An event in this article is a April 1 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment).

Some older discussions from this page can be found at Talk:Apple Computer/archive

During the visit at PARC, they were also shown networking. Doesn't that mean that Apple's networking is a result of the PARC researchers?

I think some mention of the 1984 ad might be in order.

That's done--Chealer 23:27, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

This article seems to have deteriorated within the past few months. It used to have a lot of context, and was pretty good. Currently, the article mostly comprises of lists, and not much context/pictures. It also deserves a better lead, or at least two lengthly paragraphs. A summarized version of the History of Apple Computer article should be included in the History section. This article should be up to FA standard, but unfortunately it's not, let's change that. There are much better company articles on Wikipedia, for example see Microsoft or IBM as typical examples. Putting this article up for peer review might help, or maybe the Article Improvement Drive to get it ready for the Featured Article status that it deserves! — Wackymacs 18:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that: " CEO of Apple Computer also stated during his keynote address at the World Wide Developers Conference 2005, that the use of Mac OS X will continue well into the next two decades." I was not able to remember that sentence, to I reviewed the video. What Steve Jobs actually said was: "[OS X] has set Apple up for the next 20 years" (ca. 19:50), and I don't think the article reflects this quote accurately

I have never used an Apple before. One thing that has always confused me is Apple's mouse. A typical mouse has one button to Select items and the other button to access the Options. Well how in the world do I "right-click" if Apple's mouse only has one button? Do Apple operating systems even have a "right-click" options menu? I would appreciate any help. --Secret Agent Man 01:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "options" are listed in the pull-down menus at the top of the screen. As a Mac user, I would say that asking "How do I right click on a Mac?" is analagous to asking "How do I shift gears on a car with an automatic transmission?" -Exia 03:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thats easy! Chuck that dang one button mouse for a proper one! Or if your short on cash [and who isn't at one point], hold the cntl or control key while clicking. One thing should be known though about the Mac OS at face value.... the contextual menu is not VITAL for the interface like it is in other operating systems. But trust me on getting a new mouse. Hope that helps! peace folks! CoolFox 02:13, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Partly to drive my son (well, stepson, but he's more like me than his biological father) crazier, I use a MicroSoft mouse on my Mac G4 Powerbook. Oh, and no driver needed. Scroll wheel works too. No Plug-and-pr play nonsense. --WCFrancis 02:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Following September 11, 2001, Apple Computer began firing and facilitating the racially motivated deportation of dozens of segregated ethnic minorities, including individuals who had developed Mac OS X. Shortly thereafter, several Mac OS X-related projects were handed over to unqualified employees with no relevant Computer Science, or otherwise technical qualifications. Mac OS X has since changed very little, while tens of thousands of new bugs have been reported on it. OS X remains a historical remnant of Apple Computer's purchase of NeXT, being replaced by iPod as Apple's new hope for survival."

Is there a source on this? The last sentance in particular is factually inaccurate, there ahve been Substantial OS X changes (core video/audio, Quartz Extreme, etc) since release..

E1ven 03:03, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Nice try, so you remove a valid section of the Article because you take it personally when someone suggests something Negative about Apple, and then you replace it with a Homesexual Employees at Apple section and also use this as an opportunity to advertise Apple's marketing labels. Your "substantial" OSX Changes are just new Trademark and marketing labels that Apple uses on old existing products to make them look new.- Rostam Payamehr 11:00, Oct 25, 2005

First of all, that was over 10 months ago. Second of all, it's not a valid section if it's comprised of unfounded and unsubstantiated claims of racial discrimination. If you have a source, feel free to reference it and write a factual section. Bbatsell 18:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The following part of a paragraph is a bit POV, I believe. It is also factually wrong in a way, since customers only own a copy, and they aren't even allowed to do what they feel like with the copy without violating the EULA:

Also unlike other services, users actually own the music they purchase, and can burn the songs onto a CD, share and play the songs on up to 5 computers, and of course download songs onto an iPod, all with very few restrictions.

