Talk:Apple Inc./Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Notable litigation

The summaries of the main cases Apple has been involved in are great, but I still think the section is too long. The main article should be where most of this stuff is discussed. If no one objects I'm going to remove this part of the section to try and trim down the article:

In 1994 Apple was sued by the astronomer and science popularizer Carl Sagan for using his name as the internal code-name for the PowerMacintosh 7100. After the suit was brought, Apple changed the codename to "BHA" for butt-head astronomer. Sagan lost the suit twice. See the Carl Sagan article for details.

In July 1998 Abdul Traya registered the domain name appleimac.com, two months after Apple announced the iMac, in an attempt to draw attention to a web-hosting business. After a legal dispute that lasted until April 1999, Traya and Apple settled out of court with Apple paying legal fees and giving Traya a "token payment" in exchange for the domain name.

In November 2000, Benjamin Cohen of CyberBritain registered the domain name "itunes.co.uk" for an MP3 search engine. Apple was granted a UK restricted (non music) trademark for "iTunes" on March 23, 2001, and launched its popular iTunes music store service in the UK in 2004. In 2005, Apple took the matter to the Dispute Resolution Service operated by .uk domain name registry Nominet UK, stating that they had rights in the name "iTunes". An expert decided in Apple's favor in the dispute. Cohen launched a media offensive stating that the DRS was biased towards large businesses and made frequent threats of lawsuits against Nominet.

In November 2004, two popular weblog sites that feature Apple rumors publicly revealed information about an unreleased Apple product code-named "Asteroid", also known as "Project Q97". The sites, "AppleInsider" and "O'Grady's PowerPage", were subpoenaed for information about their sources in the Apple v. Does case. In February 2005 it was decided by a court official in California that the bloggers do not have the same shield law protection as do journalists. In a related case, the websites went on to fight the journalistic status decision. In a separate matter, Apple filed a lawsuit against website Think Secret in January 2005, claiming that the site's reports about forthcoming Apple products violated trade secret law.

In May 2005 Apple entered into a class action settlement, upheld on December 20, 2005 following an appeal, regarding the battery life of iPod music players sold prior to May 2004. Eligible members of the class are entitled to extended warranties, store credit, cash compensation, or battery replacement.

Of those cases, the only one I think should be kept is the 2004 case about Asteroid... but even that case isn't really that important in the grand scheme of things. The three main ones are Apple Corps, Franklin, and Microsoft. The trademark stuff gets tedious after a while and isn't really all that important. If people want to know more about Apple's legal history they can read the separate article. Paul^C/_T+ 23:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

IMO, The iPod class-action lawsuit is worth keeping as well, because it's an issue that impacted quite a number of actual customers, as opposed to Asteroid, which, while significant and certainly worth keeping in the main article, was mainly blogger fodder... Warrens 23:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I trimmed it down. Now the article is down to 46k... not bad! Paul^C/_T+ 07:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Apple Fellow merge

This merge has been proposed for some time now. If there are no objections I am going to merge that article into the corporate culture section. Something like this:

Apple was the first company to demonstrate that suits and hierarchy were not only unnecessary to success, they might actually be a hindrance to innovation. As a result, Apple's corporate "counterculture" has been widely copied in the technology industry. Originally, the company stood in opposition to staid competitors like IBM more or less by default, thanks to the influence of its founders; Steve Jobs often walked around the office barefoot even after Apple was a Fortune 500 company. By the time of the "1984" TV ad, this trait had become a key way the company differentiated itself from its competitors. Today it is almost a given that a high-tech startup cannot hope to attract top talent without a flexible, casual work environment free of dress code and rigid structure, offering plenty of opportunities for stress relief and creative play. Google is a primary example of this, providing a free and unlimited 'candy room', permitting pets in the workplace and allowing employees to arrange and play sports and games throughout the day.

As the company has grown and been led by a series of chief executives, each with his own idea of what Apple should be, some of its original character has arguably been lost, but Apple still has a reputation for fostering individuality that reliably draws talented people into its employ. Furthering these lines, Apple Fellows were created. An Apple Fellow is a person who has been designated as such by Apple Computer in recognition of their extraordinary technical or leadership contributions to personal computing. Each Apple Fellow acts as a leader and a visionary, guiding the company in their particular area of expertise. The Apple Fellowship has been awarded so far to very few individuals.

