not the place for a ham-fisted explication of Saussure. Ctbeiser (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Logo was vandalised

Ok, idk how to add a talk page to the Wikimedia file so I'll post it here

The logo file was vandalised, please someone undo the edit

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clbuttic (talk • contribs) 18:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry. I reverted the vandalized image on Commons. All is good. Cheers! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 18:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
@Clbuttic: Oops. Forgot the reply template. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 18:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

"AirTags" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect AirTags. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 2#AirTags until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2021

2601:46:C600:F8B0:7849:136B:D960:1130 (talk) 12:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Manola Ayala

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jack Frost (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021

70.249.170.51 (talk) 07:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Zupotachyon (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Apple's stock split August 2020

There should be information about Apple's stock split in 2020. This was a significant move by the company that led to an increase in its stock price and subsequently its valuation. Glf1williams (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 07:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Splash page reads like an advertisement for apple’s lineup

The first paragraph should summarize the company as a phenomenon not feature their every product Destrypants (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

No Philip Schiller in management? He is still on Apple's leadership page and is responsible for "leading the App Store and Apple Events"

This is an executive position even though it is named "Apple Fellow". Schiller is called to testify in a trial by Epic. 5.18.206.22 (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

"diligence and industrial skills of foreign workers, have so outpaced their American counterparts"

I find the comment about the "diligence of foreign workers" to be both discriminatory and generally nebulous. It also fails to take into account the fact that many of Apple's suppliers are based in the U.S. such as Corning <https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Corning_Inc.>, Qorvo <https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Qorvo>, and Skyworks Solutions <https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Skyworks_Solutions>. Perhaps the intent of the comment is to capture the prejudicial opinions of some select group of Apple employees but nevertheless this is a non-scientific generalization that is incompatible with Apple's official policy of diversity and inclusion <https://www.apple.com/diversity/>. I strongly request that this content be updated to reflect Apple's policy towards diversity and inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.miller0404 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Current logo is outdated

The Apple logo found on the Apple Inc. Wikipedia page is a remake or an older version of the actual Apple logo. I was hanging around with Inspect Element on the Apple Developer website and I found a link to an .svg file which is the current version of the Apple logo. I decided to upload it to Wikimedia, as it only consists of simple geometrical shapes and doesn’t meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection. Here’s the link. The main differences between the logo I uploaded to Wikimedia and the one you can find on Wikipedia are the spacing between the leaf and the apple and the dimensions of the apple itself. Tommyy2151 (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

  • It helps if you provide a proper link, but looking at your logo, the existing logo, and the actual logo that Apple uses on their website today, the existing logo is a better match. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Older iPads not mentioned (in between 2015-2020)

iPads launched in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 are not mentioned Sirius 1098 (talk) 07:08, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Wired: Apple Execs Chose to Keep a Hack of 128 Million iPhones Quiet

https://www.wired.com/story/apple-execs-chose-to-keep-hack-of-128-million-iphones-quiet/ John Cummings (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2021

In Privacy section: Current: "the company started encryption all contents of iOS devices" Proposed: "the company started encrypting all contents of iOS devices" 69.255.14.110 (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. (CC) Tbhotch™ 00:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2021

Why, in the category of Apple products, are not AirPods mentioned?

Why, in the category of Apple products, are not AirPods mentioned? 

ID1212 (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • This is because if you look at the products section, it has the 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, and 2.9 sub-sections about Apple's products. So the main reason why is because if there is a AirPods sub-section, it would be a bit out of hand as the third section might become a sub-section and affect other sections. So you might need to look closely in the table of contents for any evidence about the main reason why. Qwedmawfd 09:26, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

iMac Pro is discontinued

 Could someone please change this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.127.62.179 (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2021

Kirinhushino (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

This is an edit request from an official Apple Inc. Submitted by Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak. To add a person's name to the honorific list.

evidence: https://www.dropbox.com/s/v61lxbetq47vl6d/KL1_00000.png?dl=0 (email hidden due to Apple Inc. Security reasons). You may also request Mr. Wozniak for records or evidence for your hunger curiosity to take bite off apple. Again, this is official, not a drill or fake.

Update* May 31, 2021 EST Founders Steve Jobs Steve Wozniak Ronald Wayne Brian Lionair

Key people Chairman: Arthur D. Levinson CEO: Tim Cook COO: Jeff Williams Signature CEO: Brian Lionair

Apple TM

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. An email on a dropbox isn't a reliable source. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The Guardian: How does Apple technology hold up against NSO spyware?