David Remahl 01:41, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, so be bold! Go edit it to make it correct. the iTMS license allows greater freadom with the music, but as you noted, the purchaser cannot do just anything they like. You could even say "it is much more like actually owning the music, only restrictions being ..." - Taxman 21:56, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

I've made corrections. David Fell 12:13, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Could add a section of past CEOs to the Apple as a Corporation section - since there are just 6, to me it makes sense to include their names instead of having a special page just for that. What do you think? Spangineer 18:00, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

It looks like he did it--Chealer 23:27, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

This has been moved here from user's talk page where it was inappropriate. The gist is that a revertion of [anon user]'s post took place. I agreed with the reversion, but the anon poster did not, not unnaturally.

Well I was surprised to see what I wrote was completely removed because someone thought it was POV. What should I do? Put it back in because I think what YOU did was because of your POV? Also I was surprised to see that you didnt find anything worth salvaging.

What I wrote was true: Apple uses top quality hardware, and used to use the best standards (like SCSI). But you seem to think that's not something to mention. I also noted that Apple's system stability was due to the quality of the hardware and Apple's quality assurance. You slashed that out too.

And especially you deleted the part about apple's misleading marketing campaigns, which are true. http://msnbc-cnet.com.com/2100-1042_3-5180251.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/technology/3797261.stm And the exaggerations of the thruth (which are already pointed in the article earlier, but RDF'd already). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_distortion_field

And about the claims of optimized drivers, many sites discuss this, among others: http://spl.haxial.net/apple-powermac-G5/

I hope you will reconsider and show the community that you are not a fascist apple zealot.

[post unsigned]

Since I started this whole thing (in a manner of speaking), here's my two cents on this. You raised several interesting issues in your edit. But you had very little factual content surrounded with a lot of opinion. And even the factual content was phrased in either a POV manner or appeared irrelevant to the article.

As for Apple's "system stability", that is indeed a controversial issue. No doubt you are right, being above me and Graham and every other "smartass".

"I'm really tired to answer to every single smartass who thinks he's better than everyone else and actually it's just talking shit."

Whatever. But if you want to participate on Wikipedia, it is really necessary to consider the possiblity, remote as it may seem, that you may have let in a biased perspective into your edit. From my viewpoint, I've seen this "system stability" argued over and over again, and regardless of my own conclusions, I realize it's not as simple as you want to make it. Therefore, whether I agree with your basic sentiment is irrelevant. What is relevant is that we maintain Wikipedia's NPOV policy as best as we can.

I can't even see how you can bring up the marketing thing with a straight face. Your edit contains many statements like, "Because of the reasons explained above, Apple hardware and software is usually "better" than PC, but also more expensive. " Now, to give you credit, you do put quotes around the word 'better', but that shows how ambiguous it all is. Then you go criticize Apple by saying, "Their ads often try to be friendly by using simple words like "best", "fastest", "friendlier" but upon closer examination, these words have no context." Well, ok, that's marketing for you. But then the same applies to your edit that I reverted!

Graham is correct that my intent in my revert was to avoid "rehash[ing] the very tired boring old arguments about which is "better"" and keeping Wikipedia encyclopedic in nature. Perhaps some of your points can be reformed into something appropriate, but frankly, I don't see how to do it. --Chan-Ho Suh 07:00, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Chan-Ho Suh's edit 100%. As a Mac user I privately agree with some of what you wrote, but the problem is that what you wrote and how you wrote it has no place in an encyclopedia, which is trying only to concern itself with actual facts, not opinions. In addition the credibility of work provided under an anonymous IP address in my view has far less weight than someone who has taken the trouble to register, but that's just my opinion. Also, the article in question is about Apple, the company, not Macintosh, the computer - but that should not be taken to mean that your entry would be any more welcome there in its current form. here's what is wrong:

"Until recent years, before the GNU/Linux Operating System became sort of mainstream, personal computer users were divided in PC users and Apple users. Due to the incompatibilities of both systems, people who adopted one type of computer was usually bound to the standards of that particular platform, like document formats and hardware expansions."

This ignores the history of the personal computer, where there were many competing systems and standards long before it gelled into the 2 camps of today. In addition, many would argue that PCs and Macs were more compatible than this would suggest - many file formats, disks, etc were interchangeable even in the early days.

