Talk:Apple supply chain/Archives/2020

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


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

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

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

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