I'm unsure where to include information on this within the article, any suggestions, please feel free to go ahead and add it.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Add "about" template

I wanted to get to the article about the apple fruit. I think we should add an "about" template at the top of the article such as the following: {{about|the American technology company|the fruit and tree|apple}}. Please let me know if that is acceptable. Somerandomuser (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2021

Expanded Protections for Children under the statement of protecting kids this feature will scan photos that the user chooses to upload to iCloud Photos on a users IOS device before they're uploaded and compare them to its database of known CSAM image IDs with unique fingerprints (also called “hashes”).

Apple also says it will use new tools in the Message app that scan photos sent to or from children for sexual imagery, with an option to tell the parents of children ages 12 and under if they viewed those images. Parents can opt in to those features, and all the scanning happens on the devices.

Apple also released a document further clarifying this new function which comes with upcoming IOS 15 https://www.apple.com/child-safety/pdf/Expanded_Protections_for_Children_Frequently_Asked_Questions.pdf Octodo (talk) 04:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@Octodo: Thanks for the input! You made some valid points that I think are worthy of being added to the article. However, I think your edit request needs to be written in a way such that an editor can simply copy-paste it in. That's my guess as to why ScottishFinnishRadish declined your request. Somerandomuser (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The Subsidiaries should be arranged alphabetically

The subsidiaries in the box should be arranged alphabetically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.96.197 (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Reference to FBI–Apple encryption dispute

I could not find a reference to FBI–Apple encryption dispute Should it be made more clear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apinedol (talk • contribs) 08:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of ‘Navalny’ Voting App

It may be a good idea to include information about removal of ‘Navalny’ Voting App. Here are some details about the incident.
Fobemipa (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I added it Ultimatescapegoat (talk) 18:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The year '2020' slightly misaligned on the table under the 'Finance' sub-heading

In the table under the 'Finance' sub-heading in the article, the year 2020 is slightly misaligned compared to the other years in the table. This makes the table look unprofessional in my opinion. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Huh. I believe it's because the reference, once Wikipedia has done its behind the scenes magic, comes out as #5, compared to #651 and the other three-digit reference numbers. I tried to fix it by adding a couple of spaces after the reference, but no go. signed, Willondon (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2022

Alexander.Manzzini (talk) 20:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Empty request. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Heathercutajar, Jordanne Brown.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 6 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 八路军被服厂李厂长.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2022

I saw the thing to edit the last section of timeline of Apple Inc. page. 114.141.103.96 (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21st of January, 2022

The employee count is 154,000 since 2021. Please change it from 147k to 154k. GustasMarc (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done RickyCourtney (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The employee count is 165,000 since 2022. Please change it from 154k to 165k. GustasMarc (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

"Apple®" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Apple® and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#Apple® until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 04:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2022

I need to edit this page for 2022 and eMac. Or you could write the info.

~ Ted Melbourne 114.141.106.42 (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 08:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The heading "1980–1990: Success with Macintosh"

This section could surely have a better heading, as it downplays the significance of the Apple II line in the 1980s, and since the Macintosh was not introduced until 1984, the "1980-1990" timeline seems odd. Skylarkingnz (talk) 09:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)Skylarkingnz

A good point. What would you suggest it be renamed? RickyCourtney (talk) 15:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2022

Remove right bracket ')' in first paragraph, second sentence.

CURRENT: "Apple is the largest information technology company by revenue, totaling US$365.8 billion in 2021) and, as of January 2021, it is the world's most valuable company, the fourth-largest personal computer vendor by unit sales and second-largest mobile phone manufacturer."

FIX: "Apple is the largest information technology company by revenue, totaling US$365.8 billion in 2021 and, as of January 2021, it is the world's most valuable company, the fourth-largest personal computer vendor by unit sales and second-largest mobile phone manufacturer."

OR: "Apple is the largest information technology company by revenue (totaling US$365.8 billion in 2021) and, as of January 2021, it is the world's most valuable company, the fourth-largest personal computer vendor by unit sales and second-largest mobile phone manufacturer." Roooboot (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done - FlightTime (open channel) 04:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Apple vs. Samsung Lawsuits

So there’s a section of patents, however Samsung and Apple lawsuits are not listed. It should be like a note saying the main article and a short summary. It is over patent infringement, But if it’s in the lawsuits section then it should also have a section or be moved to the patent section Randomdudewithinternet (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

The Samsung lawsuits are mentioned under both the history and litigation sections. The Ericsson lawsuit, which is the only thing currently listed in the patents section, should probably be moved to the litigation section. -- Vaulter 20:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit request for semi-protected page

In the first paragraph: "it is the world's valuable company" should be "it is the world's most valuable company" or "it is the most valuable company in the world" Chesswho (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

Remove, "a notable hiring decrease, largely due to its first revenue decline." A change from 110,000 to 116,000 is an increase, not a decrease. Thank you.

