This template is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. articles
This template doesn't look good enough. I'm sure we can do better. Peter S. 23:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What do you suggest? All company templates are similar, take a look at ((Microsoft)) and ((Disney)). This template serves its purpose, I don't see what's wrong with it. — Wackymacs 20:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for allowing this opportunity as well as make an initial introduction (EDWII); let's also consider the ways ((Roku)) has embraced the brand as well as ((Netflix)) ((Hulu)) I am interested in cherry picking a micro-dose of ((Paramount)) pun intended! 108.72.244.117 (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what your point is. There is no template "Roku", nor is there a template "Paramount"; if the goal is to give examples of templates for corporations, the only ones that count are the ones that exist, namely "Netflix" and "Hulu". Guy Harris (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the apple website, there are two separate tabs alongside the "Mac" tab for "iPod/iTunes" and "iPhone". Shouldn't they be separated from true accessories like mice and monitors here?
Yes. iPod and iPhone are definitely hardware and not just accessories. They are meant to be used by themselves, not to enhance something else.I moved them to their rightful place.75.168.31.51 (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Macintosh isn't the name of any of the current models that Apple makes. It's the name of the series. Why is it in the list of hardware? 75.168.31.51 (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that Filemaker Inc. is a separate entity (albeit wholly owned by Apple), it doesn't make sense that their products are listed in the Apple template. 65.168.253.172 (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Sorry, hadn't logged in with the first edit. Jon Thompson (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit request from 77.99.126.48, 8 August 2010[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
"Labor" to the more correct "Labour" 144.124.3.232 (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I could not find the word in the template. — Abhishek Talk 16:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary and time wasting req. That's simply US vs. UK English language spelling. Plus article about US company, so majority spelling will be US En. (from a Brit. ;-) --Jimthing (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The criticism link should, as in Template:Microsoft Windows family, move to History and Outline right under the header. Right now it is buried in History under Related.
194.54.31.24 (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why can hardware not appear back on here as it was before? It is the very fundamental of what the company does; they make and sell hardware at their core, regardless of added-value software/services (old saying in tech circles "Apple is a hardware company, Google is an advertising company, MS is a software & services company"). Furthermore, SW/services/HW are all essentially PRODUCTS, so why should some products appear in the main template while others do not, it's nonsensical to someone looking for Apple links in their main infobox. Jimthing (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The former surely makes more sense: ALL types of products in Apple's main infobox? You haven't commented on why service products should get preferential treatment in this infobox, while SW/HW gets no appearance in it at all?? I know the other infoboxes exist (I even maintain a subpage of my OWN: User:Jimthing/Apple,_etc.!), but why should the others existing preclude the existence of their current SW/HW in this infobox as well? Infoboxes often have repeat info on them as they layout links in different groups depending on topic, hence the others are more specific to just one subsection, while this one contains a larger subsection, but ALL product types should have equal standing in this infobox, not just some over the some others. Jimthing (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The former makes more sense as long as you look at it alone. It loses sense in practice, because this is what the articles display:
I have flattened the category hierarchy by instead using template links for the Products section, which helps WP users navigate to other Apple-related topics by grouping much easier, especially on pages where the other templates themselves would not appear. This works better, as it includes most other templates related to Apple subject matter, without getting into the individual mass of products themselves inside this single template. A better compromise solution to deal with clutter, without stopping users being able to get to most software and hardware items within a couple of clicks, thus this makes more sense.
Well, it is just fabulous to see you working towards a compromise but the compromise itself... well, you are adding links that add no value at all. The templates to which you link are already these. Crowding the page without adding value is what sparked our discussion. It shouldn't be cast aside in a compromise. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What are you doing...your edit was virtually exactly the opposite of what you undid before, so why do it? The links clearly add value as they navigate (this is a navigation box, after all), to further groups of sources of info – which is exactly what they are designed to do. There is no crowding as you put it, it's a very simple layout I added, which quite obviously takes the user to other groupings of topics relating to Apple Inc. – which is what this box is about. As you yourself said above, it should NOT link to the products themselves in this box, hence why have you re-added them back again? Reverted accordingly; if you don't agree then you are not allowed to undo again, but should take this to WP:DRN and explain your reasoning properly. Jimthing (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look at my example above: Why would a person click on "Discontinued hardware" link while all he has to do is to look ten centimeters further down? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made it clear above: many pages would not contain the other templates, as they would not be relevant to the page concerned, which you are very obviously choosing to avoid in your answers. Hence your methodology fails, offers no answer to this, and then you've misedited it to include links to the actual products themselves (which has been agreed already, should NOT appear here anyway — so why do you do that?). Jimthing (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with Jimthing's template method here as it makes most sense: I can navigate to ANY of the other related groups of topics for the company via that main Apple navigation template. Really useful and easy way to handle this without listing the huge amount of individual hw/sw products Apple's ever made. Also Codename Lisa hasn't dealt with that point about the other templates not appearing on many Apple pages when they're not concerned with the smaller templates' actual topic, e.g. the Apple Store page quite rightly only has the main Apple template, as it's not concerned with any of the other hw/sw templates. Thanks. :-) 188.29.165.166 (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, judging by your style of writing, you must be Jimthing's twin sister, if not himself. Anyhow, the point about "other templates not appearing on many Apple pages" is new. That's true. And that's deliberate, per Wikipedia:Navigation templates. It is deliberate that we avoid linking an article on a file format to an article about acquisition of a food-producing company, just because the proprietor of both is Apple. Meanwhile, it is not like those articles are locked to prevent new navboxes from coming to them. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, nothing to do with me (sounds nothing like me either!). This has now been closed on the DRN anyway. The end. Jimthing (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have fully protected this template for a week. This lame edit war needs to stop. This will give you time to discuss the changes before they are implemented. To Jimthing: Don't revert again after the protection expires without having reached consensus. Edit warring is not allowed under any circumstance, and I wouldn't like to block you because of that. → Call meHahc21 20:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You should be telling that to Codename Lisa, who has continually reverted, whilst ignoring discussion points asked to them directly. Jimthing (talk)
