Talk:Power Mac G4 Cube

Untitled

The correct name for this model is "Power Mac G4 Cube" and not "Power Macintosh G4 Cube." Apple no longer uses the "Macintosh" trademark in its model names. -Astrovan

Good catch, but next time please use the "Move this page" feature to transfer the entire article with its edit history to the new name. Because you moved the page manually, an admin will now have to delete this page and remove the page properly. (Hey sysops, please do that!). —Ed Cormany 04:18, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Wasn't there a G3 cube as well? I think mine is a G3 cube. Notinasnaid 14:36, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, not that they ever sold, AFAICT. (Why do you think yours is a G3?)

I stand corrected. More research correctly my flawed memory. Notinasnaid

Remove this Line?

I was reading the Power Mac G4 Cube article and I came across this line of text that put up some red flags in my mind.

"Apple's previous statement indicated that there was a slim possibility of Cube production being resumed in the future, and it would appear that the Mac mini has succeeded the Cube as a small, screenless computer. If this is true, it would be another example of Apple creating a product before its time like the Newton PDA."

I for one find this sentence to be irreverent and self promoting. It has no real purpose other than to shine some lime light on Apple and how they are "before their time".
I for one do not see how them popularizing the silent computer is ahead of their time.
Thank you.
Kenta 04:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. its not that it was 'before its time', its that it was over-priced. the mac mini sold well because it was the cheapest mac ever. the cube was more than an equivilant system that had a screen. yeah i'm removing that line. Bungalowbill 15:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The cat anecdote ...

Anybody have source material on that?

I don't, but let's google. --Roeme 20:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Just some information that the power switch could be a little too trigger-happy: http://www.macminute.com/cgi-bin/wwwthreads/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=general&Number=3020&page=20&view=collapsed&sb=6&o=0&part= --Roeme 20:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

In 2000 I got through three of these Cubes within the year -- all but the last one succumbed to the overly-sensitive power button issue, whereby the machine kept switching on/off. In the end I upgraded to a G4 tower -- noisier, but more reliable. I think some of the AppleStudio monitors also had problems with their similarly designed supplementary power button that was in the casing of the monitor and eventually Apple released a version of OSX that enabled users to disable these in System Preferences. Ricadus (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Hey, the Cube has some advantages, Point "Inconviniences" should be renamed accordingly and balanced out with conviniences. Even though there already some outlined in the text. --Roeme 20:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I would add that the whole section is idiotic. Clearly added by a moron with no idea about computers, let alone the Cube. You forgot about the inconvenience of sticking your fingers in the power socket. Also don't forget the inconvenience of throwing the Cube at people; it can really hurt. Oh and you can see through the casing which is an inconvenience if you're only partially sighted, because you don't get to enjoy it like able-bodied persons.

Great work everyone.

Design ==> References in Culture

I renamed the section to summarize what the paragraph is actually talking about--a list of random TV shows and a novel in which the G4 Cube appears. The quote from the book was also entirely unnecessary. What did any of this have to do with the history, motivation, or other decisions behind design of the cube? 100DashSix (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this section must go to the bottom of the article. --Stormwatch (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Cube as distinctive-looking staus symbol. Ricadus (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Awards

Almost every article about the Cube describes it as "award-winning", which sounds plausible enough, but the details tend to peter out at that point. Which awards did it win, and were they notable? A bit of detective work unearths a Popular Mechanics 2001 Design & Engineering Award here, but are there more? From artier organisations than Popular Mechanics? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Best desktop system by PC Magazine's Technical Innovation Awards in 2000 . Jonathan Ive may have won awards for the design as well. An "artier" design award would be given to the designer, not the product

Citation link to press statement does not contain quoted text

n July 2001 Apple issued a short and slightly unusual press release announcing the product was to be put "on ice." The accompanying citation link does not contain any reference to ice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.190.248.36 (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Mac World online

Says the Mac G4 Cube is a flop - citing cosmetics as a main reason.

I agree totally with the cosmetics and marketing concern: customers are fickle and hitting the market squarely and having it all ready on the shelf before it's "old news" is essential.

However at the time the G4 sold very well in the laptop form factor, infact, meaning that customers were simply seeking to get away from desktops of any kind whatsoever.

The lack of "upgradability" is fine: it was a top of line product not needing upgrade. Apple products hit the market using specific hardware and (in general) cannot use "pc store add-ons" unless made for Mac. It is Mac's excellent and TIMELY (on-shelf, out of box) support of the specific hardware inside and TIMELY software that utilizes it (meaning, good multimedia) that both make Mac a great consumer product and inhibit generic add-ons.