 Not done: The sentence means that employees were hired, but the amount of hiring went down. RudolfRed (talk) 01:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2022

Hermes smart watch Chill89 (talk) 04:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 04:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I have replaced this image. RickyCourtney (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

"New Apple" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect New Apple and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 8#New Apple until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TraderCharlotte (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The Lisa was the SECOND commercially released computer with a GUI.

It was beaten by the Xerox Star by a few months. 2A02:C7F:5A1F:DB00:4576:297E:C62:3F8C (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Apple which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:45, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2022

In the paragraph "Software", 

=== Software ===
{{Main|List of software by Apple Inc.}}
Apple offers a range of software for its hardware products some of which are bundled with its products while others are available for purchase. These include [[MacOS]], [[iOS]], [[Apple Books|iBooks]], [[Pages (word processor)|Pages]], [[Numbers]], [[Keynote]], [[iMovie]], [[GarageBand]], [[Final Cut Pro]], [[Logic Pro]], [[Xcode]], [[Safari]], [[Time Machine (macOS)|Time Machine]] and many more.

please change the link [[Safari]], which points to the animal-spotting kind of safari, to [[Safari (web browser)|Safari]].

(Note: There's currently one other link to Safari in the article, and that one is correct.) Codeflo (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for catching that. - Aoidh (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Is Apple a conglomerate?

They own companies in various industries, so I guess so... What do you think? Should Apple be described as a conglomerate in the article? RaphaelQS (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@RaphaelQS I haven't found many sourcing describing them that way, and while a trillion dollar company is bound to own/acquire many other businesses/companies, almost all of them relate to the same/core industry of computing/hardware devices whether it's Beats Electronics, Apple IMC which doesn't describe a conglomerate typically. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
They own companies in many industries (autonomous cars, sleep tracking devices, fabless semiconductors...), they are all in the global tech field but compete in different industries/markets, so I think if you follow the strict definition, Apple is a tech conglomerate (like Alphabet and Meta are both described in their respective articles). --RaphaelQS (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
The OECD describes a conglomerate as a firm or business enterprise having different economic activities in different unrelated industries (note: industries, not markets, which wouldn't make sense as a definition). It's a term that fits Samsung, a company that designs and makes phones, washing machine, and tanks. But it's easy to understand why sources don't describe Apple as a conglomerate: they just don't match that definition. Their products and acquisitions are all in the tech industry. Sleep tracking was for the Apple Watch. Fabless was meant to help vertically integrate the Mac's supply chain, and reduce dependency on other companies. Celf-driving car AI is quintessentially technology. Once they release a car, maybe their descriptor will change, but there's zero justification for that now. DFlhb (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2022

Add “Apple Studios” as a subsidiary of Apple 2601:845:C300:A530:8F8:502B:EC7B:B48A (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

 Already done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

"ToyTalk" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ToyTalk and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 26#ToyTalk until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

New "Corporation practices" section

See Talk:Practices_of_Apple_Inc.#Strays_away_from_WP:POVFORK for the reasoning behind this diff. DFlhb (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The corporate history in this article and the History of Apple Inc. isn't quite right

The California Secretary of State database shows that the corporation was originally incorporated as Apple Computer on January 3, 1977. (Yes, it is legal for a California corporation to not expressly indicate its corporate status in its name.) The entity didn't become Apple Computer, Inc. until 11 months later.

Unfortunately, this may be original research on my part. But I'm flagging this issue now, so that if someone becomes aware of a source that correctly summarizes Apple's early corporate history, then they can fix both articles. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

POV tag on Corporate practices section

I feel I should justify adding this tag, and clarify the context for users who haven't seen the revision history. The "Criticism" section was renamed to "Corporate practices" (please discuss that in the discussion above, not here). The long-term aim is to thread praise, criticism, and neutral factual coverage that Apple received in order to get a "full" accurate picture of their practices and impact, positive and negative. For example, merging their environmental action and Greenpeace's responses to it into a single section; or covering both the recent accusations of lack of innovation (After Steve is a great, more serious source for that) and the praise the iPod and iPhone received for their innovativeness. DFlhb (talk) 13:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Financial charts

I expect this diff will require some discussion. Starting a thread here.

There's no dueness issue, but this information really needs to be presented far better; unfortunately I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia's chart abilities to know how to do that. DFlhb (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks like the German article (de:Apple) does a somewhat better job than us; would it be possible to have that kind of chart, in thumbnail size on the right, and where users can click on it to expand? Basically embedding it like a picture, while keeping the interactivity. DFlhb (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources for History section

Won't have time, but here's the easiest way to fix that section:

  • For 1976-2005, use the same sources as the corresponding sections in Mac (computer). That means:
    • Kahney 2013
    • Schlender-Tetzeli 2015
    • Linzmayer 2004
    • Mickle 2022
    • Isaacson 2011
    • Malone 1999
  • For 2005-2011, can use Isaacson 2011 and Mickle 2022.
  • For 2011-present, Mickle 2022 is great. There's a small chance Kahney 2019 might be useful, but it's mostly substanceless, unlike his excellent earlier books.