"Apple computers used to be better, and more expensive, than PCs because of the kind of hardware used."

Pure opinion. Comparisons such as "better" have no place in an encyclopedia.

"SCSI Is faster, more efficient, more reliable and more expensive than IDE"

If this is a fact, it would be very hard to prove (especially the reliability claim). Since most disk mechanisms are mechanically identical whether IDE or SCSI, and reliability is generally a mechanical issue, I doubt this claim is even true. In addition, the level of technical detail you go into here and in other places is not warranted in a general article about Appel Computer (the company).

"Apple not only used the best standards (SCSI, RS-422, and lots of others), "

Again, using the term "best" is pure POV. RS-422 is better than what? In what way? Can you quantify it?

"... also used the best quality available"

How do you know this is a fact? Do you have access to Apple's inventory and purchasing records? Also, again, how would you quantify it?

"But if Apple decided to use standars analog at what they used in the 80's, their computers would be faster --and again more expensives than PCs."

Apart from being speculation and opinion, this sentence is not grammatical.

"Hardware for PC is usually compatible with Apple products, like PCI expansion cards, memory, hard drives and such, so one can upgrade an Apple computer with "generic", less expensive hardware. But usually buying Apple "brand name" hardware guarantees a tested product, with extended warranty periods and such."

Possibly true, but not interesting in the context of an encyclopedia article.

"Another issue with PCs was, for a long time, system stability....[]"

This was also an issue with Macs and most other computer systems before quite recently. However the main problem with this para (I've omitted the rest of it for brevity) is that it comes across as a piece of typical propaganda - or more crudely Mac fanboyism. As such it has no place in an encyclopedia.

"[]... buggy drivers on the best hardware are worst than good drivers on bad hardware".

POV.

"The problem is worse because manufacturers try to get their products on the market as soon as possible and often deliver it with untested drivers which makes the computer freeze, or at least, not to behave as expected"

Can you prove this with evidence? Do you have access to manufacturers' internal release policy documents? Or are you simply spouting rubbish based on your own prejudices? The rest of that para (omitted) is just rambling opinion.

"Because of the reasons explained above, Apple hardware and software is usually "better" than PC, but also more expensive"

"better" is a purely subjective notion, and hence POV. If it's a fact, it must be quantifiable. Wikipedia is not a place for the deconstruction of advertisements and marketing campaigns. You can state the facts, you cannot offer your own interpretation, etc. You can say "Apple's marketing campaign for the G5, claiming it was "the world's fastest personal computer" was criticised by the UK's Advertising Standards Authority as "misleading". Those are the facts, neutrally reported, and they are reported in this manner elsewhere within WP.

"All of this leads to some kind of seggregation between PC and Apple Mac users, which claim each of their systems are better or worse. But usually PC users are not aware of even the existence of the Apple system. On the other hand, more Apple users are more conscious about their system and promote some kind of advocacy for their systems. "PC fans" and "Apple fans" usually don't get along and get involved in endless (some would say, pointless) discussions between themselves. Sadly, Apple (the corporation) just deepens this breach with their marketing campaigns, which some PC users consider 'offensive', mainly because of the lies (or just partly untrue statements), which makes "PCs look bad"."

Well, you said it. Again, the wording of this is just not encyclopedic. There could be the basis here for an article such as "PC vs. Mac fanboyism", but to be honest it's all been covered elsewhere at great length. Try Operating system advocacy, Comparison of operating systems, and so on - all of these stick to the facts.

The main issue here is not whether or not I agree with what you're saying - in large part I do. The issue is whether your opinions count as a worthwhile contribution to an encyclopedia. We are concerned only with the facts. Reported facts can include verifyable quotations of others' opinions - like the ASA's above, but they should not be opinions in and of themselves. When you've understood the difference, your points might find a home. However, there are already many many articles on WP about PCs and Macs with probably all of this ground already covered.Graham 02:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry if my wording doesn't meet an encyclopedic level (whatever that level must be), as I'm not a native english speaker so my words may not be ellegant but I find them to be understandable enough.