The cost: was to be compared to Mac Book or iPhone upgrade. Mac always gets a premium over other brands - although in 2015 they have offered Mac Mini which is affordable by "less worldly consumers" seeking a good brand.

The lack of fan was good: a fan failures/noise are bad for consumers (and batteries) and can be avoided at a price. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.201.25 (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Power Mac G4 Cube/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Elliot321 (talk · contribs) 12:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll review this article. Seems like an interesting topic. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   "It represented an effort to simplify the computer to its barest essentials, while remaining easy to access the interior." is hard to understand, especially within context. "The New York Times Peter H. Lewis" should have some punctuation. Note: I fixed both of these issues.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The article had some minor grammatical issues, but I fixed them and passed the article. Overall, this is a pretty good article, with good images - necessary for describing such a product - and lengthy but topical prose giving a good understanding of the topic. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 12:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Reversion of edits by Wingwatchers

I reverted the edits because they were not an improvement. Wingwatchers changed:

• "Designed by Jonathan Ive, the Cube was born from Apple CEO Steve Jobs' interest in a powerful, miniaturized desktop computer" to "It was designed by Jonathan Ive, and was inspired by Apple CEO Steve Jobs' interest in a powerful and miniaturized desktop computer." The original is an example of a stylish appositive, which introduces the sentence and restates the upcoming grammatical subject and Jobs' role was much more than providing inspiration.
• " Apple's designers developed new technologies and production techniques to create the product, a 7.7-inch (20 cm) cubic computer housed in clear acrylic glass" to "The Cuvbe [sic] was was a 7.7-inch (20 cm) cubic computer housed in clear acrylic glass."
• "Apple positioned the Cube in the middle of its product range, between the consumer iMac G3 and the professional Power Mac G4" to "The Cuvbe [sic] was was a 7.7-inch (20 cm) cubic computer housed in clear acrylic glass and stood in the middle of its product range between the consumer iMac G3 and the professional Power Mac G4." The use of "and stood" does not convey the same depth of meaning as "positioned".
• "The Cube won awards and plaudits for its design upon release, but reviews noted the high cost of the machine in comparison to its power, its limited expandability, and cosmetic defects" to "The Cube received numerous awards and critical plaudits for its design upon release, but have [sic] been criticize [sic] for the high cost of the machine in comparison to its power, its limited expandability, and cosmetic defects."
• "The Cube was a rare failure for the company under Jobs, after a successful period that brought the company back from the brink of bankruptcy" to "It was a rare failure for the company under Jobs, who after successful period brought the company back from the brink of bankruptcy." There is a missing indefinite article before "period".
• "The Cube influenced the design of future Apple products from the iPod to the Mac mini." to "The Cube influenced many future lineup of Apple products ranging from the iPod to the Mac mini." The expression "many future lineup" is not idiomatic English.

I reverted Wingwatchers' edits but they started a potential edit war here , which was thankfully stopped in its tracks by a FA Coordinator here . This article is at WP:FAC and should not have been edited in such a cavalier fashion and without prior discussion. Lastly, Wingwatchers (talk · contribs) is out of order in adding their names as a co-nominator at the FAC. This is out of process and should be removed. Graham Beards (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I have minimized every strand of stressfulness just to be free of fundamental disputes, I admitted that the prose doesn't quite flow well, but please do prevent any future pings for its too distributing to deal with such hatred and stressfulness. There was one thing, in particular, that was out of self-limitation, "Lastly, Wingwatchers (talk · contribs) is out of order in adding their names as a co-nominator at the FAC. This is out of the process and should be removed", consultation does not indicate that I have personally added to the official roles. @Dr Graham Beards Wingwatchers (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Portals?

Would it be a good idea to add a portal par for this article? Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Do we know the cost?

The page never seems to say what the cost was.

