Talk:Apple Inc.

The article for the most part (especially compared to other articles about Big Tech) sounds like an employee wrote it as an ad. There needs to be "criticisms of/against Apple" or similar section that also links to Criticism of Apple Inc. Feinbecausewhynot (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree Luka Maglc (talk) 07:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the lead says

Apple has received criticism regarding its contractors' labor conditions, its relationship with trade unions, its environmental practices, and its corporate ethics, including anti-competitive tactics, materials sourcing, and its acquisitions of smaller businesses. Nevertheless, the company has a large following and enjoys a high level of customer loyalty. Despite struggling to find footing in the artificial intelligence field and several high profile departures in 2025, Apple has consistently been ranked as one of the world's most valuable brands since the late 2000s.

and that links to Criticism of Apple Inc. and to several pages about topics such as the supply chain, relationship with unions, and anti-competitive practices (those are linked to by the main Criticism of Apple Inc. page, as much of the commentary there was moved into those pages). Guy Harris (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Seperate contents section should also directly link there.

Yet; even then, I believe it'll still not be enough as the criticism page is sub-par compared to something like Amazon (company) Feinbecausewhynot (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

There are few global companies as widely subjected to criticism as Amazon (heck, I was hating them back when all they did was disrupt the book trade and drive independent booksellers to bankruptcy and/or suicide); that's not really a good yardstick. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:58, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I believe most people will be fine with classifying Apple as one of the said few companies. That aside, I believe that the pages of very big corporations will always essentialy always be ads due to the sheer amount of marketing there’ll be from different sources. Feinbecausewhynot (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Seperate contents section should also directly link there. I.e., sections should have "for more information" or "main article" links to Criticism of Apple Inc.?

I believe it'll still not be enough as the criticism page is sub-par compared to something like Amazon (company) Then the correct answer would be to improve Criticism of Apple Inc., right? Guy Harris (talk) 17:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

i've proposed to merge that page here. I think that should fix problems here and there. Theonethatknowsyouripaddress (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

"Criticism of" is a roundabout way to violate the neutral point of view policy. The article should be written in compliance with WP:IMPARTIAL. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

As one user already wrote, the Criticism of Apple article is prominently linked in the lead. Aside from that, this article already includes criticism in prose (e.g., criticism regarding privacy, labor conditions, loss of the company's original character, etc.). Please be specific in why you think this article reads like it was written by an employee. The lack of a dedicated criticism section alone is not a valid reason in itself to call the article one-sided. Maxeto0910 (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Sure why not ;) Cenchros Roseus (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please revert the InternetArchiveBot edit from 20 September 2025. Citation rescue not needed and formatting was disrupted.

Also requesting removal of personal information (email, phone number, SIM, location, etc.) for privacy protection.

Please ensure only the main Facebook account (Donnie Geisler) is referenced. Remove any fake or duplicate accounts.

Edit request: revert bot edit, remove personal info, clean up duplicates Metacleanup2025 (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. GSK (talk • edits) 16:43, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@ConeKota: It is complete overkill and unnecessary to have three instances of Apple's names bolded in the first paragraph of the lead section; this high density of bold text makes the lead look cluttered and adds nothing of value to readers. The text looks cleaner and more focused without this unnecessary bolded text, especially on mobile devices with a smaller screen. It is also not a requirement to use bolded text for every term that redirects to an article per MOS:BOLD. Maxeto0910 (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Half of this section describes general labor pool figures, perhaps a bit disproportional as context. Would a better name for this section be something along the lines of "Workforce (distribution)"? Even if the name itself isn't changed the first paragraph could also potentially just be moved out elsewhere. Ash.tahno (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Greetings and felicitations. I just made a very large edit in which I primarily converted all of the two-, three-, four-, and so-on-in-one references to being listed using {{Multiref2}}, to aid in parsing them in both reading the article and editing them. Because this added so many new templates, I converted the citation templates in the Multiref2 templates using the {{#invoke:}} function. I hope that this is acceptable. Please let me know if you encounter any problems with this, or have any other concerns.

I also added a book to the "Further reading" section. —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:09, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok. But you know you don't have to say it in the talk section. Epicazowski (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes#Monochrome company logos with light/dark mode radio buttons. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2026 (UTC)