Talk:Apple supply chain

Neutrality

This article is about criticisms that have been leveled at Apple, Inc., rightly or wrongly, and in order to help the reader understand the criticisms, it is most helpful to present cites to material that show why such criticisms are valid or invalid. By their nature, criticisms can be inflammatory, but that fact does not make criticism necessarily invalid or non-reflective of what is a concern. For example, with regard to Apple's reputation for taking a "bullying" stance, the article is structured with headings reflective of that criticism. Such headings are descriptive only of the criticisms themselves rather than the behavior described with the context of the heading.

It is up to each editor to flesh out the "whys" and and "why nots" within the context area of that heading describing the area of criticism by citing to sources showing the reader why such criticism may or may not be valid, and to describe what is most controversial about it and why.

With regard to the unfortunate Chinese incident, the controversy and reason for the published criticism in the media is whether Apple's policy of secrecy was a primary factor in the young man's death, not whether Apple had a policy of beating its employees into a pulp. The relationships between Apple and its manufacturing partners, what sort of behavior it tolerates in its quest for profit, Apple's degree of control and influence, the financial pressure it brings to bear on such alliances to enforce its policies, and its level of responsibility for the acts of its employees and contractors are what are at issue within the context of such criticism.

To address these criticisms one must do more than engage in an edit war -- one must cite to sources showing angles of such criticisms from different points of view. Sctechlaw (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop pushing non-NPOV. The section heading is wrong. Lars T. (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Sctechlaw; the section heading is not wrong, it is an accurate description. Please stop reverting all edits you disagree with -- information that is sourced and written objectively is acceptable here.
--Gyrobo (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Lars T., please review Wikipedia's edit warring & 3 revert rule (3RR), and please also add cites and text to support refutation of criticisms of Apple, if that is what you wish. No one intends to inflame your passion, but to report accurately on the subject. Sctechlaw (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Lars T. has proposed this article for deletion because it is, in his estimation, "unsustainable". What does that mean Lars T.? This article explores criticisms of Apple, Inc. in the same way that Criticism of Microsoft explores criticisms of another industry giant, and yet despite that article's controversial nature, it yet remains as a catalogue of concerns the public and press have had over Microsoft's business practices with a global reach, the same as this article does with Apple and its global reach as a multinational corporation. Shall we delete all articles that make us nervous or that we don't want to think about? For example, children are abused, and Darfur is currently not a fine place to live, these are facts that none of us wants to think about and yet simply turning away and ignoring them is no option because they are subjects of high interest in the news and in our global society. So as editors we document, present the issues, cite our sources, and know that while such documentation doesn't stop the badness, it does inform us as to the world in which we live, and this is one of the aims of Wikipedia. Apple has done much good in this world, and it is amply documented elsewhere. This article reports on the criticisms that have been leveled at Apple, that is all. - Sctechlaw (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's all take a breath. After Lars' templated protests on my talk page, I have warned him on his talk page (linking to diff in case he reverts it) not to continue vandalizing this article. If the vandalizing continues, I will report it at WP:AIV
--Gyrobo (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that should be WP:AN3, as this is more of an edit war than vandalism.
--Gyrobo (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It's true that Apple may have done some good, but that's in the past. Their recent efforts, however, make them seem as if their trying hard to piss it all away. Currently, they haven't done much to improve the lives of the people making their products. With the use of subcontracted manufacturers, underpaid workers and child labor, they have in essence "washed" themselves clean of any unethical practices which they claim is the responsibility of Foxconn. There is now also word coming from Apple's employees(on the condition that they remain anonyumous)that the design of many of their iPads, iPhones and Macs were in fact designed by "ghost designers" subcontracted in places like Vietnam and China, with Apple and its designers taking all the credit. It's also no coincidence that Steve Jobs has decided to resign at a time when all of these revelations are starting to come out. Sure, they may have done a lot of good, but the 1980s have come and gone a long tim ago.Gangnam (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Warranty only for non-smokers

Not sure if this would fit here: http://consumerist.com/2009/11/smoking-near-apple-computers-creates-biohazard-voids-warranty.html --Austrian (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• included 4/2010 Sctechlaw (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Title change

Title should change to Criticism of Apple Inc. TheUnknownInternetMan (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 16:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Criticism of Apple → Criticism of Apple Inc. — To maintain consistancy with the article Apple Inc., and avoid needless confusion with the fruit. —84.92.117.93 (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support for clarity. Jafeluv (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Opposed in accordance with WP:NAME/MOS:TM and WP:COMMONNAME. I think it's a bit of a stretch to think that people will confuse subject of the title "Criticism of Apple" with criticisms of the fruit.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 10:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support: the whole common name thing is the reason why the Beatles back catalogue still isn't on iTunes. Hell, I don't think this article is needed, but still, moving to Apple Inc would be less ambiguous. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support to disambiguate with the record label, not the fruit, which I agree would be a stretch. Ucucha 22:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

More Broad Article

It was suggested on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 May 1#Criticism of Apple Inc. that this article be expanded to more generally apply to Apple's public image, including both criticism and praise. I'm undecided. What does everyone else think?
--Gyrobo (talk) 02:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I commented on the proposed deletion noting that I thought keeping this article as is, a good idea. WP currently has a category for criticism of companies which another thinking-editor recently added to the article. However, perhaps a better solution than individual criticism articles, Wikipedia-wide, would be to approach criticism of companies as a section on an XYZ Company, public image page, rather than a page for each solely devoted to criticism. In that way, a more balanced perspective might be reached. - Sctechlaw (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm leaning against that, because (in my opinion) it would create an outlet for spam/adverts. I don't think a more balanced perspective is required, because -- by virtue of its inclusion in Wikipedia -- an encyclopedic description of criticism is supposed to be objective.
--Gyrobo (talk) 03:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticisms on corporate pages are usually compiled and listed under their own section and split off into separate articles when they get too large for inclusion in the main article. So these articles (the critiques section forks) would seem to be more in keeping with the flow of information about these entities. The Apple Inc. article includes theenvironmental record and policies of the company which could be construed as a weak sort of praise but not large enough to split off into a separate article for example. I think I'm just saying generally any sub section topic that becomes too large for inclusion in the main article should probably be forked into a separate one.--Savonneux (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I found the AFD and took a look at this page- wow. Other "criticism of company x" articles have specific instances noted and sections based on that. The article is written so that instances are listed under sections that tell the reader "this is an example of Apple doing y." The entire "Strong-arming employees" section is based off of one specific incident. When you apply your own label (strong-arming employees) to that incident based off your own observation, that is original research. ALI ^{nom nom} 13:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

More importantly, it isn't anything that Apple has done, as the title suggests. The fact that the "owners" of this article will not accept any changes to that title making that clear shows their bias. Lars T. (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

So be specific, "Accusations of employee mistreatment" etc. The things mentioned in that section have been covered by a great many reliable sources. It has POV issues or at least weasel words but there is good verifiable information in there.--Savonneux (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm talking about. All the complaints are verified and sourced, nobody's disputing that. But the incidents shouldn't be sorted into different lists based on what they illustrate. They should be sorted into their own sections based on the incidents themselves. As an encyclopedia, we create a collection of information on notable incidents, not lists of examples of Apple being criticized. Basically, we keep the same info, but re-write it so that each incident is given its proper section instead of a bulleted list of incidents sorted by what they illustrate. If two incidents relate directly to one another (ex. two complaints by employees about their working hours filed separately from one another) then they should be included together. Do you get what I'm saying? ALI ^{nom nom} 18:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok I see what you mean. The only thing is that it might read like a time line of issues. I agree it reads like a list of examples which is bad. I think renaming the sections by their proper category and adding incidents as subsections in each category (which would aid in searching) and taking out word the "example" since it implies "they do this all the time but this is the only information we can find" would help.--Savonneux (talk) 20:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Changed formatting around a bit and renamed some topic headings.--Savonneux (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The article headings are similar to those in other articles (e.g. Criticism of Microsoft ). They follow the primary heading "Examples of criticism" and are organized by type of criticism. Article headings help organize the information and make the article more readable. - Sctechlaw (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but if you're looking for information on a specific incident that made a huge buzz in the media, how are you going to know where to find it with something like this? Whereas what they've got over at Criticism of Microsoft are very general section headers- the criticism is sorted by which aspect of the company it refers to, not by the conclusion one can draw from it. It's up to the reader to come up with their own conclusion. We just make the facts available. ALI ^{nom nom} 21:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I must say brava/o to Savonneux -- well done. The headings are much better. The only thing I would take issue with is the "Vexatious litigation" falling under Customer Service or Product issues. It should be under its own heading. -Sctechlaw (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. I don't use preview as much as I should.--Savonneux (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to take the time to thank the editors who have contributed to this article since it was nominated for deletion. It is, by far, much better thanks to your efforts.
--Gyrobo (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Foxconn