===An incomplete list of Apple Fellows===

• Bill Atkinson
• Rod Holt
• Alan Kay
• Guy Kawasaki
• Don Norman
• Rich Page
• Steve Wozniak

Comments? Paul^C/_T+ 21:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Requesting verification

Can anyone check out this edit, made by an anon? I don't know whether he's right or not.--HereToHelp 02:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like crap, unless someone can provide a link to the contrary. The original marketing team says "First, we designed the logo. That is, Rob Janoff designed it -- an Apple with a bite out of it, indicating the acquisition of knowledge." [1] Kuru ^talk 02:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverted and done. It's that kind of subtle vandalism that you have to watch out for, not page blanking.--HereToHelp 03:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Mactel

This is kind of silly - I mean according to google mactel gets MORE hits then macintel. "Google Duel"? That's fine, but I know several developers from the last conference and it WAS a mactel - none of them AFAIK used "macintel" so this article looks really silly just mentioning macintel. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 07:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Both terms are in common usage, so both warrant a mention in my opinion. --Muchness 07:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Searching with a more precise tool like GoogelDuel shows that "Macintel" gets about 10 times the number of hits as "Mactel". The problem with calling it "Mactel" is that this name is used by several other companies (MACtel (cellular), MaCtel, Mactel Communications) and so forth. Developers may well have used the term, however, I don't think Apple will be able to get that trademark (you will notice that they are not using it). Sunray 07:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

"Searching with a more precise tool" - that is definately a point of view - even if it DID have 10 times the google hits it has been used in the press numerous times, moreso then other variations (perhaps besides macintel if that is true), and is verifiable. "The problem with calling it "Mactel" is that this name is used by several other companies (MACtel (cellular), MaCtel, Mactel Communications) and so forth. Developers may well have used the term, however, I don't think Apple will be able to get that trademark (you will notice that they are not using it). " - Why does the fact that it clashes with some company names matter to us? Why does it matter to us that Apple may never be able to trademark it? Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 08:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be implying that I shouldn't have a point of view. Perhaps you have not read WP:NPOV. The policy enjoins us to write articles in a neutral point of view. That does not include talk pages. Here I am actually entitled to state my point of view. Yes, I believe Google Duel is more precise than a standard Google search, for the reasons I have given. Do you have evidence to the contrary? Sunray

Hmmm, it seems we have gotten off on the wrong foot, perhaps I was a bit too direct - my apologies. Anyway, I guess what I reccommend the article should do is to simply state that both terms have been used in the media to describe the two and perhaps attribute it to a few reliable sources in the process. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 13:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Given that Apple aren't using "Macintel", either - the term is explicitly noted in the article as "never [having] been used seriously by Apple's PR or executives" and "mainly in use only in Apple fanatic circles" - it's not clear that its status as used by other companies is relevant to whether it's "a new catch-phrase among computer users".

As for GoogleDuel vs. raw Google, but perhaps GoogleDuel is "more precise", the original GoogleDuel FAQ] says it "sends search requests to Google to find out the number of web pages that contain those phrases" and that it "counts how many web pages contain the search term". I haven't dived into the Google API to see exactly what the results of "[sending] search requests to Google" are, so I can see whether it, for example, manages to filter out "Mactel" the trademark of a cellular phone company from "Mactel" the slang term for an x86-base Macintosh, to determine whether it's filtering out, for example, the irrelevant Mactels. Guy Harris 08:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Guy, your points are well taken and I agree unless and until we get additional information that changes the picture. Sunray 15:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Request From A Novice

I am not a computer genius, and I don't understand a lot of the specifications in this article. I am interested in some Apple products, but I have a hard time even figuring out what they are from this article. Is there some way that someone could make this easier for people like me (there are many) to understand? 69.81.17.154 04:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't quite the place for that, but hey, maybe it means we aren't doing a good job. Try here.--HereToHelp 13:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Speed boosts for Intel-based Macs

In the "2006 to present - Start of the Intel Era" section the performance increases for the MacBook Pro ("a 15.4 inch laptop which … offers a 4X speed improvement"), iMac and Mac mini are based on Apple's advertising (which, in turn, is based on SPECint/SPECfp benchmarks performed by Apple). These benchmarks do not necessarily mean that the units will outperform the models they replace at the specified rate under normal operation, nor do they take into account that performance increase is diminished when running PowerPC-only applications. When I read the existing phrases they imply that the new iterations are however many times faster in all circumstances. In my opinion these segments should be revised to reflect that real-world usage and application versions may result in smaller performance gains than those implied by the benchmark results. ad85 19:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Do a benchmark yourself and prove Apple wrong - I use an Intel iMac, I did a benchmark and I think what Apple advertises is correct. — Wackymacs 06:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

My point is exactly that benchmarks don't necessarily reflect real-world results. Another benchmark wouldn't serve any purpose at all. A SPEC benchmark showing a 4X speed increase doesn't mean that the machine is 4X faster in performing all tasks than its predecessor, which is what the wording of the phrases I quoted tend to imply. ad85 13:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Apple Pro Mouse

When was it released? McDonaldsGuy 14:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The summer of 2000 or 2001, at MWNY when the cube was released. Paul^C/_T+ 17:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Spamming?