"Apple computers used to be better, and more expensive, than PCs because of the kind of hardware used."

Pure opinion. Comparisons such as "better" have no place in an encyclopedia.

I meant, generic low-grade PCs. What's wrong with "better"? That's YOUR opinion.

"SCSI Is faster, more efficient, more reliable and more expensive than IDE"

If this is a fact, it would be very hard to prove (especially the reliability claim). Since most disk mechanisms are mechanically identical whether IDE or SCSI, and reliability is generally a mechanical issue, I doubt this claim is even true. In addition, the level of technical detail you go into here and in other places is not warranted in a general article about Appel Computer (the company).

I take it for granted that you don't know ANYTHING about high-end hardware. For example, and I'm not going to spend my time googling it for you, SCSI drives are NOT "mechanically identical" to IDE drives. IDE drives are designed for quiet, self-cooling operation. In contrast, SCSI drives are designed without noise levels in mind, and most need extra cooling, because they are designed for high performance and high reliability. And about reliability, for some reason SCSI drives have a MTBF (mean time between failures) of 1.000.000 - 1.500.000 hours, while IDE drives have MTBFs of about 150.000 hours. SCSI drives are also prepared for a higher duty cycle (40 - 50%_ than IDEs (20%). How do you measure all that? Get some drives, put them on an array and let them chunk away for a few days. You'll find more dead IDE drives (10 times more, in average).

"Another issue with PCs was, for a long time, system stability....[]"

This was also an issue with Macs and most other computer systems before quite recently. However the main problem with this para (I've omitted the rest of it for brevity) is that it comes across as a piece of typical propaganda - or more crudely Mac fanboyism. As such it has no place in an encyclopedia.

I'm not a Mac fanboy. I don't even own one!

"Apple not only used the best standards (SCSI, RS-422, and lots of others), "

Again, using the term "best" is pure POV. RS-422 is better than what? In what way? Can you quantify it?

RS-422 (Apple standard serial port) is better than RS-232 (PC standard serial port). It's better in the sense of speed (10Mbits/sec vs. 115200bps) and cable length (15m vs 1200m). But you didn't know that, did you?

I was actually going to answer to every single of your points but really, it's a waste of time. I don't care anymore, do whatever you want with the article. I'm really tired to answer to every single smartass who thinks he's better than everyone else and actually it's just talking shit. As far as I know my points are as valid as yours. Wait. They are more valid, because mine are not based 100% in opinions. Most of my points are verifiable while yours are just opinions. Here's an article for you to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standards As in "I THINK AN ARTICLE BASED ON WHAT I THINK ARE JUST OPINIONS DOESN'T BELONG IN AN ENCYCLOPEDIA"

[post unsigned]

Well, whatever. I'm an electronics engineer and professional software developer actually, so I do know a lot of what I'm talking about. However, as you've decided to take offence rather than just enter into a sensible debate, the matter is closed. You might have had one or two valid points that could have been defended, but instead you decided to throw a tantrum, which means that your article now has exactly zero chance of going anywhere. I didn't realise you were not an English native speaker - that does explain a lot. For example, the word "better" does not mean "faster", though faster might imply better in some contexts. If you want your writing to be taken seriously, you have to understand these differences. This is not a personal attack, but that's how it is. By the way, if you actually bother to read what I wrote, you'll see that I have not put forward my opinions, which I have kept to myself. Instead, I have pointed out the deficiencies in your article based on the standards we as a community have set for ourselves. If you are unable to take that as constructive criticism then you won't last five seconds here, since everyone's work (mine included) is subjected to thousands of corrections every day. If you can't take the heat....

Incidentally, just to take up one point you have quite wrong. I have two hard drives in front of me. One is a Seagate 320MB SCSI internal, the other a Seagate 700MB IDE internal. (Yes, they are old). Removing the PCBs from both drives, I can see at a glance they are mechanically identical. These drives were at one time fitted to Macs (different models). The story may be different in very high end rack-mounted raid systems and the like these days, but for the average drive fitted to an average desktop computer, MTBF rates are about the same since the only difference is the control electronics, not the mechanics of the drive. As far as I am aware, Apple never fitted anything other than these average-type SCSI drives to their machines, and Apple haven't used SCSI disks since about 1998. But if you're comparing a modern pro RAID type SCSI disk to the average IDE disk, then your figures may be correct (I haven't bothered to check), but they have nothing to do with desktop PCs or Macs that ever actually existed.