In case somebody cares: Foxconn is not Apple, Foxconn is not part of Apple, and nobody working for Foxconn is an employee of Apple, just like they aren't employees for anybody else Foxconn manufactures for, which is almost every American IT company. That concept really isn't hard to grasp for a sane person. Lars T. (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you obsessed with quelling all critisicm of Apple? Apple chooses to use Foxconn to manufacture its products. Nobody forces them to do this. It could insist on workers being paid better and treated better, it could even use some of the what-the-market-will-bear inflated price it charges for its products to fund this. It doesn't. Like most firms, Apple wants to spend as little as it can on labour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.246.83.191 (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yet no other of those companies doing the exact same thing, with the exact same partner Foxconn at the exact same compound in Shenzen is criticized for it - isn't that odd? Well, not if you are obsessed with your hatred of Apple of course. Lars T. (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The article does make it clear that Foxconn is a contracted manufacturer for Apple -- that the two entities are distinct.
--Gyrobo (talk) 00:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

But the section heading doesn't - yet it can't be changed. Lars T. (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Foxconn is wikilinked to its main page three times before it even has a subject heading and it is made very clear that it is a contractor for Apple in each it is mentioned.--Savonneux (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Foxconn makes the iphone, the ipod, and a bunch of other apple and every other computer company products. The idea that they are 'not connected' is countered by dozens, if not hundreds, of verifiable, notable articles in the mainstream media. leaving Foxconn out of an Apple article is not credible Decora (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting point — not that it has to do with anything I was talking about. However I checked the articles for Dell, Hewlett-Packard and Cisco, and neither mentions that Foxconn manufactures for them. Maybe you should put your effort where your mouth is. Lars T. (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Except that there has been no reports of suicides or abuses from Foxconn's many other factories, which manufactures parts for other major IT companies. In addition, the news of a young worker who has been brutally beaten by the Foxconn guards, who later committed suicide, also comes from the same plant that specifically manufactures Apple product. Thus it can be reasonably concluded that Foxconn's Shenzen plant was operating in accordance to Apple's restriction. The concept isn't really hard to grasp for a person with no bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yomamafor1 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The "factory" that the reports are on does manufacture parts for other major IT companies - do you actually speak out of ignorance, or are you a paid liar? Lars T. (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Everyone cool your heels. This is an unproductive avenue of discussion.
--Gyrobo (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The whole article is still non-NPOV. Lars T. (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Making an assertion without citing any specific examples is not a valid argument. Which part of the article do you have an issue with?
--Gyrobo (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

SLAPP phrasing and placement

I don't think SLAPP merits a {{Main}}, but rather a {{See also}} under the Vexatious Litigation header (since the article describes a practice not unique to Apple Inc). I'm a little conflicted about what to call it, "SLAPP" seems a little nondescript, but "SLAPP Lawsuit" seems grammatically redundant (like saying ATM Machine). Does anyone have any preferences?
--Gyrobo (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

SLAPP is a type of vexatious litigation, but not all vexatious litigation is SLAPP. It usually just refers to civil litigation intended to scare or silence debate about a public interest topic. I linked it originally because the sources mentioned 'chilling effect on public debate' or something. Vexatious litigation would be more general. I'd rather have some kinda wikilink because see also template is usually for something directly related like Apple_Inc._litigation.--Savonneux (talk) 04:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll read the filed documents and see what the court had to say, if anything. It may be they argued SLAPP or a violation of the anti-SLAPP statutes, in which case having it in the header would be reflective of that particular instance. If however it didn't come up in the case in a verifiable way, then a see also would help the reader understand why it was a problem that created a valid legal defense. -- (being careful to remember to sign here ;-) )

Sctechlaw (talk) 06:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Apple Inc. litigation#Apple v. Think Secret mentions an anti-SLAPP motion, but there's no citation, or mention of it on the Think Secret article.
--Gyrobo (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Just dredged a citation [1] that was lost when the Think Secret site closed down [2] from the Internet Archive.
--Gyrobo (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Secrecy section

Is corporate secrecy, per se, a criticism that merits its own section? Most companies with new technology have stringent secrecy policies, and no one complains about it. Apple's secrecy policies do seem to create a lot of commentary, but is this really criticism? Isn't it the results of the policy that are more properly at issue? -- Sctechlaw (talk) 09:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The reference provided doesn't seem to cover much more than Job's health problems and it's effect on stock (which would properly go under something related to business operations) and people being fired for breaking non disclosure (which we have a section for: Labor Relations). Gonna revert it because it's mostly covered in other parts. A section on corporate operations (SEC issues etc.) would be good if there is anything to add about that though. --Savonneux (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The reference provided was meant to refer to the specific secrecy involved, it does mentions Steve Job's health problems, but it's not dedicated to it. I understand that Apple is not the only company that has secrets, but the extent to which it goes to protect its interest should be noted (perhaps in the section corporate culture on the main page) properly and not in passing reference. The reason that section was added as well was that the title "Corporate secrecy policy's effect on media relations" below seems to refer to a section called 'Corporate secrecy' which led me to believe that readers may be confused (as was I) when looking for a section about secrecy, so perhaps that should be edited, but I felt that a proper explanation was needed. Theyangster (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Added Section about corporate secrecy, I feel it merits its own section because of the fact that it is a frequent discussion that comes up in the day to day news regarding Apple. They are known for it and it should be noted, yes all major tech companies have secrecy policies and NDAs, but I still feel the extent of which Apple goes to protect its interests should be noted. I added new section to be more balanced and informative compared to my previous edit. Theyangster (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The things you are writing about may be news, but they are less criticisms than interesting gossip about corporate culture. Perhaps you meant to focus on the problems the secrecy causes vis-a-vis corporate governance and potential violations of federal regulations, i.e., whether the ultra secret approach has led to violation(s) of laws that cover what companies must disclose. (This has been discussed quite a bit lately in the news and in legal circles.) If that is the case, then it would be better to say so explicitly and cite to sources that describe the criticism directly. -- Sctechlaw (talk) 08:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism from before 2009

Some items worthy of addition to the article:

• Look_and_feel #Lawsuits_over section
• http://progfree.org/History/history.html (actually dates from Jun '88 per http://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull5.html ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobart (talk • contribs) 23:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Other than the main title and paragraph below summarizing the criticism, I see no reason why those two specific allegations should be in the main article other than the fact that they both relate to more recent events. I'm proposing moving that information to the main Criticism of Apple article, which was created specifically to contain this content. elektrikSHOOS 00:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Support: I support the merge. 184.96.104.50 (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, merging is  Done. elektrikSHOOS 03:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Security

(As the section about this criticism has now moved to this article, I have copied the discussion concerning it. GoldRenet (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC))

I am a little surprised that in this article there is little or no mention of the security problems that Apple has in combination of the false image the company projects. Here are a couple news (reliable) sources i.e. from CNN, theinquirer, Washington post etc ect

• 2010 - June - CNN Apple is the new hacker bulls-eye

The truth is that Mac OS has as many vulnerabilities as Windows, according to Nigam -- Apple patches its products just often as Microsoft does.

