Talk:Apple Inc.: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Joshua David Williams
imported>Greg Woodhouse
(splitting up the sections is a real improvement)
Line 27: Line 27:


:I went ahead and divided it into two separate (very stubby) sections. Does that seem to help? I think it does, although it says the same thing :) --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 13:39, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
:I went ahead and divided it into two separate (very stubby) sections. Does that seem to help? I think it does, although it says the same thing :) --[[User:Joshua David Williams|Joshua David Williams]] 13:39, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
Yes, that is an impovement. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 13:44, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

Revision as of 12:44, 11 April 2007


Article Checklist for "Apple Inc."
Workgroup category or categories Computers Workgroup [Editors asked to check categories]
Article status Stub: no more than a few sentences
Underlinked article? Yes
Basic cleanup done? Yes
Checklist last edited by --Eric M Gearhart 04:51, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.





Apple Inc.

Is this the right place for this article? Should it be moved to Apple Inc (without the period at the end)? --Eric M Gearhart 04:51, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

Consumer Loyalty - biased?

I quote this section in its entirety:

Apple has long benefited from an unusually high level of consumer affiliation and product loyalty, although it has had its fair share of scandals including the highly publicized and long running legal battles with The Beatles' record company, Apple corp., and the recent Stock Option backdating scandal.

In my opinion, this is really not a section about consumer loyalty at all, but polemic directed against Apple and users of Apple computers. There is nothing wrong with including material regarding lawsuits or other legal issues. But this section should be removed or significantly rewritten. Greg Woodhouse 13:35, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

That's precisely what I thought when I read it. Be assured that it will be re-written. --Joshua David Williams 13:36, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
I went ahead and divided it into two separate (very stubby) sections. Does that seem to help? I think it does, although it says the same thing :) --Joshua David Williams 13:39, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

Yes, that is an impovement. Greg Woodhouse 13:44, 11 April 2007 (CDT)