Finally, what tires me is the continual attempts by people (whatever platform they favour) to rehash the very tired boring old arguments about which is "better" on these pages. This is an encyclopedia. If you want to engage in these arguments, there are thousands of forums all over the web where you can do so, and I'm sure you'll find plenty of willing idiots ready to debate it with you. But WP is not a forum for platform advocacy, which is really what the reasons for revertion of your edit amounts to. Graham 05:31, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

bleh

I brought the following section out of the page because it's an arguably specific info in an already quite long page. Maybe there's a better place for this? BTW, what's Fried?--Chealer 01:32, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)

Fried refers to CNet reporter Ina Fried, I believe this piece in particular: Apple Drinks Its Own Juice.--jsnell 2005, Jun 1

On January 8, 2004 at the Macworld Conference & Expo in San Francisco, Apple revealed information about its own internal data center with which it runs the company. The following is a partial list of products it used as revealed during the 2004 Expo, with each product followed by its applications, according to D. Rally, who at that time was Apple's senior IT director (as cited in Fried, 2004). It should be noted that such information could change constantly, and judging from Apple's past information-disclosure practices (Fried, 2004), it is possible that a similar public revelation will never occur again.

• Apple Xserve servers and Apple Xserve RAID systems
  • Serving web pages, applications, and other data
  • Data storage
  • Authentication and security
• Servers from Sun Microsystems
  • "Powering" its email systems
• Servers running the IBM AIX operating system
• Microsoft Office (for the Mac platform)
• PeopleSoft 8
  • Customer relationship management
• Software from i2
  • Forecasting
• Products and/or services from SAP (which Apple has used for a long time)
  • Warranty and Service Management - SAP R/3

Furthermore, according to Fried (2004), Apple "[used] its own products for most desktop tasks, including e-mail, instant messaging and Web browsing." Presumably, these products were Apple Mail, iChat, and Safari, respectively.

For data storage, Apple over the years has used servers from EMC, then IBM, and by 2005, it plans to use mostly Xserve servers.

Nothing important, but what releases does the article talk about with "This reversed the earlier trend within Microsoft that resulted in poor Mac versions of their software and resulted in several award-winning releases." Releases of Mac OS?--Chealer 01:52, 2004 Dec 8 (UTC)

Releases of MS Office for the Mac.--RicardoC 01:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've pulled this couple of sentences.

By 2003 Apple's share of the personal computer market had dwindled to around 5%. In 2004, Apple lost second place in marketshare around the world (estimated 3%) to Linux which will rised to control 5.1% of the desktop market, worldwide.

Does anyone have a reliable source for any of these numbers? AlistairMcMillan 14:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Apple_Computer article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Apple_Computer}} to this page. — LinkBot 10:30, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article on Carl Sagan doesn't include information on the Sagan/Apple disagreement anymore

From the article "In 2001, Apple introduced Mac OS X, an operating system based on NeXT's NeXTstep, that finally marries the stability, reliability and security of Unix with the ease of use of the Macintosh interface in an OS targeted at professionals and consumers alike."

Isn’t the above statement to much POV? I type this on a Powerbook, but its stability, reliability, security and ease of use is still a POV, not a fact. Of course you can support that POV with good arguments, i.e. statistics of how often a OS X computer is attacked compared with how often a Windows machine is attacked, or semi-professional studies of people preferences on ease of use, but it is still POV. If nobody has any objections, I will soon change the above statement. M4c 15:35, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The recent history section is incomplete, and pretty random on the things it does cover. So I've made it my mission to clean it up and improve the coverage. I have split it in two, 1984-1997 and 1998-present, because they really are two eras. I've also added a paragraph on the Apple IIc and Apple IIgs.