• 2010 - April - The Inquirer Apple dips below Microsoft's security standards

According to Maiffret it doesn't take long for talented coders to find holes in Apple's software at various hacking events.

To round things out he says that security prospects are "scarier with them [Apple]", as Jobs' Mob "market themselves as more secure than the PC". Given the ignorance of Apple fanbois everywhere and the growth of Mac OS X, it's highly likely that the security through obscurity approach that Apple has taken won't hold up for much longer.

• 2010 - June - Apple vs. Microsoft: Patch Management Polar Opposites

By keeping users in the dark, Apple is putting its customers at risk unnecessarily by lulling them in to a false sense of security. David Harley, another security wonk from anti-virus vendor ESET puts it like this: "Any computer user who believes a system is so safe that they don't have to care about security is prime material for exploitation by social engineering."

• 2010 - June - Apple Increases Mac OS X Malware Protection

"This lack of awareness isn't helped when Apple issues an anti-malware security update by stealth, rather than informing the public what it has done."

• 2010 - June - Mac OS X security myth exposed

One thing the hard figures have shown is that OS X's reputation as a relatively secure operating system is unwarranted, Secunia said. This year and last year Secunia tallied 36 advisories on security issues with the software, many of them allowing attackers to remotely take over the system - comparable to figures on operating systems such as Windows XP Professional and Red Hat Enterprise Server. "Secunia is now displaying security statistics that will open many eyes, and for some it might be very disturbing news," said Secunia chief executive Niels Henrik Rasmussen. "The myth that Mac OS X is secure, for example, has been exposed."

• 2010 - 20 zero-day security holes in Mac OS X to be revealed

A zero-day security hole is a weakness in software that neither the makers of the software nor other individuals have any knowledge of. Hackers then take advantage of the exploit on the day it becomes general knowledge. Miller revealing that Mac OS X has twenty of them makes Apple look like they didn't do the job right the first time and also suggests Apple needs glasses to see what they've missed – and he's not wrong.

"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town," Miller said, suggesting that while both OSes have their security flaws, the Mac OS is safer because of the lack of people threatening to exploit it.

And if you do not believe these articles check out below the humongous number of security holes apple had per year (and i only spent 5mins in google). Moreover, if you want to compare the number of security problems that pops up every year (more than 50 per year for Apple) with other operating systems then compare it with OpenBSD, which had 2 since 1997...

• 2007 - Washington Post in January: "Month of Apple Bugs"

• 2008 - Washington Post Apple Patches 40 Security Holes

• 2010 - March - Softpedia Apple Patches 23 Security Holes in Mac OS X Leopard, Snow Leopard

• 2010 - June - Threat post Apple Plugs 48 Security Holes in Safari Browser

And if you don't like news sources here is a book bluntly stating the illusion Apple creates over its security:

• The myths of security p. 144

Look at Apple. People often find security vulnerabilities in the products, often dozens at a time. And while the security industry knows this, the world sees Apple as a more secure platform.

Anyhow these are my 2 cents... A.Cython (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have some actual content that you want to add to the article? Apple patching security holes isn't very exciting, every bit of software has security holes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Please forgive me if I did not articulate well what I wanted to say. Every operating system has security holes and indeed there is no point numbering them here; it would have very boring both to the writer and the reader. However, the security holes were not my main point, but rather the combination effects of the marketing or reputation that Macs or other Apple products are safe/immune from dangers of malware/viruses etc with the plain fact that they are not. The sources that I have provided verify both the facts that Apple has as many security holes as other operating systems and the existence of a myth that Apple products as "hacker/virus/malware"-proof systems. The only reason that Apple does not have the same reputation as Windows is that the hackers have not started exploiting Apple's vulnerabilities yet. However, as some of the sources provided outline that the false sense of security can create even bigger problems. This effect is almost unique to Apple.

So... so... on my opinion I think it would be very good to insert somewhere in the articles a paragraph or two concerning the wrong impression of security that is given by Apple (and others I guess) in comparison with PCs to its users when in fact it is not. This is either related to the culture section, since this myth is part of the culture the Apple projects, or with the criticism section. I think the later is more appropriate place.

I will try to write something short and insert it at some point the following days. A.Cython (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have read you piece and think it has issues with WP:NPOV.

Firts: the title would be better "Allegations of false security projection" instead of "False security projection".

Second: The piece begins with asserting that Apple advertises its products as being more secure and you refer to an Apple ad on YouTube. But Apple doesn't claim in the ad to be more secure, but to be not susceptible to PC-viruses.

Third: I searched the McAfee Threat Center Database with the words Mac OS X and got 14 results. 3 of them (Linux/Tored.worm , OSX/Tored/worm and W32/Tored.worm) were Windows viruses and only had the words Mac OS X in their description. That leaves 11 results. Two of them were a PDF-list (File Name Size _31661fcdac82_4c09_872f_4df296f6181f.exe 45,056 ...) from McAfee and another webpage from McAfee (Titled: McAfee Threat Center) and not related to my search. That leaves 9. Another one of them is a macro-script for MS Word for Mac. This only affects MS Word for Mac and can only run within that application and can affect documents opened in it. It doesn't affect the actual Mac OS X-system. That leaves 8. 5 of those 8 are trojans. As you know, trojans have to be installed by the user in order to work. The trojan tries to trick the user into installing it. That leaves still 3. OSX/Cosmac is labeled by McAfee as a program, so it has to be installed and run by the user in order to work. That leaves 2 (OSX/Leap and OSX/Inqtana.a). OSX/Inqtana.a is a proof of concept-virus and therefor never released in the wild, it dates from Februari 2006. That still leaves one: OSX/Leap. McAfee lists it as virus, but there has been controverse about that, with some saying it is a trojan. McAfee itself says the following in their description of OSX/Leap: "Leap requires user interaction in order to infect a machine, as the user receiving an instant message containing the worm will have to extract the executable from the archive and then run as admin. When run, it appears immediately that it is not a harmless jpeg file but in fact a malicious binary file. It runs in command/shell mode calling a terminal session for it to execute. The default message "Welcome to Darwin! " can be seen.". So, Leap requires the user to be an admin user, extract the executable and run it in order to function? Sound more like a trojan to me. But because it is labeled as a virus by McAfee an there was controverse around it, you could say, with some good will, that there has been 1 Mac OS X virus and that it dates from 2006. The security hole has been plugged a long time ago by the way. I have to conclude that if Apple claims not to be susceptible to any virus that there is now in the wild, they are right.

Fourth:Then you say that criticism over Apple's claims of being more secure (which they don't claim -> see point 1) have risen over the years. Then I find this link to an article on CNN Money. Basically the article claims Apple is the new hackers bulls-eye and the article refers to the stolen e-mailaddresses of AT&T customers that used a dataplan with their iPad. So, let me get this straight: the article suggests hackers are now hacking Apple-products, but then I read the following: "Hacker group Goatse Security was able to obtain 114,000 iPad 3G users' e-mail addresses and iPad SIM card ID numbers from AT&T's (T, Fortune 500) website last week. The vulnerability was on AT&T's site, but any hit against the iPad dings Apple as well." So because AT&T's website has a security leak and gets hacked, Apple's security is somehow hacked? Come on. It goes on by saying there has also been found a security leak in the Safari webbrowser (this is not related to the stolen iPad emails-addresses). Yes, of course a security leak, but Apple has never claimed to be more secure in the ad, it claimed not to be susceptible to PC-viruses. And even if they would claim to be more secure, products can have security leaks. More secure doesn't mean 100% secure.

Fifth: Another link, this one to The Inquirer. One of the first things I read were: "Bastion of smugness": referring to Apple and Apple users. Later I read: "While fanbois love to tout their belief in the superior security of their shiny toys" and "Those Apple faithful who like to point out that their toys are subject to fewer attacks are simply falling into the mistake of thinking that this is because of better security magically put into place by Steve Jobs and his minions." The language in which the article is written is unprofessional and source-unworthy. I consider a Mac to be a useful computer, not "a shiny toy". The fact that you included this article as a source gives a clue about your POV.

