Talk:NetApp/Archives/2014

November 2012 Marketing Push

Yes, some folks from NetApp (me and my staff) edited the page. I understand that the content may have had too much "marketing speak" but by reverting to the 2012 version you have removed almost all of the product content. So, I have undone the revert and have heavily edited the copy to remove obvious marketing jargon and claims that were only supported by NetApp-created content. Please let me know if you have issues with specific portions of the revised article. Thank you. Shanbirder (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It appears that someone, presumably from NetApp, Inc. marketing, has just rewritten this encyclopedia entry into a glossy corporate brochure. I am beginning the long task of separating encyclopedic fact from marketing. It's a big job. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.112.21 (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

e.g. the second paragraph, which ends with "NetApp was the first in the data storage industry to introduce a guarantee to cut customer storage capacity by 50%". This is apparently a good thing, but it makes no sense, and it's not explained anywhere in the text. They guaranteed to cut customer storage by 50% and this is good? How? Is it an odd way of saying that they can compress customer data to half its size, or what? 87.112.213.160 (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Can't we just revert to the pre-November 2012 version? The current entry is absolute nonsense--it doesn't talk about what NetApp does, its features, comparison to competition, or anything even remotely useful. I come to Wikipedia for relevant information, not meaningless marketing-speak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.40.152.129 (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Guys, by reading this article for the first time and then looking at the history, I see that you did a lot of work in trying to neutralize the article. But I believe that it still deserves an {{advert}}. It sounds to me like it's no fault of any normal editor, just from a non-neutral corporate source. I say that those of you who are abreast of the issues, need to continue to be bold! What they did was not just an offense to certain readers, but an abuse against the encyclopedia. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 23:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I reverted again to the 2012 version as the discussion here seems to be along the lines of that version being better and less promotional. It does need a Products section, but a short, non-promotional one that summarizes what the company does without listing each product individually. Please read WP:COI. Auhdiaon (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

New LOGO

NetApp is on a re-branding drive and has changed its logo and tagline, as well as the company name from network appliance to netapp. The new logo is not uploaded anywhere. Can some one do it from [www.netapp.com here] ? I am not very sure of the licensing issues!! --Sandeep346 (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Somebody appears to have uploaded the new logo and changed the info box to use it. Guy Harris (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if the logo is licensed to be here. NetApp site says we need to submit a form for the logo and that they will get back to us in 2days. Its been only 1day since the brand changed, there is no way anyone could have got it so soon, except maybe someone form the company. I think this has been copied from the site without permission. --Sandeep346 (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The uploader was User:Mmiho, who claims to be a NetApp employee. A bot has requested a fair-use rationale for the logo. Guy Harris (talk) 07:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I know who that is. Checking within NetApp Titaniumlegs (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Mmiho is not only a NetApp employee, but works in MarCom, and posted the logo in that capacity. We're gonna ask legal to decide what copyright tag to use. In the meantime, whoever keeps deleting the logo, please stop. 198.95.226.224 (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That last comment should have had my sig on it. Sorry. Titaniumlegs (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Page Title

The name of the company has changed from Network Appliance to NetApp. Can someone change the title of the page!!! I don't know how to do it. --Sandeep346 (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Guy Harris (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Netcache and its uses

I really want to delete that section. It seems out of place. Frankly, who cares what Tunisia uses to censor its internet access? The fact that they censor it is an interesting fact for the Tunisia article, but there are any number of tools that they could be using to do it. It's not like NetApp as a company enabled them to do so or indicated that they approve of censorship or anything like that. It seems like a minor trivia fact that doesn't deserve to even be mentioned, let alone get its own section. Does anyone else agree? Plumpy 01:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't. What you care about is not necessarily what another user cares about. It is an interesting fact. Tazmaniacs 01:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm deleting it. If you have a reference to NetApp cooperating with governments to oppress people, do provide it. Mre5765 02:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

A source was already included. You simply deleted sourced content without previous consensus. Tazmaniacs 16:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur. This is more about Tunisia than NetApp. If you're going to list Tunisia, how many other countries out there use NetCache to censor? China? The Sun lawsuit belongs here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titaniumlegs (talk • contribs) 15:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, this is an interesting fact. --Kubanczyk (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How about moving the whole netcache controversy over to bluecoat. This is no longer a NetApp product and has even less to do with NetApp now. BTW I disagree that this even has a place in this article. --unsigned.

I entirely agree with the suggestion to remove it or at least put it in the bluecoat article - this really feels like someone has an agenda. And by now, this is almost irrelevant - a product Netapp USED to own WAS used for censorship in some country. How long would the Microsoft Windows or Intel article have to be on that front? I have removed it. Quark999 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC).

Employee Counts

The statistic in the infobox ("Employees 4631") doesn't match the article itself ("employs more than 4800 people"). What's with that? --Dirk Gently 14:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality / Commercialism in edits regarding certification

See the Microsoft Certified Professional talk page why this article is tagged. --ddezeure 14:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a NetApp employee and I'm completely embarrassed by this section. It is gone. Mre5765 03:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a former NetApp employee and nuked the link Firefighter Dog added when he added the other crapola, as it's just spam. Guy Harris 04:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

What the heck is the logo?

Not a terribly important question, but I must know!! :P Anybody? Tarheelcoxn 23:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Imagine a square nut, drawn three-dimensionally, with a screw coming down into the nut from the upper right. I believe the intention is to connote simplicity. Others may see something else :-) --Stevestrange 03:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It represents a few things. The first thing I saw was taking the disk out of the box. The first NetApp products were shared storage, so take the disks (other than the boot disk) out of all the other computers and put them in the shared storage. Of course, it's all different now.... 198.95.226.224 (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Relationship with IBM/SGI

• Someone needs to research whether or not IBM can really still be considered a competitor. They by and large purchase LSI disk (now owned by NetApp) and re-brand them. SGI does the same thing. SeanFromIT (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanFromIT (talk • contribs) 16:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Syria?

How is the mention of the 2011 Syrian Uprising relevant? I'm sure that Syria's government uses many products. So? 208.54.40.235 (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm biased as a NetApp employee, but what a reseller does isn't relevant to NetApp. NetApp has a lot of resellers and can't own everything every one of them does. I'm certain that reseller signed documents that NetApp requires of all resellers to follow export restrictions including Syria. ----isptech151 20:02, 30 September 2014 (Eastern)