Talk:Apple Inc.: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Vanished user 8376539 (talk | contribs)
m Revision: new sections go at the bottom of the page
Ryan Norton (talk | contribs)
Revision: criticism sections
Line 102: Line 102:


The "Microsoft" article includes a section on criticism ,as do the pages of most businesses, but the "Apple Inc." article has no such section. There is certainly some documented criticism of Apple; see the "Criticism of Apple Inc." article. To keep the "Apple Inc." article free from bias, a summary of the "Criticism of Apple Inc." article should be added as a section of the "Apple Inc." article, and the section should have a link to the "Criticism of Apple Inc." article. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/50.113.2.65|50.113.2.65]] ([[User talk:50.113.2.65|talk]]) 09:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
The "Microsoft" article includes a section on criticism ,as do the pages of most businesses, but the "Apple Inc." article has no such section. There is certainly some documented criticism of Apple; see the "Criticism of Apple Inc." article. To keep the "Apple Inc." article free from bias, a summary of the "Criticism of Apple Inc." article should be added as a section of the "Apple Inc." article, and the section should have a link to the "Criticism of Apple Inc." article. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/50.113.2.65|50.113.2.65]] ([[User talk:50.113.2.65|talk]]) 09:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Criticism sections in general are bad - the criticism (or summary thereof) should be in the article itself. Microsoft isn't the greatest example either - I worked with others to restructure the page to put the criticism in the rest of the article to flow better. But, Wikipedia being what it is, a year (or more) later or so when I and the others were gone some one just put the thing back and due to the decreased activity it just stayed. Besides, a criticism section or lack thereof has nothing to do with POV - generally one part of the article can't be biased and then justify it with a section that is biased in the opposite direction. [[User:Ryan Norton|Ryan Norton]] 15:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:17, 2 June 2013

Former good articleApple Inc. was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 2, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
October 19, 2006Good article nomineeListed
October 25, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 14, 2008Good article reassessmentDelisted
November 16, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Delisted good article

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage


Corporate Culture Section

"Numerous employees of Apple have cited that projects without Jobs' involvement often take longer than projects with his involvement."

"take" Should be replaced with "took", showing past tense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.110.115 (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thank you. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finance

In the article, it discusses that the "effective tax rate to the UK Treasury is only 3 percent"; actually it's globally only 1.9%.[1] Perhaps it can be mentioned that Apple uses the double Irish with a Dutch sandwich method to attain this low percentage.109.130.150.229 (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Unknown mind behind the iPhone

On June 2005, Sir William McKelly had a dream inwhich his apple computer shrunk down to the size of his hand. This dream provided Sir William with the idea that would later become the iPhone, a device that revolutionized the cell phone industry. Although few know of his brilliance, Sir William lives on a private estate in Hawaii collecting royalties off of iPhone sales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.40.151.66 (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't find any citable evidence of this fact, or even of Mckelly's existence. He is not listed on the (incomplete, but fairly comprehensive) list of those to have received British Honours. Also, it contradicts known, cited knowledge of Apple development. For him to receive royalties would suggest he was an integral part of the design process, but not paid wages in the manner of the chief designer, Sir Jony Ive. There is no record of any such person's involvement in the iPhone project, or its predecessor, the iPod Touch. drewmunn talk 06:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 31 May 2013

Please change the traded as field in the infobox from just NASDAQ to NASDAQ:AAPL. Ticker is not available which is misleading. Harykris (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Revision

This page isn't fluent in certain places. There is repetitive information that doesn't make sense in the 'Environmental record' paragraph of this page. Xzaviur (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Xzaviur[reply]

The "Microsoft" article includes a section on criticism ,as do the pages of most businesses, but the "Apple Inc." article has no such section. There is certainly some documented criticism of Apple; see the "Criticism of Apple Inc." article. To keep the "Apple Inc." article free from bias, a summary of the "Criticism of Apple Inc." article should be added as a section of the "Apple Inc." article, and the section should have a link to the "Criticism of Apple Inc." article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.113.2.65 (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism sections in general are bad - the criticism (or summary thereof) should be in the article itself. Microsoft isn't the greatest example either - I worked with others to restructure the page to put the criticism in the rest of the article to flow better. But, Wikipedia being what it is, a year (or more) later or so when I and the others were gone some one just put the thing back and due to the decreased activity it just stayed. Besides, a criticism section or lack thereof has nothing to do with POV - generally one part of the article can't be biased and then justify it with a section that is biased in the opposite direction. Ryan Norton 15:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]