Sixth: Then you write the following: "since every year a significant number of vulnerabilities have being found" and you give sources. The second source, going to threatpost.com doesn't lead to an article, but that's besides the point. Source 1 (Washington Post) and 3 (Softpedia) seem to be ok for the given statement, but given that Apple doesn't claim to be more secure in your source of the first sentence, the statement doesn't make sense.

Seventh: It goes further: "and at the same time this number is comparable" and you give a source from Techworld, but it concerns an article from 2004. Isn't that a bit old? Mac OS X isn't static, it evolves.

Eighth: Then it ends with a quote of a security expert working at an anti-virus company. While I have my doubts about the neutrality of opinion of an employee working at an anti-virus company concerning the security of products, it is an opinion that can be included, just like other sources opinions. The problem with the whole piece is that it only gives one POV which to my opinion goes against WP:NPOV.

Nineth: In reply to what you write on the page :"And if you do not believe these articles check out below the humongous number of security holes apple had per year (and i only spent 5mins in google). Moreover, if you want to compare the number of security problems that pops up every year (more than 50 per year for Apple) with other operating systems then compare it with OpenBSD, which had 2 since 1997...". Patches to security holes != number of security holes. There can be and probably are more security holes in a product than the number of patches that are issued. It is possible that there are more security leaks in OpenBSD, but that they aren't yet discovered. It can be that OpenBSD is more secure, but it can also be that less people audit OpenBSD-code to discover security leaks that with Mac OS X. All I want to say is that the number of patches/discovered security leaks doesn't equal the true number of security leaks a product has. It depends on a number of factors.

All taken together, the piece is not neutral. Some things don't make sense, there are bad and low-quality sources and some things can be included as longs as there is also another POV included. One could easily write the opposite, make a header "Praises for Apple" and get a few sources from a few blogs that Apple is the best that ever happened and is secure as hell. But it wouldn't be neutral, just as this isn't. You could prove every POV as there are enough sources/blogs/articles on the internet to prove everything that you want and that's why more POV's must be included and quality of sources has to be higher. The piece is very one-sided written in its POV. GoldRenet (talk) 10:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with basically everything GoldRenet (excellent explinations btw) says, and also could point out a few more things if I was more focused on this article, I just restored the link and cleaned up the refs. As in my edit summary, I was about to tag it myself but figured maybe the person was working on it so give it a few hours, but I fell asleep ;p. It could turn into something useful but right now isn't too hot; perhaps removing it and putting it on the talk page or similar is the best course unless it gets cleaned up. It really isn't that bad of a stab at the issue though, it's just hard to do correctly. RN 13:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I sometimes like to write large letters ;) Sorry if I seemed harsh, it wasn't my intention and certainly not meant ad hominem. However, the thing is that the security of Apple (especially Mac) products and the advertising around it, are very controversial. So if there will be a section about that on the article, it better be well researched and documented with multiple POV's. Also, there are two sides on the security-issue:

The first is Apple's advertising of the security of their products. If Apple makes false claims and if this is documented on the internet, it should be included in the article. However, in the given ad, I didn't find a false claim. I searched their website (more specifically the Why You'll Love a Mac-section) and their marketing machine certainly walks a thin line, but they also don't explicitly make false claims, as far as I can tell. Though, if a false claimed is found, there has to be a source that documents and criticises this false claim. As it is now, the sources don't follow the claim, because the claim doesn't exist. There is a disconnect between the source of the first sentence and the sources of the second sentence. If the first sentence would follow its source correctly, we would get this:

"Apple advertise its products as being non-susceptble to viruses and persuading the public's perspective that there are none for the Mac. However, criticism over Apple misleading the public has been risen over the years since every year a significant number of vulnerabilities have being found, and at the same time this number is comparable with other products such as products from Microsoft."

But of course, it wouldn't make any sense anymore. Sentence 2 wouldn't follow sentence 1 anymore.

The second issue around the security of Apple products, are the security features/leaks/shortcomings of the products itself and the technologies behind it. For example, criticism about security features/shortcomings in Mac OS X Snow Leopard or iOS are better fit on their respective pages and not on this general Apple Inc. page. And in fact, on the Snow Leopard, there is a security section with for example criticism about the fact that ASLR security technic isn't yet fully implemented in Snow Leopard.

I'm neutral on whether to remove the section and place it on the talk page or to leave it there. The advantage of leaving it there would be that everyone who sees it, sees the badge and can contribute on the talk page. However, the section is based on wrong assertions in the beginning. Until or unless someone comes with a documented source that criticises Apple's claims around security in their advertising, the section is rather useless.

Again, sorry if I seem harsh, it can happen that I don't realise it of myself, and I certainly assume good faith, this is far from vandalism :) GoldRenet (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

@GoldRenet, "That leaves 9. Another one of them is a macro-script for MS Word for Mac. This only affects MS Word for Mac and can only run within that application and can affect documents opened in it. It doesn't affect the actual Mac OS X-system. That leaves 8. 5 of those 8 are trojans." I don't think its fair to exclude Trojans just because they have to be installed - many users aren't aware of security issues and might well install them.

That said the number of threats for the Mac is still extremely low if there are only 6. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

@Eraserhead1 A note: as explained below using a different keyword "MacOS" it gives 130 viruses and most of them specifically for Macintosh... that is not a small number considering that hackers haven't started targeting Apple yet. You can find more with the keyword "Apple" (although there is some overlap between these two searches).A.Cython (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

@A.Cython: Mac OS does not equal Mac OS X, see my reaction below.

@Eraserhead1: see the first part of my later reaction a bit lower on the page. GoldRenet (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I suspect my english were terrible. I do hope that I have provided enough material that show that Apple is not as secure as Apple wants to project.

• "But Apple doesn't claim in the ad to be more secure, but to be not susceptible to PC-viruses." I am sorry but I have feeling this is potato tomato logic... Apple is technically a PC ever since they switched to intel processors. So the distinction between Apple and PC is false. Lie number 1. Moreover, programs that run on PCs i.e. Microsoft Office or Firefox run on Apple as well therefore if a virus hits a particular program on a PC it can also hit an Apple computer as easily. The only difference is the different architecture on the operating system (OS) which might prevent the virus of bringing the whole OS down. But this is in direct conflict with the ad the Apple guy could sneeze as well since some popular programs running on an Apple product are the same as in a PC and therefore equally susceptible. Lie number 2. But this difference in OS is not enough since it does not guarantee any level of security. As some sources above outline, Apple is less susceptible to hacker attacks not because it is more secure (or less susceptible in comparison to PCs) when a hacker attacks but rather there is no hacker interested to attack an Apple product. Here are two quotes, one of which is from a book whose publisher is O'Reilly Media, Inc. in 2009... (please forgive me re-using the quote from above)

• The myths of security p. 144

Look at Apple. People often find security vulnerabilities in the products, often dozens at a time. And while the security industry knows this, the world sees Apple as a more secure platform.

• 2010 - 20 zero-day security holes in Mac OS X to be revealed

"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town," Miller said, suggesting that while both OSes have their security flaws, the Mac OS is safer because of the lack of people threatening to exploit it.

In essence if there was a hacker, who have built a virus to target Apple products, then the Apple guy will sneeze just like the PC guy in the ad. Lie number 3. In total, Apple lied three times and on my perspective and also it seems the authors of the sources I have used, Apple manufactures a false image. I do not know if Apple crosses the line on legal terms for false claims but on my opinion certainly crossed it in terms of morality, respect, and trust between the company-client relation. All these different sources found and provided reflect that. Now some people might want to shoot me for using hard language. I am willing to dilute the language used so long we do not dilute facts.

