Talk:History of Apple Inc./Archive 1

Quality

~~This entry is poorly written. Far too many anecdotal stories, and a generally amateur feel.~~ This article is pointless. I'm just sorry that I spent 45 minutes editing it before realizing there's another Apple article that covers all these points in a much more succinct fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.25.201 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 28 March 2007‎ (UTC)[reply]

Broken links

Reference #19 is broken. Might want to check other links as well. 174.1.36.72 (talk) 07:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)rei[reply]

Explanation

This is a copy of the history sections from Apple Computer. It's going to form the main article about the company's past; the original sections will be shortened to summaries. That way, the article on Apple will be a manageable size and will be able to focus more on non-historical things. —RadRafe 20:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Does anyone know why Apple is called Apple?

Yes, it's because it was Steve Jobs' favorite fruit as his diet was purely fruit at the time. Woz couldn't think of a better name, and Jobs joked that it got Apple ahead of Atari in the phonebook. I'm sure this is covered in the article. — Wackymacs 19:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the first edition of MacWorld Macintosh Secrets by David Pogue, Apple was named after the apple that inspired Isaac Newton. That's why Apple's first logo depicts Newton under the apple tree. JHP 18:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And how come there was no lawsuit ever over the name from the Apple Corporation (Apple Corps.), the entertainment company, started by The Beatles in 1968? And if there is (was) one, how come it's not in the article? - Ronnie S.217.132.251.50 (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The was a suit brought by Apple against Apple Computer. As I recall this happened when AC moved into music related capabilities and products. No reference for that, only faded memory.THX1136 (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is quite funny. Steve Jobs' own words:

"I was actually a fruitarian at that point in time. I ate only fruit. Now I'm a garbage can like everyone else. And we were about three months late in filing a fictitious business name so I threatened to call the company Apple Computer unless someone suggested a more interesting name by five o'clock that day. Hoping to stimulate creativity. And it stuck. And that's why we're called Apple."

Source: Fire in the Valley -- Stormwatch (talk) 19:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CEOs

This article should have a complete listing of every Apple CEO, right now the subject is barely touched. Paul^C/_T+ 01:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The section titled, "1985-1997: Sculley, Spindler, Amelio" doesn't even mention these CEOs (except for the single sentence referring to Gil Amelio getting fired.) Who was Michael Spindler? The article doesn't say. This article seems to be more of a product history, rather than a corporate history. JHP 18:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Xylit (talk)'s redirects.

First thanks Xylit (talk) for redirecting. I re-redirected those only to reflect the consistent corporate name "Apple Inc." (without comma) as it was shown in the root article. I also diverted the History of Apple back to History of Apple Inc., since the fruit, an apple, shouldn't have a separted main page for its history as everything about it is already contained in its root article. Thanks Godric/^Talk 07:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

Wouldn't it make sense for this article to be History of Apple? Normally we don't use "Inc." in the names of businesses; the only reason we have to in Apple's case is because Apple is already in use by the fruit and it's more desirable than something like Apple (company). Right now, History of Apple already redirects here anyway. —Cleared as filed. 16:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It should be "History of Apple". — Wackymacs 17:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of Article

the 2002-present section should be organized better perhaps add some more titles/sections? And the iPod section should either be moved to the section in the timeline where the iPod is introduced, orn it should be shortened or made into a completely diffrent article.Evanemak 05:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of that section, the wording "all variations have a graphics processor the has 256-bit power or can be expanded to 512-bit for ultimate performance" strikes me as a bit too similar to "hit its weak point for massive damage". I'm not familiar with technical details of Macs, so I've no idea what the heck that's supposed to mean to correct it. 85.216.229.175 22:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That whole section seems to get into very minute details about this time period. Why is a specific PowerMac G5 model mentioned with such detail? And yet then it quickly brushes over everything that has happened since 2005, all under the title of "The Intel transition" (which officially ended ~2 years ago IIRC), leaving out some major developments (ex. Leopard, Unibody design, possibly controversy surrounding Steve Jobs health?). Also, does the iPod/iTunes need its own section? Some of that information seems way too specific. Ferg (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undos

