This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Apple Inc. Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This was a redirect to Apple Inc. - a page with little in the way of criticism - when it was nominated for deletion; that redirect was deleted. The article was recreated as a summary of criticism of Apple, with links to more detailed discussion on other pages. Guy Harris (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1][2][3][4] 2600:1700:E6A0:EC0:79B8:7B69:45A2:63C8 (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ApoieRacional: Instead of continuing to edit war, let's unpack this and discuss it like civilized editors. "Bad Apple" is not referred to once anywhere else in this article. There is no justification that I can see for mentioning it in the first place, other than to be like "hey look this term exists." Even a Google search for "bad apple" doesn't produce any results related to the company. If it was a popular and more frequently used term, I could see the reason for adding it to the article, but as it stands, I don't think it needs to be included just because it exists out in the world. GSK (talk • edits) 23:58, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To any interested parties, a discussion was briefly had about this subject on my talk page. It ended with me choosing to leave the conversation. For that reason and others, I will not be responding to any further discussion regarding this topic. GSK (talk • edits) 02:22, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following this dispute, the sentence as added to the lead by ApoieRacional about the epithet, “Bad Apple” was removed, along with its references. The references do not themselves appear to be poor quality though, and editors may wish to mine them individually for material useful to writing this page: EPI: “Bad Apple labor practices” 2012, Raconteur: “Bad Apple: why is the tech giant trying to trademark a fruit?” 2023, Oxford Tax: “A Bad Apple Ruling” 2024, CRN: “Bad Apple: An Inside look At The Rotting Relationship Between Apple And Its Partners” 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HTGS (talk • contribs)