• What is the problem with The Inquirer? Just because they describe Apple products as "shine toys"? Apple products are indeed shiny and many people buy them in order to play with its gadgets, therefore they are used often as toys. It does not mean that they cannot be useful. They can be very useful. Are you offended somehow by this characterisation? If you answer yes then it will sound as if you are having POV. Please take no offence I am not accusing anyone. But also remember that I use that article not to describe Apple products as "shiny toys" but rather the fact that the article comments on the opinion of an expert concerning Apple's security issues:

According to Maiffret it doesn't take long for talented coders to find holes in Apple's software at various hacking events. If Apple was taking security seriously, he said, then "they wouldn't claim to be more secure than Microsoft because they are very much not."

and the nurture of unawareness in the Apple's culture:

To round things out he says that security prospects are "scarier with them [Apple]", as Jobs' Mob "market themselves as more secure than the PC". Given the ignorance of Apple fanbois everywhere and the growth of Mac OS X, it's highly likely that the security through obscurity approach that Apple has taken won't hold up for much longer.

• About AT&T and iPads... If Apple force you only to choose AT&T... In other words this is the only way to use an Apple product then a security breach at AT&T that could potentially affect an Apple product means only one thing. The security choices of Apple about its products are not secure. I mean come on guys whose fault is it about brakes at Toyota cars? Toyota or any company that sells Toyota cars or the people that manufacture brakes. The answer on my opinion is both Toyota and the people manufacturing the brakes. In our case both AT&T and Apple. Let's not hide behind words.

• You complained about one source being from 2004? What!? All the sources I have provided are from 2004 till June 2010. And the subject I am trying describe is that Apple since it became popular has projected a false image on security! Of course Apple products are not static they evolve... well expect its security problems, which are popping up all these years: 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010. I do not want to ruin your day but the sources increase in numbers as we approach summer 2010. The problem becomes bigger not smaller! Using a parabolic term to describe the issue at hand... Apple effectively devolves.

• You also complained about a quote from an expert on security working in an anti-virus company. On what grounds the quote I am using is false? That quote does not even say anything about Apple, it is generic (i.e. applied to anyone) and makes sense! He is a bloody expert on his field. What is next. The guy who found 20 security holes that not even Apple knows them has worked in NSA. Now what is his problem? Worked for the government and thus this is government take over of the free market? They are experts on their field. Please do not take an offence but I will go with their opinion rather yours. Provide an expert to challenge them!

• Claim about poor sources. It is partially true. I have used mainly news sources and some well respected blogs (from Washington post etc) and one book on security from probably the most respected publisher on computers. Unfortunately, there are not many books that touch this issue, because things change very fast in the technology world. So I used what was available and seemed reliable enough. But all sources bluntly show one thing. Apple is misleading the public on subject of security of its products. Now you want to change the words e.g. not misleading but say the nurture of the lack of awareness, that is fine by me.

• Finally, please do not get me wrong. I have an iPhone and I admire the impact of Apple on breaking the Windows domination in the market and the public perspective. However, it does not change the fact that most people, who have Apple products, have false sense of security because they are unaware of the security vulnerabilities, which are found at same rate as in other non-Apple products (Windows, Linux etc). I also apologise if my english were poor and maybe to some readers misleading. Any valid criticism is welcome. I will more carefully re-read the comments above and try the following days to improve the paragraph in question.A.Cython (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok here is where Apple bluntly claims: Mac OS X doesn’t get PC viruses. This is not true. The user GoldRenet has already searched at the McAfree site some viruses that exist at Apple products. Although he claims that is not entirely related Apple products since the Trojan horse is an application rather than on the operating system. But that crazy logic i.e then PCs are also immune from viruses since if you do not have any application running then you not do anything or being infected. If there is at least one virus (unfortunately it is much more than one) that through a program, a corrupt file or other possible way does something that the user does not want on the computer without Apple being able to protect him/her then Apple should advertise Mac OS X does get PC viruses! Moreover, the user GoldRenet only looked for the cases where there is an actual virus infecting Macs with a very specific keyword. However, the sources used talk for all the security holes Apple has not only the one being exploited already! Finally, if you type "MacOS" at the McAfree security center it gives you 130 results of which most of them are viruses specifically for Macintosh. At that is my understanding when it says Type: Virus, Subtype: Macintosh! A.Cython (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Another source from the Macworld.com written on 2 Jun, 2009:

On May 26, Macworld republished a controversial Computerworld article by Ira Winkler suggesting that Apple is “grossly negligent” when it comes to security, and should be investigated by the Federal Trade Commission for false advertising. The author was motivated to write this piece based on Apple’s recent failure to patch a known Java security flaw that was fixed on other platforms nearly six months ago.

...
The article is absolutely correct in that Apple clearly bungled the Java security patch, placing Mac users at risk in the process. This isn’t the first time Apple has failed to patch a known security issue in a timely fashion, and it reveals a major weakness in the company’s security program.
...

Apple has a poor history here, often failing to provide OS X security fixes for flaws fixed on other platforms days, weeks, or even months earlier. We’ve seen Mac users exposed to known vulnerabilities in WebKit (Safari), Samba (Windows file sharing), DNS (networking), MDNS (Bonjour), Apache (web server), Java, and more. This is an extremely serious problem, and one Apple is rightly criticized for.

Now if a magazine for Macs say these things and still people disagree then what can I say...A.Cython (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

One more source:

In June, Dai Zovi reported on a new local privilege escalation vulnerability researchers had discovered that gives local root access on Mac OS X Tiger and Leopard.

...
The security level in Leopard falls in between Windows XP Service Pack 2 and Vista, he said. If Snow Leopard has full ASLR and DEP, it would bring its security close to the level of Vista, he added.
...
"Microsoft has had a head start. That's why they had ASLR and DEP first," Miller said. "It's not because they're geniuses. They just started caring about it sooner."
"These things go lock in step and it doesn't make sense for businesses to expend a ton of resources when the threat is not there," said Dai Zovi. "So far, Apple has been keeping up pretty well with the level of threats in the wild."
...
In the meantime, more and more Mac malware is appearing. Earlier this week, TrendMicro reported that it found a new variant of the JAHLAV family of Trojans that pose as pirated versions of legitimate applications, modify a computer's domain name system (DNS) settings and enabling successful phishing attacks and redirects to sites hosting malware. Earlier versions of the Trojan masqueraded as versions of QuickTime, but this one passes as Foxit Reader or an antivirus program.

Some malware is written for both Windows and Mac platforms and downloads the correct version depending on the browser. Last week, Symantec reported that sites purporting to show streams of new movies were actually feeding up a DNS-changing Trojan instead called OSX.RSPlug.A for Mac and Trojan.Fakeavalert for Windows. Last month, a McAfee blog post wrote about the OSX/Puper.a Trojan that is downloaded onto Mac systems when users download what they think is a video player.

And if people are curious about viruses at Macintosh before 2000 look here p. 169-17?... The more I search the web the more dirty things I find about Apple.A.Cython (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

First, to reply to Eraserhead1: the number of trojans targetting Mac OS X must be more. I remembered that there were trojans packaged in pirated iWork copies. I searched the database again with iWork as keyword and got two trojans I think. Unfortunately McAfee doesn't always list Mac OS X as words in the description as targetted platform. The reason I left trojans out was because Apple claimed in the commercial that there were no viruses for Mac. They did not claim that there was no malware for Mac. I follow Mac-related news since a long time, and as far as I know there has only been one item of malware that was described as a virus by an antivirus company, and even that was controversial, see my post above.

To respond to A.Cython. Your English is excellent ;)

1: Just like applications, malware has to be written for a specific OS, not purely for a CPU architecture.

2: You say that there are programs that run on both Macs and PC's. Yes, that is true, but these applications have different versions for each OS. In webbrowsers or plugins there may be cross-OS security leaks, but exploiting this would, as far as I know, still require OS-specific malware. If someone is an expert on this, feel free to contribute. The situation for MS Word for Mac and MS Excel for Mac is specific as there are macro-scripts with malicious intents written for. These scripts can only run in the macro executing environment of MS Excel and Word itself. They can run cross-platform but they can't do anything outside of the application, they can't harm the OS. It runs in a sort of virtual machine within MS Word or Excel. Again, if someone knows more about this, feel free.