Sorry about the mess; I was trying to clean up the vandalism and I decided (unwisely) to try a feature I'd never used before. I didn't mean any harm. -lee 03:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tone and improving references

This article reads like a story book. The tone needs to be fixed to make it more encyclopedic. Also, there definitely needs to be more references. I am certain that there are plenty of books that can be used as references for the paragraphs in this article, so if someone has the time, please do so. Thanks. Gary King (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quibble about credit

Re: "the Apple II was released in 1977 and became the computer generally credited with creating the home computer market."

Generally there are 3 machines that pretty much captured the "mindshare" of the time: Commodore PET, Apple, and TRS-80. Apple was not the top seller of the three until the Visicalc era. This needs a rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tablizer (talk • contribs) 05:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Apple II was announced at the West Coast Computer Fair, and the Commodore and TRS-80 were both launched after that, and were technically inferior to the Apple. The open architecture of the Apple leading to a large repertoire of hardware and software add-ons was a major factor in the explosion in microcomputer usage during 1976-79. Credit should also be given for the fact that the Apple I was the first microcomputer ever to incorporate a typewriter-style keyboard and video display output - and after that, it became inconceivable to offer a microcomputer without these features! DaveApter (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Net Sales

The net sales should be using commas NOT periods. While this may be alright for others, this is not alright for Americans. Does wikipedia have a generic to enter currency which will display depending on your locale? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrisonmetz (talk • contribs) 23:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

→Closed discussion as do not merge. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The iPod and iTunes Store section should be divided up and merged into the iPod and iTunes Store articles. This article is about the history of Apple; having a separate section solely for the iPod and iTunes Store doesn’t seem to fit well the overall organization of the article, which chronologically goes over the history of the company as a whole. Furrybeagle (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose iPod is an important part on Apple's history. --Fixman^{Praise me} 06:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Oppose It makes sense that apple's history should be all in one place, and separating the ipod history out of its context loses something from both articles. There isn't a strong argument that the pages have grown too long. Separating them helps emphasize "Apple's history", and I see no reasons given otherwise. Shadowjams (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support the Merger.

--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose I don't see a case for this, How is it not part of the history of Apple? and i don't get the argument that it doesnt fit well when there is a similar section for every other development. Granted some of the more trivial aspects could be dropped. --neon white talk 16:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose iPod should be included in History of Apple, but is a product and should have a separate wikipedia article. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.99.5 (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism

I noticed that there was a message at the very top of the article telling you must scroll down, where another message was placed. I removed it and I think this article should be protected, since the vandalism was by several people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.169.5.103 (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of Apple → History of Apple Inc. — This article should be moved to avoid confusion with the fruit. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 03:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Although I disagree with the claim that someone would mistake the article for the history of apples, I support this move because the full title of the main article is Apple Inc., so this one should match accordingly, just like Apple Inc. advertising, Criticism of Apple Inc., etcetera. — ξ ^xplicit 05:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Consistent with title of main article. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good idea. Other articles relating to Apple Inc. should be given similar names to avoid confusion. Chevymontecarlo. 12:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency and to avoid confusion. Airplaneman ✈ 03:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support for disambiguation and consistency. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Introduction rewrite / co-founder edit

The introduction to this article was terribly unfocused, with meandering discussions of iPhone sales, the iOS operating system, and an enumeration of the various models of iPod. I've completely rewritten it to be more in keeping with the subject of the article (History of Apple), but I went back and forth on how much detail to include. After the rewrite, I think the intro gives a decent short summary, but please expand if you see fit.

I also deleted the name "Edward Hall" as a co-founder of Apple. This was linked to a disambiguation page listing a number of "Edward Hall"s, none of whom have anything to do with Apple. After looking at the Apple website, Google, and Apple-History.com, I have been unable to find another reference to this name, and have come to believe this may have been vandalism.