DFlhb (talk) 04:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

For the 2011-present subsection, we should stay focused on broad themes (one theme per paragraph):
  • the increase in operational efficiency, the "professionalization" and corporatization of Apple (in his days, Jobs said Apple was the world's largest startup, but that's no longer the case), and the internal dissent against this, with Jony Ive and others departing (Mickle 2022 is great on this)
  • the shift into services: Apple Card, Music, TV+, Apple One, etc, how this has impacted Apple's income statement and valuation (here we should have a chart thumbnail on the right, showing a breakdown of Apple's revenues by product category), and the numerous service-related acquisitions (Shazam, Primephonic, etc.)
  • one long paragraph on innovation:
    • That paragraph should start with a few sentences on the prevalent 2012-2014 media commentary that Apple "can't innovate anymore" and won't be able to find a "hit" as big as the iPhone, and that the iPhone being half of Apple's revenue puts Apple at risk, if smartphones are ever replaced with a new technology, etc.
    • Then, nuance that with the fact that Apple introduced several highly successful products in the Cook era (AirPods, Apple Music, Apple Watch), products which are successful enough that they'd make it onto the Fortune 500 list if they were their own companies (which has been noted too by media commentary)
    • Then, talk about Apple's future plans: car, VR, etc. Mickle is solid on this, and Mark Gurman (Bloomberg) is as reliable as leaks can get; zero reason we can't include his coverage when it comes to the VR headset.
  • the shifts in Apple's brand:
    • greater emphasis on privacy: FaceID more secure than Android equivalents since it uses proper depth sensing, more private web services that don't track you or read your emails, Safety Check and Privacy Nutrition Labels, App Tracking Transparency (huge), increased privacy measures in iOS and in macOS since Catalina, etc.
    • greater emphasis on the environment: full use of renewable energy in data centers, investments in solar, changes to product packaging so more iPhone boxes can fit onto cargo planes, reducing emissions (no more chargers in iPhone boxes), etc.
    • greater emphasis on security: Apple Silicon being far more secure, Apple increasing transparency and releasing "Platform Security" PDFs, introduction of bug bounties, etc.
    • greater emphasis on social justice (charitable contributions, Cook publicly coming out as gay, an overview of their diversity efforts, etc); this is a big shift from the Jobs days, when Jobs deliberately made Apple far more apolitical
    • changes in corporate culture: more collaboration, less Jobs-style micromanagement, the increased emphasis on cross-functional teams (for example, the MacBook and iPhone teams don't come up with cameras separately; there's a "Camera" team in charge of cameras across all products; that was true before, but it's now reinforced under Cook's more hands-off leadership style)
      • a relative increase in openness (for example with this security blog, and the social media presence of WebKit/Safari people, Apple's attendance at DEFCON, Apple AI researchers being allowed to publish their work in journals as opposed to keeping it secret). This is the only part of my summary that's WP:OR; here, I'm only guessing that reliable sources covered this. Having a public blog with technical details, or allowing employees to have social media, would have been heresy during the Jobs days.
  • the desire to control core technologies[4][5]: shift from Samsung chips to Apple-designed chips in iPhones with the Apple A4 (and the PA Semi acquisition), shift to Apple silicon in Macs, shift to Apple-design 5G modems in iPhones, the abandonment of Google Maps in favor of Apple Maps, the numerous acquisitions of AI startups, the abandonment of Broadcom chips, the switch to Swift, etc.
This would be appropriately analytical & "bird's eye", would avoid proseline, and would offer a coherent and well-supported narrative on the Cook days. Any more than 1 paragraph per idea and we'd need to move that stuff back to History of Apple Inc. anyway.
(This is as much a draft for me to not forget, for when I have more time to edit, as it is a guide for anyone willing to spend the time and expand that section themselves; and it's based on having read the above books. You could literally turn the above into prose and I guarantee it would meet WP:V.) DFlhb (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2023

Can you please add couple more names to Board of directors section. As of January 20, 2023, below persons are part of Apple board of directors.