3: You also seem to mix different sorts of malware. Viruses, trojans, macro scripts, etc are all different forms of malware. You began your piece with saying that Apple advertises itself as being more secure and you give an ad as source. In fact, Apple doesn't advertises itself as more secure, it advertises that there are no viruses it is susceptible for. As far as I know there has only been one item (OSX/Leap and it has also a couple of aliases, dates from 2006) of malware for Mac OS X that could be described as a virus. If you know the name of another virus for Mac OS X in the wild (not an alias of OSX/Leap and not a proof of concept), you can give it here.

4: As for the fact that there are security vulnerabilities for Mac OS X: of course. Apple does not claim (as far as I know) that there are no security vulnerabilities for Mac OS X, it claims that there are no Mac OS X-viruses in the wild that target its platform. And this is where I think you section is wrong. You make Apple claim something they did not say in the ad.

5: You say: "In essence if there was a hacker, who have built a virus to target Apple products, then the Apple guy will sneeze just like the PC guy in the ad.". Yes, that may be true, but as far as I know there has only been one piece of malware for the Mac that could be described as a virus. And what does Apple claim in the ad you gave: There are no viruses in the wild for which Mac OS X is susceptible.

6: You say: "I do not know if Apple crosses the line on legal terms for false claims but on my opinion certainly crossed it in terms of morality, respect, and trust between the company-client relation." You know, I completely agree. Apple's claims may be technically correct, but most people don't know the difference between a virus and a trojan and don't know which implications this has on the Mac OS X-platform. Those people think that all malware are called viruses, and so they wrongly think that, seeing the ad, if they buy a Mac they won't be able to get any type of malware.

7: I am not offended by The Inquirer, because it is their style for all of their articles. But have you looked at the writing of their articles? It is totally unprofessional. I have nothing against the people writing these articles, but they are very unprofessional. Such writing, you would not find in a quality newspaper, and it's quality sources we need. Or are we going to descend in this garbage quality? Again, the quote may come from a true expert, but what he says is the following: Apple isn't as secure as you think. Yes of course, but in the ad you have given, Apple claims something different, they don't claim to be secure, they claim to have no viruses that exploit their platform.

8: About iPad and AT&T. Yes, indeed, for having 3G on you iPad in the USA, you have to go with AT&T. But consider the following: if you had a computer and the only email-site you can access is Yahoo, will you blame your OS company or Yahoo if there is a security breach in the Yahoo website? This is a tough decision according to me. You have to look at it from both sides.

9: About the source of 2004. The reason I say it is too old is the following. You first say in your piece that the number of vulnerabilities in Mac OS X are about the same as in Windows. Then, you give a source from 2004. Is this relevant? How many people still use Mac OS X Panther? A more recent article comparing modern OS'es would be more useful. And again, your second sentence in the piece, doesn't follow the beginning sentence as you start from a supposed claim by Apple in an ad. A claim that isn't there, maybe only technically, but this is an encyclopaedia, standards of quality should be high.

10: I completely agree that Apple doesn't make people aware that, even though there may be no viruses for Mac OS X, there certainly is other malware.

11: I don't admire any company. I like using Apple products, I admire that people are working hard to make them, but I don't admire the Company Apple itself. Companies are only here to make money.

12: As I said earlier, a lot of people don't know the difference between a virus and a trojan when watching an Apple ad and therefor get a false perception about security in Apple products. But technically Apple is correct. I agree it is very difficult to make a good, neutral, well documented section about this. But because it is a controversial subject for many people, it has to be a section of high quality.

13: About the difference between PC's and Macs in getting malware: see points 1 and 2.

14: The reason why you get more and other results when you type Mac OS in the search field of McAfee, is because you then find viruses written for a version of the classic Mac OS, more precisely: System 1 to 7 and Mac OS 8 and 9. These viruses do not work on Mac OS X as the base of the classic Mac OS and the base of Mac OS X are not the same. Mac OS X is a departure from Mac OS, it is a very different system. By the way, I don't think Apple ever advertised their computers as non-susceptible to existing viruses back in the days of the classic Mac OS when there were viruses in the wild for the classic Mac OS.

15: The section could have risks becoming too one-sided. Like I said, one could also make a header "Praise for Apple Security", write some fluffy stuff and back it up with some articles and blogs from across the web. One could prove everything with sources from the web.

I'm certainly not against a section about this, but it has to be neutral and of high quality. One could for example write that although Apple's claim in the ad are largely correct, the public has too little technical knowledge to correctly understand them. The problem is that one has to find good sources to back this up.

PS: I see that you just wrote some extra, but I'm sorry that I can't reply to that now, as I was also just posting a reply. GoldRenet (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, luckily it wasn't too much extra :p

Now, I never disagreed on the fact that Apple products have security vulnerabilities. In some cases there implementation of security technics is behind the rest of the industry, like ASLR. I disagree on the fact that you made Apple claim their products are more secure, while they say something different in the ad. And yes for the public, perception is different, they think everything is a virus and that trojans are the same as viruses, etc. But by pointing that out in the piece and have sources for that, would make it more neutral. The last bit you wrote, I only read for a moment, maybe I will reply again later, but I'm tired now ;) GoldRenet (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok give a couple of days and I will try to improve the paragraph based on your constructive criticise. :) A.Cython (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

All right. When I have the time I'm ready to help with the section! And thank you for reading and replying to my comments. :) GoldRenet (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried to be more precise in the paragraph. This is not the final version but i think it is moving to the right direction. Also I would like to quickly reply to your previous comments.

1. Not necessarily. It is possible to be OS independent.

2. It also depends on the security breach. If the program has a flaw, which OS does know how to handle it then a virus/malware can be damaging.

3. fixed. Also, i think hackers the last few years are more interested into writing malware rather than viruses. They are more sneaky.

4. it think it is covered on (3)

5. That is the essence of what I would like in the paragraph i.e. just because there are no threats it does not mean you are have a secure system! There is a huge difference between these two things. The fact that experts find zero-day security holes + whenever Apple has security update it fixed at least one or two dozen security holes. This means that had something that was not secure and only by fortune alone your Apple product was not attacked.

6. :)

7. Fixed.

8. The answer in your question is yes if the OS only allows you to use Yahoo and no other company.

9. This article is about Apple not Mac OS X, thus a 2004 is valid unless you have a source that shows things has changed. Unless you claim Mac OS is not a product of Apple Inc.

10. :)

11. A company without people is meaningless. At least for me a company is the collective production of a group of people. These people make the products and make money out of the product... etc Anyhow... this is irrelevant with the main point of this discussion.

12. see (3)

13. see (1)

14. see (9)

Ok, my last last update is not final. I will try to improve it further.

A.Cython (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

To reply to A.Cython: as some points are out of the way, we can focus on the remaining ones ;)

1. Can you explain how? You seem to be very certain about this.

2. Then still it can only do those things that MS Word or MS Excel can do to your Mac OS X-system as the macro-script can only run from within these applications. But I am no expert in this, so I am not totally certain. What I do know is that if there is something (be it the user or an application or something else) that wants to change system files on Mac OS X, the user will be prompted by the system to fill in an administrator username and password to authenticate this action.

5. Yes. But what is the section about: "Allegations of false security projection". Apple does not claim that it's products do not have vulnerabilities or that it's 100% secure. If Apple advertised that its products are 100% secure and do not have any vulnerabilities, then that would be a false security projection. As long as Apple does not claim that, it isn't any different than products from other companies.

8. Actually, I can find myself both in your arguments in this as well as in mine :)

9. As this is a section about allegations of false security projections by Apple, this can only be included if Apple made false claims around its products in 2004 or before. See also (5). This is not a section of the security of Apple products but a section of false advertising of Apple around the security of its products. The security itself of its products is already written about on the Wikipedia articles of some of its products.

14. As far as I know, Apple has never advertised the classic Mac OS as virus-free. They did however advertise Mac OS X as virus-free. Since 2001, on every Mac you have Mac OS X installed. What did they say in the Get a Mac ad from 2006: buy a Mac and you will have no viruses to deal with. As every new Mac (for years already) came with Mac OS X and not the classic Mac OS, their claim is not false.