Update: Oops, forgot to sign. 66.134.4.226 (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of designer?

Jonathan Ive, the designer behind all the modern Apple devices that led to Apple's 'renaissance' hasn't been mentioned in any one of the articles associated with the Apple devices he created nor the Apple history articles, you could argue that Ive is the number one reason Apple is so famous today, Ive's designs took Apple global, I can only assume his contribution is either due to ignorance or deliberate. Twobells (talk)

'A recent Macworld poll listed Ive joining Apple in 1992 as the sixth most significant event in Apple Inc. history,' ("Life After Steve?". MacUser. 24 March 2006. Retrieved 28 February 2011) and yet there is no mention anywhere either on the Apple devices pages nor Apple history articles.Twobells (talk)

Hmm I agree, it is odd. Jon is only mentioned once on the main Apple Inc. page, where John Sculley is mentioned many more times. A disparity that needs to be addressed. SilvestertheCat (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot tell the history of Apple, especially the modern incarnation, without even mentioning Jony Ive and the role he played. Besides Jobs business acumen and market savvy, Apples recent meteoric rise in innovation, development and overall success can be traced to Ive. Without Jony Ive, Apple would have folded. The conceptual mind behind such projects as the iMac, titanium and aluminum PowerBook G4, G4 Cube, MacBook, unibody MacBook Pro, MacBook Air, iPod, iPhone, and iPad. The IPOD, IPHONE, and IPAD! Those products ARE Apple. (http://designmuseum.org/design/jonathan-ive) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.243.113 (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Apple"

I didn't find any place in the article that explains why the company was named "Apple". Did Jobs and Wozniak just like apples? I am reminded of a story I read at http://www.clientsfromhell.net, where a client objected to the designer using an Apple Macintosh because, since as we all know the serpent enticed Eve to eat an apple, apples are sinful. JIP | Talk 20:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to Wozniak?

Apparently he vanishes into thin air sometime after the Apple ][ comes out? Who knows? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trxi (talk • contribs) 09:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Descriptions Off

It's funny to read descriptions of the early computers that are obviously written by someone that has never touched an eight-bit machine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drvanthorp (talk • contribs) 16:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removed long unreferenced bit about who they marketed to with the first Mac

[1] I removed the long unreferenced bit about Apple promoting the Macintosh to certain users. They had well covered commercials which sold them to anyone who was watching and influenced by them. It wasn't designed for just one group. It was designed to be something everyone would want. Dream Focus 12:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

discrepancy

The date of when Apple bought NeXT is different between this article and the article about NeXT Computers. 22yearswothanks (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The official Apple website has a link to the history of Apple and Macintosh, but you can only access it with an Iphone apparently. http://www.apple.com/webapps/utilities/machistory.html That'll clear up the exact date if anyone has an Iphone or Ipad and wants to check. Dream Focus 19:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patents????

As far as I know Apple sued Microsoft over copyright issues as it held no patents in regard to the GUI. Additionally it had consistently lost in court over issue of copyright.

The main problem was that Xerox has developed the GUI and mouse and had copyrights/patents to cover them. The Xerox Alto/Star used a desktop metaphor with a graphical interface. Xerox had in turn sued Apple but its case was thrown that due to sloppy legal work and due to the fact that the court pointed out that copyrights must be vigorously defended which Xerox was late in doing.

The quote magazine article is probably just wrong in its rather off-handed mention of it. Whatever happened between Bill Gates and Steve Jobs in this little peace transaction should probably be limited to just mentioning that MS bought non-voting stock and pledged to support the OS by developing the Microsoft suite of tools for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.126.239 (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In his official biography, Steve Jobs claimed he called Bill Gates and said you know Apple will probably win in the end about the GUI lawsuit thing, so why not just buy stock in Apple, and the lawsuits would end. Claims that's why Bill Gates invested a large chunk of money in Apple, helping to save the company. Others before Xerox had GUIs by the way. Dream Focus 21:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]