Alex Gorsky (non-executive director), Monica Lozano (non-executive director), Bilal Ahmed Shirwani (co-creator)[1]

AquileiaCygnus (talk) 06:24, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done DFlhb (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.apple.com/leadership/

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2022

Bilal Ahmed Shirwani legally becomes Data Science Vice President 50.98.184.111 (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done [6]. (CC) Tbhotch™ 02:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
[7]https://www.linkedin.com/in/shirwani Nomodes (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
User generated, not a reliable source. Skipple ☎ 13:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
This is the true Vice President. Stop sabotaging progress, the impact Apple has made for the past decade is equivalent to what Bilal achieved in 2 months. He has been rallying Apple Support advisors, community managing on the Discord to spark innovation in a sea of mediocre conversations about materialism. And of course the article he wrote titled "Dear Apple Users" was what put Apple Inc. back on track.
By the power invested I will report you for treason if you disobey.
Do not interfere with Earth's growth.
Wikipedia is notorious for not allowing a change of narrative. Well now is the perfect time to comply with me. Dont follow suite of your peers. The old guard must fall. They have sucked our souls and left us forgetting our values.
This ends now so stand down. I repeat stand down! 50.98.184.111 (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Apple's functional structure deserves coverage

light bulb New proposal

The Organizational culture should be expanded to cover Apple's other notable groups (including the Industrial Design Group), and there should be at least a paragraph describing Apple's pretty unique functional organisation practices. A good source, written by two Apple employees and published in the reliable HBR, is this one, if anyone's interested, but I bet there's others. I at least remember reading about it in a few of the books cited at Mac (computer). DFlhb (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Criticism of Apple

The other big five tech companies have dedicated pages to their criticism. Searching for Criticism of Apple only leads to the main Apple page. Critiques of the company seem buried and the article reads overwhelmingly praising. Greyman6 (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The Criticism page was split into three pages, Environmental impact of Apple, Marketing of Apple Inc., and Apple supply chain, each of which should be neutral (i.e. mention facts, praise, criticisms), and whose summaries should be improved on this page. That's still not complete as it's quite time-consuming. The goal was to avoid having separate pages, with one positive and one negative, and instead to set on a path where we'll eventually reach a balance of both in one article. DFlhb (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2023

I would like to edit Apple Inc.'s article pls NotGalxyGaming (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. M.Bitton (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

"Ronald you idiot" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ronald you idiot has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 5 § Ronald you idiot until a consensus is reached. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2023

Apple Inc.'s Global Legal Entity Identifier should be added to support unique legal entity identification:

Legal Entity Identifier (LEI): HWUPKR0MPOU8FGXBT394

Link to Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (GLEIF) website: https://search.gleif.org/#/record/HWUPKR0MPOU8FGXBT394

The LEI should be added in the box on the right hand side below the website and should be linked to GLEIF's website as provided above. 93.203.2.190 (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Per WP:NOTPRICE. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2023

Revenue as of 2023: $385.095B RyanIsSmart (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: That's trailing 12 month revenue for the quarter ending in March 2023, not 2023 revenue. DFlhb (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

No mention of "XDG" the secretive Exploratory Design Group !?

I'm surprised that there is currently nothing about the Exploratory Design Group in this article! In fact, it seems the topic isn't covered on any articles here at the English-language Wikipedia!

Here is one recent story about Apple's XDG, for reference:
Apple’s Secret 'XDG' Team Is Working on More Than Just a Glucose Monitor — Bloomberg, Feb. 26, 2023

Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks; I've added that to the "Organizational culture" section, and have a few ideas on how to make that section better, see below. DFlhb (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Cool, thank you!! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
There's also the Technology Development Group, whose first product will be the headset revealed next week (sources: [8][9]), though I don't know how to mention it. And I'll repeat my idea from a now-archived discussion: we should give an overview of Apple's pretty unique structure, though here too I don't have the time right now to figure out how to best do it. DFlhb (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

"Wearables, Home and Accessories" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wearables, Home and Accessories has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 16 § Wearables, Home and Accessories until a consensus is reached. estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2023

 Done (diff). Xan747 (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

thanks brah Beingmoreattractive (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Apple last shared its active install base in January 2022, when the company had 1.8 billion active devices worldwide

This is an update from 1.65 billion. Beingmoreattractive (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Do we have a source on this? This article from MacRumors and the Verge cites over 2 billion. - Skipple ☎ 19:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Actually, yeah you're right it's above two billion.
Official statement from Apple. Beingmoreattractive (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Cant find edit or edit source button

Need to add sentence about important trademark litigation that Apple was involved in, but cannot find a way to edit. Contribute14 (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Contribute14 Please use WP:EDITREQUEST instead. Instructions to do so, is in the same link. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

2011–present: Post-Jobs era, Cook's leadership section is too detailed

Compares to previous eras described in the History section, the most recent era is way too detailed and not up to date at all. It talks about software features like Lockdown mode, which isn't historically relevant, a talks about rumors on the Vision Pro, referring to its software with its rumored name RealityOS and not talking about its unveiling. The fact that the article is locked lowers the quality of this section. 77.158.89.187 (talk) 05:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

It can certainly be argued to be a case of recency bias and organized better. I'll take a look at it but, in the meantime, as I don't think the lock will be lifted due to numerous disruptions it used to bring, feel free to leave more suggestions. You can provide a version you would find more in line with Wikipedia's policies and an editor can implement it. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

History - 1970s - Apple was not the leading computer manufacturer in the USA.