I'd also like to say something about a new source you provided in the section: a Report from McAfee about Mac OS X security in 2006. On 16 Februari 2006 McAfee reports the existance of the OSX/Leap trojan in its database and handily calls it a virus (which it is not, as OSX/Leap cannot arbitrarely execute and reproduce itself, unless the user launches it and fills in an admin user name and password). Then, on 4 May 2006, McAfee releases a report basically to spread fear among Mac users that they are not safe from viruses; a large part of the report is dedicated to the "virus" OSX/Leap and the proof-of-concept virus OSX/Inqtana.a. The same day, they release their newest product of antivirus software for Mac OS X, so all these Mac users don't have to be scared anymore after reading the McAfee report. They can now just buy McAfee antivirus for Mac! I find this all very suspicious.

More so, the report itself is sometimes misleading. For example, the table on page 3 takes Mac OS and Mac OS X viruses together. That would be the same thing as taking Windows and Linux Mint viruses together and make a table of it. It doesn't make any sense. If they had only taken Mac OS X, the table would look like this: a timeline from around 2000 to 2006. Only in 2006 there would be a bar with 2 viruses (actually trojans, but by McAfee labeled as viruses). I also refer to the following post: I don't agree with everything in the post, but it has some good criticism, and by the lack of any better sources... And another article on the opinions around whether OSX/Leap is a virus or a trojan.

I think the example about Java you now included in the section is a good example. For pointing out that Apple projects falsely around security in connection with this Java-example, you could do something with the following I found on this page: "When a potential security threat arises, Apple responds quickly by providing software updates and security enhancements you can download automatically and install with a click." Before the Java-sentence you could add a sentence pointing out that Apple advertises to respond quickly when a security threat is discovered. After that sentence, there is the Java-sentence that criticises the slow response of Apple. Although it would technically be incorrect as the advertising page I included came a half year after the criticism, there is not much choice I think because it would be else undoable.

I will withhold my further comments on the section itself until you think you're done with it ;) Actually, readers should better read the talk page, this discussion is much more informative :p GoldRenet (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

In reply to above comments:

1. Check this report and here... moreover... JAVA and any multi-platform applications/framework are targets. If the OS is not able to handle the these applications properly it can be damaging to the user.

5. Well not in those words. But to convict a murderer you do not need a smoking gun. It would be nice and easier but not necessary. If you ask any Mac user about the huge number security vulnerabilities he/she will only reply with ignorance. What makes things worse is that they insist as well. Second, sources I have supplied above do state that Apple somehow is responsible for the ignorance of its users. I doubt I would be able to trace the steps of their marketing campaign... but at least I guess we could add the removal antivirus suggestions on Macs after the first virus appeared check here. Why Macs users do not need options for anti-virus? Indirectly it says Macs are so secure that the user does not need more protections... go figure. Yeah I know what a guy from Apple said who will remember in a week or two. Everybody will remember Hi I am a PC and I am a Mac... Anyhow you do not like McAfee's report well here is a more recent report from the Swiss Federal Institute here:

Our analysis of the 0-day patch performance and the number of concurrently unpatched vulnerabilities covered 658 high- and medium risk vulnerabilities of Microsoft and 738 of Apple.

No matter how you see this Apple is as bad (or as good) as Windows. Just because there is no interest by hackers to attack Apple it does not mean Apple cannot get infected by viruses/malware etc. This is not what Apple projects!

Concerning the McAfee report I would also say that anything Apple says is very suspicious. No doubt since me and you are not experts, we should include both the report and the article you found in the paragraph in order to provide the reader a full view of the situation.

Here is another misleading ad... 1st of all a PC is also linux e.g. OpenBSD, which is far superior in terms of security than Macs in any possible way. It can be installed everywhere any desktop, laptops big screen small screens slow processors fast processors... even on a Mac with intel processor. So why it is not mentioned? One word... misleading!

You complained about Apple said only it does not get PC viruses? What about spyware? [3] And here is recent example to contradicts Apple [4], [5] A.Cython (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

In reply to A.Cython:

1. Check this report and here... moreover... JAVA and any multi-platform applications/framework are targets. If the OS is not able to handle the these applications properly it can be damaging to the user.

I understand you first source relates to OS independent rootkits that exploit security vulnerabilities in features of CPU-architectures (I could have wrongfully understood it as I'm no expert in rootkits). As far as I know, this is a good source. I don't know whether you were planning to use this source in the section, but if so, I'm not sure whether this is notable enough as (according to the source) a Virtual Machine Based Rootkit appears only to exist in research labs. Your second source does not say what you mean. It says "The use of fake video codecs is a social engineering tactic exclusively used by malware targeting Windows, and seeing it used in a Mac OS X based malware attack proves that successful social engineering approaches remain OS independent." The exploit is not cross-platform, it simply says that exploits using this social engineering approach also exist for Mac OS X. This is not the same as saying that a specific exploit works cross-platform. Just like the phenomenon trojan is not specific to Windows or Mac OS X, that does not mean that each trojan doesn't have to be be written for a specific OS. The description of the trojan in the source says: "OSX/Jahlav-C is a Trojan created for the Mac OS X operating system.". It is not cross-platform.

5. Well not in those words. But to convict a murderer you do not need a smoking gun. It would be nice and easier but not necessary. If you ask any Mac user about the huge number security vulnerabilities he/she will only reply with ignorance. What makes things worse is that they insist as well. Second, sources I have supplied above do state that Apple somehow is responsible for the ignorance of its users. I doubt I would be able to trace the steps of their marketing campaign... but at least I guess we could add the removal antivirus suggestions on Macs after the first virus appeared check here. Why Macs users do not need options for anti-virus? Indirectly it says Macs are so secure that the user does not need more protections... go figure. Yeah I know what a guy from Apple said who will remember in a week or two. Everybody will remember Hi I am a PC and I am a Mac... Anyhow you do not like McAfee's report well here is a more recent report from the Swiss Federal Institute.

Apple certainly tries to keep its public perception as having no malware. I think this perception is partly the result of Apple advertising that is misinterpreted by less technical-knowledgeable people. If Apple advertises its products as virus-free, most people don't understand this does not equal malware-free. Apple knows this and tries to protect the benefits of it. In that, I think this source you gave is good as Apple tries here to protect its image as having no malware for its platform. Apple has formulated its statement vaguely enough as to not claim that the security techniques in Mac OS X protect the user against all malware, but it tricks the less technical-knowledgeable reader into thinking that Mac OS X has features that protect against all threats.

About the McAfee's report: it is not about not liking the report. The timing of McAfee's actions is suspicious and the report contains misleading elements (like the chart that takes Mac OS and Mac OS X together as if it was the same platform). Therefor one could allege McAfee of making false projections of Mac OS X-security. Considering antivirus software for Mac OS X didn't and doesn't sell very well, McAfee had a lot of sales to gain from publishing this report. For all of these elements, I consider the report to be biased and cannot be included. I also didn't mean to include the source I gave (that criticises the McAfee-report) to include in the article, I meant it to point some things out on the talk page. However, and as you suggested, if the report and my source are included they can be worked into the section as sentences like these: "A report from McAfee in 2006 showed serious concerns about the safety of Apple Macintoshes.(source) Some criticised the report however (source)."

About the report from the Swiss Federal Institute: I think this is a good source to include and it would fit nice with the allegation about the slow response of Apple to vulnerabilities.

Just because there is no interest by hackers to attack Apple it does not mean Apple cannot get infected by viruses/malware etc. This is not what Apple projects!

Yes off course. I never said that it was not possible to write malware for Mac OS X. In fact, there is interest: there are several trojans targetting Mac OS X. For the last sentence of this quotation, I refer to what I have written here just above: Apple certainly tries to keep...

Concerning the McAfee report I would also say that anything Apple says is very suspicious. No doubt since me and you are not experts, we should include both the report and the article you found in the paragraph in order to provide the reader a full view of the situation.