There's lots more to do. The major problem is that it's disjointed: it jumps from one random little thing to another, rather than working through the important trends. I'll continue working on it when I have the time. But in the meantime, please help if you can. —RadRafe 09:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Progress report: '84-'97 improves ever more, but we still have to add a paragraph about what a royal mess Apple's product line and strategy were in the early to mid '90s, the Spindler-Amelio era. I figure that once we've done that, we've finished the essentials of the section. Again, help is appreciated. —RadRafe | t 19:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I know this subject has been beaten to death, but I was looking at the article Apple Bonjour, and the naming for the article is just wrong. The phrase "apple bonjour" does not appear anywhere as a phrase on apple's site [1]. If anything, it shows up as "Apple - Bonjour" in the title or "Apple's Bonjour". If we were to follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions, the title would be Bonjour (protocol). Similar reasoning stands to change the names for Apple Automator, Apple Darwin, Apple Dashboard and Apple Spotlight. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:23, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I think you are welcome to rename articles according to the naming conventions. I will go ahead moves. -- Taku 23:53, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have heard someone talking about the apple logo (the apple with a bite out of it) being based on the great mathemetician, code breaker and pioneer in computing, Alan Turing, commiting suicide by poisoning and apple and then eating it. Is this true? Any comments greatly appreciated.

Well, you are free to associate the logo with it in your mind, but I'm not certain Rob Janoff (who designed it) would even have heard of Turing. A lot of works are open to a wide range of interpretations that their creators didn't even intend, and I think this is the case with Apple's logo. I have read that Janoff took the bite out of the apple so that it wouldn't be mistaken for a tomato. That may be all there is to it. —RadRafe

And the colors were supposed to be arranged like a rainbow, but Steve Jobs rearranged them.

A user put in the article about how the AMD Opteron was actually the first 64 bit processor avalible in personal machines... I was under the impression that the Opteron at that time was limited to the server segment. Comments please? --CoolFox 15:53, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

True, Opteron was only for the servers, and even in that, it was not the first 64-bit chip. And, even if Opterons were for personal machines, G5 was shipped before Opteron (Although the Opteron name was announced first). SO, G5 is the first ever 64-bit processsor on a personal machine, not Opteron. That line should be changed

Well, it happend folks... hell has practically frozen over. Apple officialy stated in today's keynote that they will begin using Intel x86 chips as soon as early next year. Personaly, I find this a very bi-latteral move on Apple's part. It can help them immensly by wedging into the Microsoft Windows market, but it leaves many hardcore mac fans somewhat betrayed. I also question the furtherablity of the Pentium 4... hopefully Apple will be using a different chip that Intel is producing by then. Pentium M [Yona], anyone? Comments please! --CoolFox 19:33, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

• • ::Shakes thermostat:: Yep, pretty close to freezing. Let's see, deep throat revealed, check. Apple using intel processors, check. Hmm, I am just waiting on the opening of a lemondae stand at area 51. --Ctrl build^talk File:Columbia SEAS.GIF 19:44, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer that they use IA-64 instead of x86. x86 is outdated and no longer has any room for extension. Itanium is flexible enough to be used not only in workstations and servers, but for mobiles as well (Itanium 2's low power variants are getting better). Intel will benefit because of the design win from Apple, and Apple will benefit by getting a superior design that can be produced in huge quantities. With Itanium, Apple will dominate both the desktop and server markets in price/performance. Also, they avoid the x86 and CISC world, and go beyond their old RISC chips. C'mon, Apple, please use IA-64 instead! EPIC beats CISC and RISC. Think different! Think in the long term! Otherwise, Apple will change again in 2015!