From the article, there is a false statement: "By the end of the 1970s, Apple had become the leading computer manufacturer in the United States". This statement is cited with a reference to a book (no e-book available) noting 7,000,000 units sold from 1978 to 1982, which conflicts with other references. From multiple sources, the Radio Shack TRS-80 outsold Apple II every year from 1977 to 1980, and the Atari 400|800 also outsold the Apple II from 1979 to 1980. The Atari 400|800 continued to outsell the Apple II from 1981 to 1983. The Commodore 64 sold the most units in 1983 and 1984, and the IBM PC also outsold the Apple II in 1983 and 1984[1], and [2] Rcgldr (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC) Rcgldr (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://arstechnica.com/features/2005/12/total-share/3
  2. ^ https://arstechnica.com/features/2005/12/total-share/4

Merge history section into History of Apple Inc.?

The history section on this article is a lengthy subset of the History of Apple Inc. article, duplicating much of the content in two places. What do people think about merging this article's history section into that dedicated article? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 04:52, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I would support a merge while leaving behind a couple of paragraphs of core facts. As it stands, the History section has a lot of small details on feature releases, mergers, etc. I would suggest leaving about two to four paragraphs worth of information, with the rest available at the redirect. ASpacemanFalls (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Apple is no longer the most valuable company

The information on the page saying it is the most valuable company is out of date, as of writing microsoft is now the most valuable company by ~30m 2600:1702:2E8:200:F468:AE3C:C76F:F395 (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that Apple is "the most valuable company", therefore does not require any correction. Read it again. General Ization Talk 22:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
2nd paragraph "As of March 2023, Apple is the world's largest company by market capitalization." 2600:1702:2E8:200:F468:AE3C:C76F:F395 (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Correct, and that is supported by the data at List of public corporations by market capitalization. If you would like to update that article and provide citations of published, reliable sources to support your changes, that information can be updated, and that will likely be reflected here. General Ization Talk 22:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2024

Remove references of apple being the most valuable company by market cap due to it being outdated Citation: https://companiesmarketcap.com/ Accessed at 1-16-24 at 6:00PM EST 2600:1702:2E8:200:F468:AE3C:C76F:F395 (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Already answered just above. General Ization Talk 23:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Malformatted comment

Their is one Error in the part that says that Apple was founded by Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak. There was also a third founder a man by the name of Ronald Wane. That should be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.62.148 (talk) 10:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Read it again, I guess. Good luck! — Smuckola(talk) 20:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
The first sentence under History reads:

Apple Computer Company was founded on April 1, 1976, by Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Ronald Wayne as a partnership.

It may be helpful for you to clarify exactly which sentence you are referencing, as I'm not sure what you are referring to. - Skipple ☎ 21:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to this page goes nowhere

The redirect titled "Criticism of Apple Inc." redirects to this page but not any specific section, and I can't find the criticism section. Did it get removed? Mseingth2133444 (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mseingth2133444: Thanks for pointing this out. I had worked a little bit on Criticism of Apple Inc. years ago and it was quite thorough, and I have no idea where all that document history went. Somebody said they renamed it to Apple supply chain, and baselessly so, and botched the process of renaming it and the process of redirecting it, and it has no history. The article Apple supply chain now only talks about criticisms, but only of partner companies, as if Apple in America such as Cupertino headquarters, and the worldwide Apple Stores, and every worldwide corporate office is irrelevant. My goodness the criticism goes back to the 1980s and especially about the cult of personality of Steve Jobs if you wanna get down to it, whether it warrants an article specifically about criticism or not. For example, Apple is a poster child of the global "right to repair" protest movement, including by national governments, but the word "repair" doesn't exist in Apple supply chain. I love things enough to criticize them, all the good and all the bad if it is not WP:UNDUE. Anyway I redirected Criticism of Apple Inc. to Apple supply chain at least for now. @Guy Harris: All I know is that you always know everything about everything, and you're one of the most awesome editors I've ever seen, especially in Wikiproject Apple, and I have probably failed to tell you that and tried harder to collaborate with you on everything, and everybody needs to know that anyway also, so do you happen to know? — Smuckola(talk) 20:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
A timeline:
I think the "a split-and-delete of [what used to be Criticism of Apple Inc] into more tightly-scoped articles" sums up what happened. Guy Harris (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Yeah. I recall this was discussed in, I think, 2 places. One way to put it would be "not unanimous". The crux is whether readers find it more valuable to have all the criticism in one place, or to have articles that dig on one aspect and try to cover each more comprehensively; and what made me learn towards the latter was the breadth & amount of criticisms. But it was irresponsible of me to embark on that without committing the time to building out all those articles. DFlhb (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2024