User:DavidJackson added this link "seekingalpha.com/transcripts/for/aapl" to the external links in the article which I reverted as spam based on his contributions of linking multiple articles to "seekingalpha.com". He now says that it's a valid link. See my talk page here. I will leave it up to the editors of the article to decide if the link is useful to the article. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Not relevant to an encyclopedia - I don't think his link has a place on Wikipedia, its very similar to many other websites. — Wackymacs 20:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Wackymacs -- This makes absolutely no sense to me. Although a user leaving multiple links to a single website certainly raises a red flag that they may be spam, it is not a sufficient test of the validity for including an external link. Seeking Alpha is the only site on the Internet that contains free transcripts of the conference calls held by publicly-traded companies, and specifically is the only site that houses transcripts of Apple's conference calls. In that respect, in no way is it "very similar to many other websites"; this was a link to a unique source. So the only reason to delete this link is if you think that Apple's quarterly conference calls are not a valuable reference source for readers of this entry. Given that they contain the company's own discussion of its business and contain much material that is not included in Apple's own press releases, that argument would be hard to accept. I accept that those who want to delete this link are honestly motivated to remove spam from Wikipedia. But this absolutely isn't spam. The genuine value of these transcripts is why I'm adding links to companies' conference call transcripts accross Wikipedia. If you disagree with this, please explain why you think these transcripts are not unique and valuable source of information.— DavidJackson

References for history section?

I feel really bad tagging everything with {{Fact}} here - does anyone know where all this stuff came from - i.e. a general source - because unless I am missing something it looks completely unreferenced :\ RN 19:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest using {{SectOR}} to mark those sections, for aesthetics. Better than 50 [citation needed] marks. If no objections, I will do it. Uncle Grover 18:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - that is a good idea. I went ahead and did it for the whole section - while it doesn't apply to 100% of it I think it is better then each section, otherwise it gets uglified even more. However, if you think it is better the other way don't hesistate to change it :). RN 18:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of the information in this section (up to the Apple III) is recounted in "So Far: The First Ten Years of a Vision" published by Apple in 1987. ISBN 1-556939744--agr 20:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

this looks like an awesome source as well. RN 09:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Link to Applepedia

It is my belief a link to Applepedia should be added to the external links. It is a wiki that specializes in Apple Computers and provides more detailed content than respective Wikipedia articles. May I add a link? 66.41.207.32 04:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Even though it's not affiliated with Wikipedia, they have a link to Wookiepedia in Star Wars.--HereToHelp 11:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Logos

To me, the current arrangement of the 3 historical logos is cluttered. I've been experimenting with the <gallery> tag to arrange the logos in a more aesthetic fashion: [2]. The problem is that I can't seem to get text to wrap around the gallery structure. Does anyone have other solutions? --mtz206 (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Company Name

Didn't Apple recently officially change its name from "Apple Computer" to just "Apple." I'm having trouble finding much documentation on this, but seem to recall hearing it on the radio a few weeks ago. Can anyone confirm this? If so, perhaps the page should reflect this? Seidenstud 06:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Their official website still says "Copyright © 2006 Apple Computer, Inc. All rights reserved.", so I don't think so. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Lead section

I completely rewrote the lead section.[3] I don't consider it to be "done" by any means but it's still a big step up from where it was before. Please improve it! A little bit more on the modern Apple would be good. Jobs should probably be mentioned somewhere, too. Warrens 16:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound overly negative, but I think the old one was better. The important points for the lead are the introduction of the Apple II (and thus the first commercially successful microcomputer), the Lisa and the Mac (and thus the Mac OS and GUI), the iPod and iTunes, and Mac OS X. The previous lead does a much better job of hitting the major points in less text. -- Steven Fisher 16:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Steven has a good concern but I think once it gets smoothed out by a few editors it will be more of an FA-quality lead. I remember the old lead as well - until I had my way with it, it had some serious issues. Thanks Warrens! :) RN 17:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I forgot to mention that. I like the direction Warrens went with it, I am just suggesting we pull it back a bit. I am definitely not in favor of reverting, for instance. :) -- Steven Fisher 17:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