If Apple used the IA-64, they might have a hard time with overhead, just like with the G4 fiassco we had in the late ninties... the Itanium is not a high yeild processor, and it is a very pricey chip to put in mainstream equipment, but I agree that the Itanium is a very powerful, very flexible platform to use. If the bugs can be worked out, by all means, I'm sure that Apple will migrate to that chip. Besides, Apple said nothing about using the Pentium line exclusively, and I haven't seen much release as to if they are going to use the Pentium at all, but it is the most likely the course that Apple will take. I have read several reports that Apple will NOT use the Prescott [late Pentium 4] architecture found in the aluminum development boxes that are currently being distributed (thank goodness), they will be using a new line of "beefcaked" Pentium M based chips [yes, the Pentium M, Intel's Centrino processor], including the dual core chips [Pentium D] are currently in the development pipeline. Coupled with HyperThreading, dual core chips would have a total of 4 logical processors, that is if Intel allows Apple to put 2 processors in their machines. Anyway, if Apple is going to use the newer souped up "M", then this expains why Steve was talking about performance per watt, as the Pentium M is extremely effecient in that respect, unlike the incredilby hot running, inefficient Prescott, that can run even hotter thatn a G5. Futhermore, Intel has announced that they will migrate all of their chips [sans the Celeron] to a 64 bit achitecture, so there is little reason to worry that Apple will back themselfs into a corner. But for saftey's sake, I really hope they don't. Peace folks. --CoolFox 18:39, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

It's only good IF they put OSX on x86... Otherwise it's going to be the same ole 5% market share for Apple with a bunch of angry software devs.--66.25.63.245 15:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They will. --Ihope127 18:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the mission statement ("to make the power of computing available and accessible to everyone") because it is no longer current. The new one is here, but I would suggest we leave it out of the article -- or at least the lead -- because it would be redundant. Bbpen 21:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I split out the Litigation into its own section, leaving everything that had been in "Apple as a Corporation" intact. I added two of the most notable cases in Apple legal history, Apple v. Franklin and Apple v. Microsoft, both of which have extensive articles but were not mentioned in the main Apple article. I also added the current iPod battery class-action settlement.

I feel that the two domain-squatting cases are beneath notice for encyclopedic content. Apple has sued or been sued thousands of times, and these two cybersquatting cases don't affect consumers, didn't set precedents, and didn't materially affect the operations or reputation of the firm. I recommend they be removed. cde 05:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The section on the Does/ThinkSecret cases is horribly out of date and factually inaccurate (the judge specifically mentioned in the Does case that the question of whether journalists are bloggers is not at issue). Will update if/when I get time, but if anyone wants to do it before me, feel free. [User:ianbetteridge|ianbetteridge]]

I'm removing the Wiki at the top of this article. Intel Apple is not an article, it is a poorly written non-encyclopedic stub which should not have been made into a separate Wikipedia entry, especially with a title like that. Furthermore, that Apple will adopt Intel chips is already stated in the Apple Computer article in more depth and more proper English than the contents of that stub. Ramallite ^(talk) 12:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to split off the bulk of the sections on Apple's history into a main article, History of Apple Computer, and leave summaries in their place. That may get Apple Computer down to preferred article size. In fact, I'm planning a major copyedit of the history sections, but I want to get some approval first, to make sure that I won't be disrupting something inconsiderately. —RadRafe 00:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a key editor, so I couldn't answer that. However, if you want people to read your comment, give it a title that descibes it; "A proposal" is too general. Not like it's a bad thing though, but I still expanded the title a bit. I think you'll get more responses now :) HereToHelp 22:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Computer, Inc.

Company type	Public (NASDAQ: AAPL)
Industry	Computer hardware and software
Founded	California (April 1, 1976)
Headquarters	Cupertino, California, USA
Key people	Steve Jobs, CEO Timothy D. Cook, COO Peter Oppenheimer, CFO Philip W. Schiller, SVP Marketing Jonathan Ive, VP Industrial Design
Products	Mac OS X iMac Power Mac PowerBook iBook iPod Apple Cinema Display Mac mini Xserve AirPort QuickTime iLife iTunes iWork Mighty Mouse
Revenue	$8.279 billion USD ($2.1B FY 2004)
Number of employees	13,426 (2004)
Website	www.apple.com

I'm not sure exactly what it's called, but I mean the thing on the left at the beginning of the article. This is currently only on this page, should it be used for all the Apple products? I think that it's a good idea, providing basic info and all the links needed to get to all the other major Apple pages. Anyone else have a veiw?

It could just be extra info someone added on. Microsoft has a similar one as well. Kenny M.

Then why waste that effort? I think it should be on all the Apple pages.