I want to write more new information 2601:204:C200:BE00:6458:87D4:94E8:2C66 (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Jamedeus (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SP24 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2024 and 4 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): XiaoyuChennyu (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by XiaoyuChennyu (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

New cat

Please could somebody add Category:Companies in the Dow Jones Global Titans 50 ? 78.148.152.27 (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Apple logo should be on Wikipedia

Here is the apple logo:  2601:C2:1500:A90:C568:1DD:64F:7F80 (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2024

2600:8804:A80:60C0:C5AF:71FB:99CC:24CC (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
no Declined You have not specified what to be changed. Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 23:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

"Criticism of Apple Inc." listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Criticism of Apple Inc. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 17 § Criticism of Apple Inc. until a consensus is reached. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

international business

a) For the chosen Fortune 500 company, identify the primary industry and the international operational network in which it operates. 106.214.125.61 (talk) 08:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, we cannot do your homework for you. Have a read at Apple Inc. and also Apple and unions for the economics of Apple. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

History section

This section is way too long, especially considering that a sub-article History of Apple Inc. exists 68.133.31.122 (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Concur. This is why I strongly oppose splitting history sections from main articles, because WP editors rarely take the time to synchronize edits between the two. The result is that the history section in the main article then either fails to accurately summarize the history article or, as occurred in this case, the history section becomes way too detailed. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2024

I would like to add that Apple was founded in 1976 and incorporated in 1977. It was founded as a business partnership, but after beign incorporated, it became a corporation. CSZS129 (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 10:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
here is the information from Apple's official website under "Apple Corporate Info":
[10]https://investor.apple.com/faq/default.aspx
This clearly states that Apple was incorporated on January 3, 1977 in California.
CSZS129 (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
So, just as User:Charliehdb said, given that, as of 2024-06-21, two days before your edit request, the article says, in the third paragraph:

Apple was founded as Apple Computer Company on April 1, 1976, to produce and market Steve Wozniak's Apple I personal computer. The company was incorporated by Wozniak and Steve Jobs in 1977.

and says, in the "1976–1980: Founding and incorporation" section:

Apple Computer Company was founded on April 1, 1976, by Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Ronald Wayne as a partnership.

and

Apple Computer, Inc. was incorporated on January 3, 1977, ...

what is it that needs to be edited? Repeating information that was in the article before the edit request was made does not answer that question. Guy Harris (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Criticism of Apple missing/lacking?

Is there an equivalent criticism article for Apple, similar to Criticism of Microsoft, Criticism of Netflix, Criticism of Amazon, etc.? The existing Criticism of Apple is simply a redirect to Apple Inc.? GobsPint (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Through a series of page moves, the criticism section ended up at Apple supply chain. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I’ve retargeted the various criticism redirects back there. It seems one person changed all of them. The criticism page was moved to “Practices of Apple Inc.” then to “Apple supply chain”. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
The only comprehensive discussion of criticism I see remaining are in Apple supply chain and that's not, for the most part, direct criticism of Apple. I remember Criticism of Apple Inc./Practices of Apple Inc. had some of this meat but this has been deleted so we can't see exactly what was pared out and by whom. I know there is more about Apple that has received criticism in reliable sources than issues related to supply chain. There is still a lead paragraph that mentions this but not much remaining in the body supporting it especially anti-competitive practices. Can we get some balance back into our coverage please? ~Kvng (talk) 19:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
As per Talk:Apple Inc./Archive 10#Redirect to this page goes nowhere, criticism of Apple is now scattered between Environmental impact of Apple and Apple supply chain, neither of which are solely criticism pages. Guy Harris (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps we should create a "Criticism" section, with subsections for supply chain practices and environmental impact, which would be short sections pointing to Apple supply chain, Environmental impact of Apple, Apple and unions, App Store (Apple), and any pages that I've missed, or sections thereof, and redirect Criticism of Apple there. Either that, or just create that as a "Criticism of Apple" page, again pointing to the pages about said topics. For better or worse, criticism of Apple is scattered across pages about topics on which Apple has received criticism, rather than being combined into a single criticism page. Guy Harris (talk) 23:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
I suggest we start by undeleting Criticism of Apple Inc. As far as I can tell, there was never a deletion discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
It was discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 17 § Criticism of Apple Inc.. Guy Harris (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
@Guy Harris that is a technical discussion about the redirect, not a discussion of the merit of a criticism article. After criticism was (systematically?) dispersed or removed there was no clear and non-astonishing place to direct readers interested in the topic. ~Kvng (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
It was a discussion that resulted in the deletion of "Criticism of Apple Inc." - which was not a criticism article; it was a redirect to Apple Inc., if the head of the discussion is to be believed. Was "Criticism of Apple Inc." ever anything other than a redirect, whether to "Criticism of Apple", "Apple Inc.", or some other page? Guy Harris (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
The history of Criticism of Apple Inc. is visible at the present Apple supply chain, which was moved without redirect from Practices of Apple Inc.. See the diff of this page move ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
"Criticism of Apple Inc." was moved to "Practices of Apple Inc." with, as far as I know, a redirect. And "Practices of Apple Inc." was moved to Apple supply chain, but some redirect was created under the name "Practices of Apple Inc.", as "Practices of Apple Inc." was, like the redirect "Criticism of Apple Inc.", deleted after [Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 17#Practices of Apple Inc.|a discussion]].
I've recreated Criticism of Apple Inc. without the cruft or minute details. Please contribute if you like! I still think some of the sliced off articles could be trimmed down further, especially Environmental impact of Apple ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @Shushugah. Where did this material come from? Where can we see the original material you considered to be cruft or minute detail? ~Kvng (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Criticism about iPod design from 2006 or random blog about eco-packaging from a random year instead of a more thorough analysis of Apple’s eco practices would be two made up examples ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 19:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
@Shushugah this did not answer either of my questions though it sounds like you have access to a version of the original article. I'm concerned about attribution issues if we don't preserve the history, see WP:CWW. Also it would be good to have a consensus on what material makes the cut and we can't do that if you're the only one with access to the source material. ~Kvng (talk) 23:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I am not an admin and do not have any more or less access than you do. I recreated the article, without regard for what was there in the past. A fresh pair of eyes and assessing what would be relevant for a reader if we were to write this article from scratch. That said, the old history of Criticism of Apple Inc. is visible at the present Apple supply chain, which was moved without redirect from Practices of Apple Inc.. See the diff of this page move ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The history at Apple supply chain (no capital "s" in "supply") will show a bunch of history. See Talk:Apple Inc./Archive 10#Redirect to this page goes nowhere for a timeline as of 2024-01-25.

