Apple 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 Date Process Result January 2, 2006 Peer review Reviewed October 19, 2006 Good article nominee Listed October 25, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 14, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted November 16, 2012 Peer review Reviewed Current status: Delisted good article

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple 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. Computing Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Companies Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments California: San Francisco Bay Area High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as High-importance). Brands Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands 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.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. 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.

Template:Energy portal news

I noticed that the Infobox photograph of Apple corporate headquarters resembles a ghost town. One of the first rules of photography is to incorporate a scale into the picture. This picture must have been taken on Sunday or a national holiday. A replacement photo with people in the picture would be in order. Anthony22 (talk)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Watch#Fourth_generation Zach (talk) 05:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

 Done Sam Sailor 11:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. - Paul^T/_C 20:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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. - Paul^T/_C 21:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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))). - Paul^T/_C 02:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.) - Paul^T/_C 19:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. - Paul^T/_C 20:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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. - Paul^T/_C 20:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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. - Paul^T/_C 21:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers VaultGold (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. - Paul^T/_C 16:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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." - Paul^T/_C 16:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]