Talk:Apple supply chain

This page seems to be a criticism of Apple, not an article about them

This article seems to be somewhat biased. I don't know much about this field, so I won't do anything myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MathematicsIsFun (talk • contribs) 05:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's only a list of real facts. And many of them are not in the list.. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.73.135 (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this article suffers from a lack of neutrality, is poorly written and is really unclear. It reads as very one sided, and several of the sources seems to be interpreted in the worst light (against Apple). For instance the case of F.lux seems like a minor disagreement. And the "App store compensation conflict" is just a random lawsuit against Apple? Why is it even in the article? If these things are ment to be taken seriously, it needs to be fleshed out with who specifically criticized Apple because of this, WHAT was criticized and WHY. These things seems really insignificant and ill-placed compared to things like the sweatshop ordeal. For now, the article reads as a whole general random lump of criticism, where big well placed cases of criticism is mixed with a single mans grief. This makes it really difficult for the reader to understand what is appropriate criticism and what is just "hate". Things don't necessarily needs to be deleted, but the scale and magnitude should be clearly stated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.251.234.36 (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The above comments are still the case with this article. The first paragraph lists a large number of grievances, which is then followed by... a second bullet list of grievances so vague that they could be relevant to any large business. As an example of the lack of neutrality, the discussion of Foxconn labor practices uses emotional language that makes it look like Apple is the sole offender, and Foxconn the innocent party. And likewise, the discussion of Apple stealing innovation instead of inventing, includes references to Google's claims -- again in positive terms for Google -- that Apple continually copies their innovations, completely ignoring the irony of Android, along with Google's long history of copying of innovation. This is how the tech industry works, and is not a specific criticism of Apple. Other claims have also been framed as Apple's evil intentions, instead of what is often just their conformance to the same laws and regulatory statutes as most other tech companies. Just because the author disagrees with the law, doesn't mean that Apple is acting in bad faith. The entire article reads like a checklist for Apple haters, with minimal balance of where Apple made good or came out well on many of these claims. Richard BF (talk) 03:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

"App£e" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect App£e should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 25#App£e until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

MacBook

The very recent MacBooks have no USB-A hubs, SD card slot & integrated SuperDrive.
--2001:569:7D81:3000:9CED:1D34:64D7:603C (talk) 08:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

No mention of outfitting Amerikkkan sturmtruppen with iPhones?

Hmph. Even here in the imperial core, it was big news. 76.69.87.99 (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Criticism of Apple Inc.#Labor practices and Apple worker organizations#Foxconn Trade Union

I am trying to figure out what's the best way to sort/mix/match information between Criticism of Apple Inc.#Labor practices and Apple worker organizations#Foxconn Trade Union and welcome copy editing on either articles. The issues are complex, involving multiple firms across multiple years. ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Strays away from WP:POVFORK

Like all Criticism articles for corporations, this page just got filled with huge amounts of content, a large amount of undue cruft, and ended up becoming very unappealing to read. I know editors want to be thorough, to "hold these companies to account", but these articles always become so poorly-organized and unwieldy that no one wants to read them; and they require so much effort to "fix" that no one wants to fix them. Again, that's a common problem with all Criticism of [CORP] articles. One-sided articles don't "hold corporations to acccount", they just end up as "dump-alls" that no one reads, and we can do better.

• Per WP:POVFORK, this should be moved to Practices of Apple Inc., and cover both about their efforts to protect the environment and any damage they cause; both about their privacy efforts and their surveillance, etc.

• The "legal troubles" Apple faces should be a proper WP:SUMMARY of Apple Inc. litigation, which I moved to Litigation involving Apple Inc. so that it include both litigation Apple is a target of, and litigation started by them.

• The labor-stuff should perhaps be in Apple worker organizations, or perhaps Labor practices of Apple Inc., and WP:SUMMARYzed here. Page isn't long enough for a split to be warranted at this time. DFlhb 02:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Anything to do with public perception should be at Public perception of Apple Inc., which should talk about both positive ("fanboyism") and negative opinions; could talk customer loyalty on one hand, the reality distortion field on the other; both their innovativeness and accusations of lack of innovativeness; things like that. Has the potential to be an interesting article.

DFlhb (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

"The corporate practices of Apple?" too subjective perhaps leading to essay

I think DFlhb (talk) did a great job editing this article as it has far improved from where it started. As mentioned by Dflhb, "Corporate Practices" can talk about the positive and negative; with the original article being a laundry list criticism. Perhaps, the article may be more of an essay because there are a wide variety of topics that can be selected for inclusion. The post above speaks to articles for litigation and relationships with China. and other topics. Can the concern regarding f this article being an essay be considered? Flibbertigibbets (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:ESSAY has more to do with quality of sourcing and "persuasive" vs "encyclopedic" writing, rather than with the article's scope, no? DFlhb (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

By mentioning "essay" I was really speaking to "original research" and how the article is synthesized. There are so many things mentioned about Apple - that is why the scope of the article may be subjective (or even become endless). There are some topics that are directly searchable such as Apple - litigation, labor relations, government relations, ESG - they might actually be stand alone topics (something you mentioned). "Corporate practices" is not directly searchable.

It's almost as if this article is unnecessary - if the topic is covered in the main article or in a series of specific articles for each topic. I looked at the original article and changed the lead and then "threw up my hands" because I think the article is just too broad and subjective. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

eg "Tony Blevins" dismissed from apple from making remarks on tic-toc. <-it could be construed that it is a "corporate practice" to censure/fire employees for remarks made on social media. There are no express mentions of "corporate practices anywhere" on the other hand "criticism" can be found by direct search. My point is that the article can speak (or not speak) to almost anything. It's good that you are addressing the article Alternately, Perhaps the best thing to do might be to create more specific stand alone articles. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Undecided on this; I can see good points either for or against. Maybe you're right; in that case we would have the following articles:

Environmental practices of Apple Inc.

Litigation involving Apple Inc.

Anticompetitive practices of Apple Inc. (title may violate NPOV since I think these are currently allegations, someone else can come up with something better; maybe Market impact of Apple Inc.? But that sounds a little euphemistic)

And then those articles would be summed up directly in Apple Inc. rather than here. DFlhb (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm looking at this again, and I agree that splitting into several articles is the best solution. Ultimately, I don't think there should be a "Practices of" article or a "Criticism of" article, as these are both unfocused. My proposal would be to split whatever articles can be made from this one and then to merge whatever is left back into Apple Inc. From there, Apple Inc can be expanded, and further WP:SIZESPLITs can be carried out as needed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I think a key challenge is to also find out what information/details can be removed due to being unweighted. This topic of supply chains in particular...could rely on more scholarly sources than mere newspaper clippings. Some sample jstor articles include:

• Supply chain dependency on China, with expansion in Brazil/India pre but also during COVID.
• Apple's corporate codes of conduct/internal human rights enforcement.
• More sources on Uygher forced labor.

~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

References

January 2023 split

For background on the January 2023 split, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Apple_Inc.#Practices_of_Apple_Inc. Please only discuss the merge on that page, not here. DFlhb (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)