Off course. But anything that McAfee says concerning things in which they have money/sales to gain, is also very suspicious. Anything that a company says and that connects to its interests/sales should be looked at with caution.

Here is another misleading ad... 1st of all a PC is also linux e.g. OpenBSD, which is far superior in terms of security than Macs in any possible way. It can be installed everywhere any desktop, laptops big screen small screens slow processors fast processors... even on a Mac with intel processor. So why it is not mentioned? One word... misleading!

Actually with a PC, Apple means a Windows PC. However, they don't call it a "Windows PC", so it could be misleading. Personally, I think most people understand that in the ad, with a "PC" it is meant a "Windows PC." Most people only know about Windows and Mac OS X (some only even know about the existence of Windows) and couldn't name one Linux or BSD distribution.

You complained about Apple said only it does not get PC viruses? What about spyware?

Excellent! This is a very good, and (I think) very clear allegation. It should certainly be included in the section. However upon second thought, there must be first a source criticising Apple for its advertising around spyware, as the two sources you gave don't allege Apple for that. So, without another source, this would come in conflict with WP:NOR as the allegation would come from a Wikipedia writer.

(In the last two quotations of your posts I included in my reply here, I had to exclude the sources in you post as my quotations wouldn't format properly for some reason)

GoldRenet (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Made some later edits to this reply. GoldRenet (talk) 09:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Cult/Religion

Should there be a section for the criticism received for apple's religious-like advertising and its cult-like following=P?Smallman12q (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added it under Criticism of Apple Inc.#Comparison with a Cult, I took immense care to make the section as neutral as possible and as non-offending as possible (but without censoring material), all backed-up by very good sources, using very neutral language (and avoiding problematic words), and not advancing any conclusion not explicit in the sources. I also believe I've given weight were weight is due and in the appropriate proportion. I think I've made a decent work, but off course anyone is welcome to make suggestions or improve the section themselves. --SF007 (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Needs updates

This article sorely needs some updates. Some recent criticisms include:

• The anti-competitive behavior of forcing competing content distributors like Kindle and Kobo to use Apple's in-app purchasing in iOS (which means Apple will retain 30% of the revenue). Before, the price of products available in in-app purchasing had to be the same with other channels too, despite the much higher fee.
• Recent patent battles with Samsung and HTC. Many claim that the patents cover very broad terms, products like the Nexus S and HTC phones do not similar "trade dress" with the iPhone and HTC's CEO said that he is "appalled" that Apple is competing in courts rather than in the marketplace.
• Apple is widely criticized for not accepting applications that will compete with its products one way or another into the app store.
• Related to the above, Apple is criticized for being a major influence in the charge to 'tethered appliances' where items can be altered only with the permission of, and sometimes with only the permission of, the manufacturer. Admittedly this may represent their success in this sphere rather than their possessing any greater desire to pursue this strategy than other major IT firms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.208.209 (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, with the release of Lion, OS X security is much better: OS X now has complete DEP and ASLR. The new Safari web browser now makes extensive use of Sandboxing, right down to the level of tabbed web pages, which makes it more secure. 203.129.60.48 (talk)

"Allegations of false security projection" section seems neutral to me

I don't see why it's tagged as the neutrality being disputed. No unnessesary attacks are made, it simply describes fully sourced truths. Apple does aggressively advertise that their products are more secure than PCs, OS X does have a growing number of vulnerabilities, etc. They are all real concerns, and are phrased in an encyclopedic fashion (rather than "Mac OS has been proven to have extremely poor security."). The content of the section is about as neutral as one can get considering the article is focussed upon critiscism of Apple. 174.112.29.90 (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see the relevant section on this page. Thank you. GoldRenet 11:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Slow and/or poor response to problems

There seem to have been several problems with iPhone models which have led to criticisms of Apple, e.g. when customers were told that they were "holding it the wrong way", or when the glass surfaces on some models could become scratched, leading to breaks when the phone was dropped, or the current problem with batteries being drained by frequent web accesses etc. Also Apple's response to allegations of malware attacks on Mac OS was apparently sub-optimal. Apple has been criticised for slow and/or poor responses to these and maybe other problems. Should these criticisms be mentioned here? --TraceyR (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

POV Tag

There are huge problems with inappropriate language and material that should not even be here. I have added a POV tag. It should stay until these issues are addressed.Tt121673 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC).

You should provide what are the issues. You can't just slap a POV talk without giving specifics. What is the problem in the article exactly? Sections, sentences, phrases? 12.190.142.192 (talk) 17:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

How anyone could expect neutrality in an article dealing with "criticism of <anybody>" is beyond me. Every item in the article will, because it is reporting what people/companies are complaining about, be by definition negative. The POV tag should be removed until User:Tt121673 comes up with a list of the 'issues' he/she claims exist in the article. --TraceyR (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with TraceyR and 12.190.142.192. I'm supporting removing the POV tag until the new editor enumerates his problems with greater specificity, and greater clarity. Sctechlaw (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC) Sctechlaw (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Innovation and undeserved credits

I request a section that take up the fact that Apple gets a lot of critic for taking a lot of undeserved credits for innovation they them selves has not invented or improved drastically just re-branded.

First example is the Mac OS X that basically is a Unix clone, much like Linux and it's different distributions, and that very much in Mac OS X, both design and functionality, that is praised to be innovations made by apple, not to mention Steve Jobs himself, actually resembles allot of the GUIs that was used in the Unix and Linux sphere at the time for Mac OS X "birth" and before. Example of this is the placing of the menus, the uses of different desks, the Exposé (Mac OS X), the open windows overview, the look and feel as well as function of the "system-settings dialog", several small helping and/or system softwares, the terminal etc. This has lead to the critic that Apple just took the free Unix and put together a distribution like any other (much like Linux Ubuntu, Mint or Fedora), re-branded it and falsely call it a "innovation" and "revolutionary new OS".

Also many pro-Apple states that Apple is the founder of the smartphone which is in fact incorrect as there was phones on the market classified as "Smartphones" long before Iphone (Symbian, Windows mobiles, Blackberry to mention a few earlier Smartphone OS). However the smartphone models were often mostly targeting "business people" and not "ordinary users", as Iphone did, and are therefor less known to the general population. Also here Apple is accused of copying, re-brand, take credit as the innovator, create a hype and earn a lot of money and get undeserved credits. The same pattern can be found when it comes to Tablet computers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.80.136 (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

That OS X has a Unix base has never actually been a big secret or issue. Unix has been used for a base as early as ARPANET and Mac OS X is actually part of the Open Group and licensed as such. -- Karek^words?! 23:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Then the criticism that it is claimed to be an "innovation" and a "revolutionary new OS" is correct - if a source can be cited to support this criticism, of course. --TraceyR (talk) 13:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Not true since Unix in this sense is not an operating system, though it is part of part of the operating system, and yes, the redundancy is intentional. The actually innovative and revolutionary parts are the the Hybrid kernel, XNU, Darwin, and the Quartz Compositor^[1]. Also, pointless to claim any Apple OS resembles other GUI's when they own the rights to and are accredited with the creation most of the GUI standards, even if they can't legally defend them in court. Largely the point is that the "controversy" is an Argument from Ignorance that no actually informed companies or persons could, or does, support in part because it doesn't actually exist in the professional world outside of the very rare occasional member of the Unix is everything group. --Karek^words?! 04:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Flashback Trojan

Why isn't there any mention in this article of the Flashback Trojan? The Flashback Trojan is a very notable occurence, infecting over 670,000 Macs worldwide. I personally think it should be mentioned in this article somehow, due to many Mac users refusing to use antivirus software. ANDROS¹³³⁷_TALK 14:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That would probably fit better in an article about the culture of mac users not so much about the business entity that is Apple, inc. --Karek^words?! 01:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The tardy response by Apple to such malware is a widespread criticism.--TraceyR (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Patent trolling

Should a section on patent trolling be included in this article? I think it should, or at least be included as a subsection of the vexatious litigation section, since they've been suing so many other phone manufacturers (including those that manufacture Android devices) and going after them in regards to mostly software related patents.