This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Apple Inc. and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 28 days

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Apple Inc. This page 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.

WikiProject Apple Inc.
+ talk Main page
Content
Dashboard Article alerts Article log Resources Assessment (FAQ) New articles Showcase Popular articles Style guide
WikiProject
Members (Userboxes) Archives
v t e

I think there's more than enough material to start a new Antitrust cases against Apple by the European Union article. Got the idea from seeing Antitrust cases against Google by the European Union. DFlhb (talk) 11:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Litigation involving Apple Inc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think EU-related antitrust stuff can be placed there under the antitrust section.

Semi-related: I do think it might be useful to have an article along the lines of "Apple's response to DMA" or "Apple's implementations as a result of DMA" or something like that.

That way, we can have one article where we can document all the DMA-related changes and transclude parts as needed in stuff like iOS, iOS 17, App Store (Apple), dev related articles, etc.

Currently, the only place something like this is mentioned is Issues relating to iOS#Progressive web apps not working in the European Union on iOS 17.4 betas, and that doesn't seem a good location because that article normally only handles bugs and issues, not results of policy decisions. ConcurrentState (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's intentional behavior on Apple's part, so Batterygate comes to mind. Perhaps Criticism of Apple Inc. should be converted from a redirect. Batterygate, Environmental impact of Apple, Apple supply chain, iOS app approvals, etc. can be linked via {{main}} hatnotes, or just merged. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realize it was so messy. Could've sworn Criticism of Apple Inc. used to be a standalone article.

Perhaps you're right in that all the separate issues could be rolled into a big criticism article.

At the same time, my DMA idea that describes the changes made, might be better suited as a section on Digital Markets Act. That way, other companies' changes can be documented there as well, and I can transclude parts as needed into Apple-related articles where appropriate.

Otherwise there's a risk of doing a lot of double work (e.g., in iOS(17) "Apple changed this for EU users because of DMA", in App Store "Apple changed this for developers who make apps for the EU market because of DMA", etc). ConcurrentState (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding neither the $2B Spotify fine nor anything DMA-related are litigation (it was the Commission, not a court), though I'm sure Apple will appeal and at that point it'll become litigation. And I dislike dump-all articles with a non-specific scope. DFlhb (talk) 08:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The DMA is definitely not litigation, at least not until a case or measure by the EC is started.

The fine is a bit more complicated. Obviously if Apple appeals with a court then it is clearly litigation, but in civil law countries that have place administrative law in a separate branch, administrative actions by government bodies are sometimes considered litigation.

Nevertheless, a more apt name could fix that.

Personally I’m more partial to start with articles that cover a concept because it allows readers that are interested to read more on similar topics and it makes it easier for editors to see if there’s enough information that would warrant separate articles with a hat note linking to the separate article on the concept article. ConcurrentState (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, I've gone through all Unassessed Apple Inc. articles (from 19 to 0), feel free to review of my assessments. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 14:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Criticism of Apple Inc. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 17 § Criticism of Apple Inc. until a consensus is reached. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated PowerBook 100 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. George Ho (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional note, I've suggested a restructuring of the PowerBook articles on the FAR, so it might be good to get initial thoughts there before I go around proposing a merge, etc. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our coverage of modern Macs generally follows the tack of writing about the overall product line (e.g. the iMac line: iMac G3, iMac G4, iMac G5, iMac (Intel-based), iMac (Apple silicon): each covers multiple hardware refreshes.) Our pre-1998 coverage ({{Apple hardware before 1998}}) definitely does not, with for example the PowerBook lines or stuff that was basically only one or two models but each one still has their own page. I wanted to take the temperature on whether anyone had general issue with folding some of these together in the process of expanding them? At present none really have issues with length, and most don't demonstrate any standalone significance (on the above PowerBook 100 FAR a user suggested that the 100's singular importance means it shouldn't be merged, which makes some sense but definitely isn't true of the many random 1XX models, or stuff like the Centris or rebranded Quadras.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:IMac#Rework into a list?. Looking for any feedback. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 01:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link: Talk:List of iPhone models#Sticky headers for remaining tables. George Ho (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is being held at Talk:iOS version history#iOS support tables on whether or not we should continue to use this format of tables as we use on various other articles as well (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc.) over this format. Extra opinions would be great. YannickFran (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]