Talk:Apple Inc.

The Logo

Citizendium does not have a policy on fair use at this time, which the Apple logo definitely falls under. Should the Apple logo even have been uploaded in the first place? See Image_talk:Apple_Logo.png Eric M Gearhart

Apple Inc.

Is this the right place for this article? Should it be moved to Apple Inc (without the period at the end)? --Eric M Gearhart 04:51, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

I'm not even sure if there's a policy here, but while a period is relatively innocuous, I've seen examples of how formatting or unusual characters in page names can be troublesome (suc h as E₈ at Wikipedia). A policy of dropping all punctuation might not be wise, as we need to be able to handle cases like Prisoner's Dilemma. Greg Woodhouse 14:04, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

I've already seen one bug with this name. I use the automatic e-mail notification along with gmail-notify to be alerted when someone edits a page I'm watching. When I click the link in the e-mail to this article, it gives me a 404 of the article Apple Inc (which should be re-directed to here anyways). I propose we rename this to Apple Incorporated. --Joshua David Williams 14:07, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

Consumer Loyalty - biased?

I quote this section in its entirety:

Apple has long benefited from an unusually high level of consumer affiliation and product loyalty, although it has had its fair share of scandals including the highly publicized and long running legal battles with The Beatles' record company, Apple corp., and the recent Stock Option backdating scandal.

In my opinion, this is really not a section about consumer loyalty at all, but polemic directed against Apple and users of Apple computers. There is nothing wrong with including material regarding lawsuits or other legal issues. But this section should be removed or significantly rewritten. Greg Woodhouse 13:35, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

That's precisely what I thought when I read it. Be assured that it will be re-written. --Joshua David Williams 13:36, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

I went ahead and divided it into two separate (very stubby) sections. Does that seem to help? I think it does, although it says the same thing :) --Joshua David Williams 13:39, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

Yes, that is an impovement. Greg Woodhouse 13:44, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

Grammar

I'm just making sure, It's OK to have a period after "Inc.", right? That's two periods in a row which looks a bit funny. Andrew Swinehart 19:07, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

No, the correct format is to use only one period. --Joshua David Williams 19:10, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Bias again

Every time I look at this article there seems to be another sleight against Apple. Most of them hardle seem worthy of comment (and are often even simple matter of fact statements) when taken in isolation. But as a whole, the article seems rather biased, or even snide in tone. For example, someone just added a comment that iPhone is Apple's "self-acclaimed" next generation telephone. Well, yes, that's true. That description is marketing. But is it really function of an encyclopedia to make snide comments about Apple, or any other company? Truth in advertising: I'm typing this in on a Mac right now. I don't even own a computer running Windows, but I don't think it would be right to edit an article about Microsoft (or Linux, or your favorite Linux based company) and throw in little taunts or sarcastic comments about those companies or comments.

I don't know if the constables will write to me and say this comment isn't appropriate. Maybe they should. But you know what? This isn't right, either. We ought to be able to write about Apple, Microsoft, or the Apache Foundation without all this editorializing in the process. Greg Woodhouse 22:37, 19 April 2007 (CDT)

writing this on a MAC, iPhone is not out YET but is acclaimed as being the next gen. Whether it will be, time will tell. Nothing bias there other then the attempts of other companies to try to mimick some of the features. Written by a 26 year long apple user. Robert Tito |  Talk 

That's what I mean. Taken in isolation, each of those statements is a matter of fact observation, and I have no real criticism of the statement about the iPhone. But taken as a whole, things are different. I don't think the article needs to be a marketing piece, but neither does it need to be "Apple Inc. Annoyances". Greg Woodhouse 12:27, 20 April 2007 (CDT)

Criticisms

I'm not really a firm believer that we should be highlighting companies dirty laundry here as it really is a poor exhibition of article mechanics. I would like to defer to an editor, or even Larry to see if it's something that should be included in articles. --Robert W King 18:24, 6 January 2008 (CST)

• Apple has had a number of highly publicized legal battles, including the long-running trademark disputes with the Beatles' record company, Apple Corps Ltd., and the recent stock option backdating scandal.
• Wikiscanner reveals that people at Apple have edited Wikipedia articles about Microsoft to add more negative comments about their rival.
• Apple has been criticized for locking-in its customers who own an iPod, making it impossible for them to buy music somewhere else than at the iTunes Music Store.
• In 2006, sweatshop conditions were reported in Chinese iPod factories, with people working for 15-hour shifts, sleeping in dormitories and earning a 50$ a month salary.
• Apple was also criticized for not having a full-fledged recycling program like its competitors.
• Activists protested against DRM used for iPods.
• Two class-action lawsuits were filed against Apple in San Jose on October 5th. In both cases, Apple is accused of unfair business practices and violations of antitrust, telecommunications and warranty laws. The federal lawsuit alleges that AT&T and Apple conspired from the very beginning to maintain their monopoly.

OK. Let's see what happens. -- The creator of the "dirty laundry list" (Hugo Voisard) :-)

This is an issue that needs a full discussion on the Forums, and then an official and clear policy articulated by the Editorial Council. On the one hand, CZ must not become a clearing-house for negative information collected by activists who hate all large corporations (or anyone in authority) on principle. On the other hand, CZ must not censor perfectly valid information without extremely good reason. The general philosophical question, which we must consider soberly, not as activists but as writers of knowledge works, is: how best should criticisms and scandals be placed within long narratives introducing and summing up what is known about topics? What general rules can we make about how to handle "dirty laundry" and (often politically motivated) criticism? --Larry Sanger 22:34, 6 January 2008 (CST)