FA-quality lead sections are hard to write -- perhaps the hardest part of the whole article! -- because it needs to stand on its own as a succinct summation of the whole subject. I looked to other FA computing articles like Microsoft and Commodore 64 for ideas on how to proceed with this... Covering the entirety of Apple Computer is especially difficult because you have to take into account the entire 30-year history of the company... and with a company as accomplished and diverse as Apple, what are the lasting milestones that everyone should know about? I tried to capture a few of the ones that I think have had the biggest real impact in the world of computing. If there are specific sentences or bits that you're not satisfied with, let's talk about it! I'm not totally satisfied with what I put in there, myself, but it's as good a place as any for us to start our drive towards FA status. Warrens 18:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, I need to apologize. I read it again, and you covered all the major points. I have absolutely no idea how I managed to misread it earlier. I even went back and looked at your first stab at it before the corrections, and it's still got all the major points in it. I must just have been in a funny space mentally. That said, how is the lead's length? It seems a bit long to me, but I'm not sure what a good FA lead looks like. -- Steven Fisher 05:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Over GMA 950

There has been quite a bit of Criticism over this also marks the end of 7? years of Macs have there own video ram.

• Not really. Only two models (the MacBook and Mac MIni) use the GMA650 – the rest all have their own dedicated video cards. Killik Twilight 23:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The stickers

I noticed the little info about the icon status of the Apple logo partly because of the stickers which come with Macs - they also come with iPods, so I added this. However, I'm wondering whether all suitably sized packages have the stickers. Any confirmation from someone with more than just an iPod? BigBlueFish 21:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe all Apple hardware will contain the stickers, but none of the software does. At least thats what I can tell from my experiences so far - no word on how valid this is though. :: ehmjay 20:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Citataion Needed? No

The 200 'citation needed' tags in the final 3 sections of this article are really distracting and make the article very difficult to read. Most of them seem to just be Apple fanboys complaining about fairly obvious criticism. Much of the criticism section is pretty common knowledge, and most of the criticism is valid. Only 2 or 3 of the citations would actually add something to the article. Please clean this up. --216.113.195.40 09:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism sections not are a place to assert facts, or to make statements on behalf of "some" people or "many" people, unless some indication is provided that these assertions actually have a source other than some random Wikipedia editor with an opinion. This is an essential part of Wikipedia's policy on Wikipedia:Verifiability. The Criticism and History sections of this article need citations for everything that isn't self-evident or easily demonstrated. Warrens 20:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Above I recommended {{SectOR}} as a solution for removing all of the tags. A single big notice is better than 20 superscripted "citation needed" marks. Citations are badly needed. Uncle Grover 20:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Apple vs. Apple Computer

I don't mind which one uses here, but parts of the article uses one and other parts use the other (for example, in the Microsoft article I never refer it as "Microsoft Corporation" except in the intro) and it seems inconsistant to me. I believe the correct style guideline is to use the article name, right? If not someone let me know which is preferred and I'll help change it... RN 03:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep it as Apple Computer in the lead, but everywhere else it should be Apple. — Wackymacs 08:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

GA Delisted

I have delisted the article as a Good Article per lack of referenses and the possible original research.--Konstable 13:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Question and suggestion

I have a question, is there any way I can download ALL the TV commercials that Apple computer has ever made, is there any website that has them all in good video quailty, I want to see ALL of the TV commercials, from the very first old ones to the new ones? maybe we should start a new article about all the apple commercials aired in tv and where to download them so pleople can have a good reference to apple computer...--Gumbos 05:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Nominations =

I've failed the article for inclusion into WP:V0.5 due to its lack of references. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

1 Infinite Loop photo

The photo of Apple's 1 Infinite Loop sign is rather bad, as it was taken at night. Anyone have a daytime shot? Jerry Kindall 06:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

We need to clean up what the open source status is

The article states, "[F]ollowing the switch to Intel chips, the source for the Intel version of the Darwin kernel has not been made available by Apple (http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=14663&Page=1&pagePos=8)." But, as can be seen at http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/, large sections of the Darwin source have been released, just not AppleCore (which I assume is the kernel). Compare http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/10.4.6.ppc/ with http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/10.4.6.x86/ to see what has not been released. As far as I can tell, Apple has not changed the licensing of the Darwin source but just hasn't yet put up all the source code it eventually will. It would seem that the licensing has remained virtually unchanged between OS X 10.3 and 10.4 (compare http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/images/release-notes-7.0.1.txt and http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/images/release-notes-7.0.1.txt). Further, the "CoreOSMakefiles," which I assume somehow relate to the kernel, are available for both PPC and x86. In addition, it is really a fallacy to talk about the Intel transition when referring to Darwin. Darwin has always been available for the x86 architecture; there wasn't really a "transition" at all. The source for this information would ultimately be http://ezine.daemonnews.org/200602/apple.html.