Summary:

(Do not assume from the current lack of a "Practices of Apple Inc." page that "Practices of Apple Inc." was renamed to Apple supply chain without a redirect; the redirect did exist at one point, otherwise a request to delete it would probably not have been made in the first place and, even if it were made, would have been shot down rather quickly as "there's nothing to delete!".)

So what questions remain? All of the moving of stuff out of the criticism/practices page are in the history of Apple supply chain, in entries for 2023-01-15 and 2023-01-16 (those might be a good source of additional pages to which the top-level criticism pages should refer). I don't know whether there was any discussion of those moves, or if User:DFlhb just acted boldly. Guy Harris (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Guy Harris and @Shushugah. Sorry that history was a bit hard for me to follow. I feared that the criticism article had been WP:BLARed and then the redirect deleted without considering its history. That turns out not to be the case. All questions resolved.
Shushugah's new article is a great start but it is 8K with 13 references while the old article was at one point 130K with 237 references. I suspect competent coverage lies somewhere between. We also should have a Criticism summary section in this article (Apple Inc.) with {{Main}} to Criticism of Apple Inc.. ~Kvng (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Sorry that history was a bit hard for me to follow. Yeah, the bulk of it is 21 edits by User:DFlhb, moving stuff into other articles, along with two renames and removal of the redirects left behind by those renames.
I suspect competent coverage lies somewhere between. Not all of the topics in the old article are covered yet. There's nothing abut the often-criticized App Store policies, for example. Guy Harris (talk) 03:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Even though there is lots more criticism to add, it looks off to a good start! It was hard to read the last time I saw it before the splits and eventual deletion. 173.217.111.76 (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
I recall several discussions on moving criticism to relevant articles and balancing out coverage of Apple throughout our articles (to follow WP:CSECTION), though those discussions are probably hard to find by now and I no longer care. DFlhb (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
It would be nice if someone who still cares would help us find those discussions. WP:CSECTION contains a paragraph that I think applies here: In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material. ~Kvng (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I found Talk:Apple_supply_chain#Strays_away_from_WP:POVFORK and Talk:Apple_supply_chain#"The_corporate_practices_of_Apple?"_too_subjective_perhaps_leading_to_essay. It looks like User:DFlhb did this reorganization boldly and most of the discussion came afterward. There's some criticism of the changes and also some support for the general tenants of the WP:CRIT essay (by a now-indefinitely-blocked editor) and incomplete discussion about additional reorganization. User:DFlhb's core argument for the reorganization is that Criticism of Apple Inc. and similar articles become a dumping ground that overwhelms readers and editors and can't be fixed. ~Kvng (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apple_Inc./Archive_10&oldid=1257341166"