She has made no reverts today. (Just a change towards compromise.) You have made three. Besides, you seem to continue to discuss editor instead of edit. This behavior alone can have dangerous outcomes. Fleet Command (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of clear reverts that other editors can see, she instead ruins another user's work in this edit that misses half the product pages anyway https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Apple&diff=600126144&oldid=600015468 – as an underhand way around a direct revert, as an entirely needless method of sticking-it to the other user, without one iota of consideration to the implications of such an edit. But, more importantly, in complete contradiction of her previous comments of not linking to product pages directly in this template (see the links to iPod/iPhone/PowerBook/Power Macintosh she added, whilst removing perfectly valid other links, for reasons we're all left here still guessing at). Jimthing (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimthing: I am pointing this out to you because you started the edit war. Codename Lisa removed some information with a reasonable argument, I suppose. You reverted, which is okay as a means that you disagreed with her change and wanted to keep the status quo before engaging in productive discussion. All that was perfectly fine. The problem arose when you kept reverting Lisa and started reverting FleetCommand too. It's not that all the fault lies upon you, but discussing and reverting can't be made simultaneously. Doing so can be construed as an irrespectful attempt to dismiss consensus and to impose a my way or the highway approach, which is indeed problematic. I'd advice all of you to use the next seven days to discuss this issue in depth, and perform the changes that have consensus. → Call meHahc21 20:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As of now, note how Codename Lisa has not bothered to reply with any kind of valid answer to my last ("I made it clear above:...") comment above, nor the Admin notice board (which I have repeatedly). Furthermore, If you read their replies to my comments above, she has basically repeated the same single line over and over again, without answering any of the other points I raised about the invalidity of ignoring hardware and software in this template – I think that speaks volumes on said user's view on "collaborative editing", don't you...? Jimthing (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notice how there is a → in Hahc's message? Gee, that means he is an agent Satan and wants to cover the universe in florescent blue paint. Get a grip already! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.41.194.102 (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should Beats Electronics (Beats Music) be listed under Subsidiaries or Acquisitions? It is currently listed under both, which shouldn't happen. Ollieinc (talk) 10:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion Beats is both an acquisitions and a subsidiary. They should be listed in both places because both categories apply to them. This is notable because it is the only acquisition that Apple has made that is being kept separate from its main business. ~ PaulT+/C 20:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
nowrap and hlist not working correctly anymore[edit]
I noticed that back in 2012 a significant change was made to this template that removed all of the ((nowrap)) templates. However, lists are no longer wrapping correctly. The bullets/list item delimiters ("·") should never begin a new line and should always be next to the list item to its left. Is this a bug? Is there a larger ((navbox)) discussion about this somewhere where I can catch up on the conversation? (Admittedly I've been away from editing Wikipedia for the past few years so a lot has changed since I last edited this page.) Thanks! ~ PaulT+/C 20:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re-order sections to have products and services at the top of the template?[edit]
I think it might make sense to re-order the sections of this navbox so that the founders, executives, and board members are at the very bottom of the template. When people think about Apple, invariably the first thing that comes to mind are their products, not the people that work(ed) there. Here is how it currently stands:
Infoman99 (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, channels is a part of the TV app (Apple TV (software)), though I'm not 100% sure it needs a separate article since it is a part of that existing app -- it isn't even something that was newly announced, it has been a part of that app since it launched. But, in the meantime until that gets sorted, I think thisTV (+ (List of programs) Channels) will do. I do think it is a definite improvement to the way that it was. Does that work for you? - PaulT+/C 01:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, thank you. To quibble a bit, I would argue that Channels is new and independent, because:
it involves a system of entirely new agreements with major television content providers that did not exist before (a right for Apple to sell/license sets of content where Apple did not have that right previously), first announced today (as you can see in today's announcement video at 53m 08s - 54m 50s and then scattered references afterward)
it is a major initiative first openly publicized today that the media regarded as a new counter move to Amazon, which has also been trying to position itself as a one-stop shop for aggregating content "mini subscriptions", and
previously the TV app could only be used to purchase single content slices (like one movie or one season of a TV show or maybe one TV series) from Apple (via iTunes) or to view content the user already had a right to view (via a cable login or over-the-air content apps).
As part of the big push toward service revenue, this along with TV+, seems to try to induce people into keeping Apple as their one stop shop for video content.
Infoman99 (talk) 04:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really the place to get into it. I'll just say that I'm aware of the mention at the event today and how it is the long-rumored skinny bundle for Apple TV. Ultimately though, it is simply an update to the existing Apple TV app and it essentially boils down to a new (not insignificant) feature of that piece of software, but nonetheless a feature of the existing app. The place to really get into discussing this is at either at the Apple TV (software) or Apple TV Channels talk page. - PaulT+/C 07:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2021[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. I could not find the word in the template. — Abhishek Talk 16:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