71.166.47.13 (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I noticed the same. in the FAC @David Fuchs: says "I'm following WP:NOTSALE, which recommends against pricing unless it's integral to the subject in sources, and in general I didn't find that to be the case in coverage". but clearly the price is very important, integral, to the subject; it's very weird to see repeated mentions of it being a failure due the high price while what exactly the price was is never specified.
separately, I find the lack of details about the monitor unusual. from the image it looks like the set was sold with a monitor, but the first two sections only mention details about the CPU and the single sentence about monitors only mentions connectors, together implying the computer came without a monitor like a home gaming console. nevermind, checking the Ars Technica source, it's clear it doesn't come with a monitor. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Add me to the list of people who find the constant harping about its high price really confusing as there is no indication as to what that price might have been. This is an obvious flaw in what is supposed to be a Featured Article. Especially so since it is highly visible in the TFA slot. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The fact that the computer was too highly priced for its day is very important to the subject; I don't believe the actual price is, given that the number as presented is contextless without also detailing the average selling prices of computers from 20 years ago and the starting prices of the rest of the Mac lineup, to say nothing of inflation and the change in general pricing of home computers since. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: the legacy section contains this sentence: "[i]n comparison to the high price of the Cube, the Mini retailed for $499 and became a successful product that remains part of Apple's lineup"; the context is already kinda there, not having the price of the original only makes it more confusing (and dizzying to read as it goes on about high prices without ever giving a number). most other old computer articles seem to have the price listed, I would think that is context enough; and there are tools available to convert prices through time, if people don't have a rough idea anyway. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 00:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

According to Apple, themselves, it was $2,299. 71.166.47.13 (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Everymac

People keep adding Everymac to cite specifications; it is not a reliable source, certainly not a high-quality one as required by featured article criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Bankruptcy claims

Sources, please. Mevsherd (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Have you considered consulting the actual sources in the article? Not to mention a simple Google search could find you copious additional sources, e.g. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:45, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

That source is not remotely adequate for a factual claim. Please put some reliable sources in the article, instead of telling someone else to go Google them. Mevsherd (talk) 01:47, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Here's what Google (Gemini) said. Take out the rhetoric ("terrifyingly", "dire" etc.) and stick to the facts, and it appears that Apple never indicated that it faced insolvency in the next 12 months. A "going concern" warning means the company is unable to meet its obligations in the next 12 months. I also didn't find any interview with Jobs where he says that. The "90 days" meme appears to be mundane media hyperbole.

Here is the source for the comment "Steve Jobs later famously revealed that when he returned to the company following the NeXT acquisition, Apple was within 90 days of total bankruptcy" and it flatly does not say that:

https://sangramkakad.medium.com/from-bankruptcy-to-a-trillion-dollar-valuation-an-untold-story-of-apple-7761cd88469a#

Google sez:

No, Apple never formally received a "going concern" warning from its auditors in the 1990s, though it came terrifyingly close.

While a formal going-concern qualification (an official statement by auditors in an SEC filing indicating substantial doubt about a company's ability to survive another year) was never triggered, the company's internal financial reality was exactly as dire as that warning implies.

Here is how close Apple actually came to the edge:

The "90 Days" Reality

In the mid-1990s, Apple was bleeding cash due to a bloated product line, falling market share to Windows, and failed projects like the Newton PDA.

The 1996–1997 Nadir: In fiscal 1996, Apple reported a staggering $816 million loss, followed by a $708 million loss in just the first quarter of 1997.

The Death Clock: Steve Jobs later famously revealed that when he returned to the company following the NeXT acquisition, Apple was within 90 days of total bankruptcy.

What Saved Them From the Warning?

Auditors evaluate "going concern" status based on whether management has a viable plan to mitigate the crisis. Two rapid-fire structural shifts in 1997 kept the auditors from pulling the trigger:

The Microsoft Lifeline (August 1997): Bill Gates threw Apple a $150 million cash lifeline via a non-voting stock purchase. While $150 million didn't fully solve Apple's long-term problems, the strategic alliance signal kept creditors and suppliers from forcing liquidation.

Aggressive Restructuring: Apple aggressively chopped its inventory, canceled failing projects, killed the Mac "cloning" licensing program, and radically streamlined its operations.

By the time the 1998 fiscal year wrapped up, Jony Ive's candy-colored iMac G3 hit the shelves, selling 800,000 units in its first five months and pulling Apple firmly back into sustainable profitability. Mevsherd (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with someone who vomits LLM output and trots out Medium blog posts as their "proof" over reputable news organizations (although I find it amusing that you don't seem to understand those LLMs are drawing from Wikipedia, and you also post output that absolutely does support saying "Apple came close to bankruptcy".) Read Wikipedia's guidelines and policies on reliable sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:38, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Do you think describing someone's conversation as "vomit" might be a personal attack? It would help if you did not misrepresent the entirety of my comment. You demanded--inappropriately--that I find sources with Google, so I did. However, the question is not whether the claim can be sourced in Google, it is whether it can be sourced in this article. Currently there is single source, which expresses the opinion "one step from the liquidators in 1996," and that is all.