In short, it is perhaps true that the x86 kernel is not available as source code (depending on whether AppleCore is in fact the kernel), but to link to an article that attempts to give an unsubstantiated reason for that is not good practice. We need to find a reference that is more reputable or directly related to Apple to verify this. OpenDarwin is at its end, so perhaps it has some information as to why it is not going to continue (if source code has been closed that was not expected to be or something like that). We also need to be more clear about what the Darwin kernel actually is. Some have said that Darwin itself is the kernel, which I don't believe is correct but it is unclear to me. At the very least an explanation of the Darwin kernel should be at Darwin (operating system). Theshibboleth 09:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the kernel is XNU. These things need to be wikified better. The most recent source release of XNU was for Mac OS X 10.4.3/Darwin Darwin 8.3. After that point, which was near the beginning of the Intel transition, Apple began differentiating between the Intel source and the PPC source. The first version of OS X for the x86 architecture released to developers was 10.4.2, according to Mac OS X v10.4#Tiger x86. Again, see http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/. Theshibboleth 10:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Given that Apple are announcing their plans for the next version of Mac OS X in eight days time, perhaps we should wait until then. Given that all we can say right now is (a) Apple haven't released a Darwin kernel based on the Intel version of Mac OS X (b) they haven't said why (c) here are some guesses. Hopefully in eight days time, we'll know what they're up to. AlistairMcMillan 20:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. it probably will be more clear what's going on after the conference. Theshibboleth 10:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Vertical integration criticism

I did some research as to whether Apple does indeed practice vertical integration. I think we can safely say they do. The problem is that there is disagreement as to whether this is good or bad, with many saying it is good because it gives Apple greater control over its products. I'd say this is more a point of controversy than one of criticism.

See the following:

Positive

• http://www.brandonwerner.com/2006/04/24/vertical-quality-and-mcnealy-why-apple-sun-google-have-it-right/

Negative

• http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20060511.html
• http://www.oligopolywatch.com/2003/04/23.html

Inconclusive

• http://www.musicdish.com/mag/?id=8223

Theshibboleth 20:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Get A Mac?

• I would have to say no right now - the article is significant enough in its content and distinct enough from the actual topic of 'apple computer' to merit its own article. Were it merely a few sentences, perhaps. Maybe it's suggestable once the campaign has ended and been off the air for a while, but right now I think there are a number of people specifically interested in that campaign. TheHYPO 23:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with TheHYPO, except that I believe the campaign is significant enough to keep its own article, even after it's taken off the air. --C-squared 17:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Given the precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/José + 10 I would have to say that the content should be merged. Otherwise, it would the USA centricness of this ad that would keep it as a separate article. In the global sense the José + 10 was much larger. Any comments? If the Get a Mac article stays, then I would expect that the José + 10 should be recreated. -- Jeff3000 03:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The comparison to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/José + 10 is, IMHO a bit overbroad and extreme and therefore the logic of "If the Get a Mac article stays, then I would expect that the José + 10 gets recreated" is flawed. --SkydiveMike 11:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Why? They are both advertisements for a well known company. They are both composed of sequence of different spots. They both have received popular attention outside of the advertisement space. The difference is one is US centric, and the other one has received most of its attention outside of the US. -- Jeff3000 14:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I also think the Get a Mac article can and should stand on its own, even after the advertisements are no longer run. For a series of ads, they're incredibly popular, and they've been frequently referenced in other popular media. I might be a PC guy, but I definitely think the commercials are significant enough to maintain their own article. -- Kicking222 19:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

These ads are not "US centric," they are are in Canada, France (French), The UK (inc. Ireland), Germany (in German), and more... Cavenba 11:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

They are not actually being shown in the UK. — Wackymacs 12:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The Apple UK site has a page on the campaign. (with all the ads) Cavenba 13:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course it does, but that doesn't mean they are SHOWN on national UK TV does it? I live in the UK, I watch TV in the UK, I have never seen Apple's "Get a Mac" ads there. The reason? The UK Advertising Standards Agency thinks they are too biased. — Wackymacs 14:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)