I see no evidence that Apple ever said it was on the verge of bankruptcy, either in the article or on the Internet. If a company has reason to believe it can't meet its financial obligations in the next 12 months, it is legally required to disclose that to shareholders, as are its auditors; it is called a "going concern" warning, and there is no evidence such a warning was ever issued. I see no evidence that Jobs ever said Apple was on the "brink" of bankruptcy, either in the article or on the Internet; there are claims in various reports that he said that, mainly at a 1997 MacWorld conference. In fact, he says nothing about bankruptcy at the conference (it is on the Internet), or anywhere else that I see (but, it is not my job to find sources for your claims). Apple also bought Next at this time, and it is very unlikely that company 90 days from bankruptcy would buy out another company for $400 million.

Language like "brink of bankruptcy" and "one step from the liquidators" is interpretation and opinion. The factual claim would something like: "Apple warned in its quarterly report that it could not meet its financial obligations for the next 12 months," or "Steve Jobs said at the MacWorld 1996 Conference that Apple was nearly bankrupt." There are no such factual claims to be made.

Reliable sources are full of opinions, that doesn't mean we report the opinions as fact. They are also full of memes and rumors that are good clickbait, but not good material for an encyclopedia.

Please revert your revert, or provide a source that is both a) reliable, and b) not promoting interpretations and rumors. Mevsherd (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

It's not your conversation, it's a machine output, I will call it what I like. And the machine explicitly told that Apple was extremely close to going bankrupt, so I'm not sure what issue you're having with understanding it. As mentioned in the NYT article above, Jobs absolutely did say they were on the brink of bankruptcy, and it doesn't need to be couched in his words because no one is disputing it. It's not hard to find sources because it's an openly-discussed and integral part of the company's history and in books about Apple (Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson, Ch. 23–24; Apple in China by Patrick McGee, Ch. 1, for example.) You can hear Jobs say the 90 days from bankruptcy bit yourself if you want at around 1:23. If you're unable to verify unexceptional claims to reliable sources yourself, that's a problem for you to fix, not for me to prove to you. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:27, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for (finally) providing a source. I've added it to the article, although my technical skills aren't up to specifying the timestamp. I suggest you work on your civility skills. Mevsherd (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Please stop being obstructionist. Reverting the addition of a source merely because you think it was in the wrong place is anti-collaborative. The simple fix would be to put it in the place you think is best. Personally, as a reader, I prefer seeing all the citations at the end of a sentence, but that dispute is hardly a reason to delete the source entirely. You're right, I don't think a vague opinion like "one step from the liquidators" is reliable for a factual claim, so the easy fix is to add a better source.

Frankly, given that companies are legally required to disclose being 365 days from bankruptcy and Apple apparently never did, and that they bought Next for $400 million while supposedly 90 days from bankruptcy, I question the reliability of Jobs as a source on his own savior narrative. However, I concede that the majority probably considers him a reliable source on Apple's financials (he seems to be discussing Apple's state without him).

Also, a bot put this error on my Talk page: "CS1 error on Power Mac G4 Cube." Maybe you could help? Mevsherd (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Having found Apple's own statements as a source in the Apple article, I have removed the false and widespread rumors of bankruptcy:

"The Company believes that its balances of cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments, and continued short-term borrowings from banks, will be sufficient to meet its cash requirements over the next twelve months. Expected cash requirements over the next twelve months include an estimated $130 million to effect actions under the restructuring plan, most of which will be effected during the first half of fiscal 1998."

I also note that Wikipedia should have a standard similar to its BLP standards for accusing companies being on the brink of bankruptcy. While Apple obviously couldn't care less now, such claims can damage stock prices, and result in lawsuits if frivolous. Mevsherd (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I've provided a preponderance of sources, you have not. You're arguing strawmen, since there are no sources that dispute that Apple was close to bankruptcy. This wasn't an issue when reviewed by multiple experienced editors at the featured article nomination. Start a request for comment if you want to change the article. Otherwise I will continue to revert or report you to noticeboards for disruptive editing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 01:22, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Huh? The source that disputes Apple was close to bankruptcy is Apple, as quoted above. Do you know what “bankruptcy” means? It is a legal term, with legal disclosure requirements. Furthermore, there is no other possible source for such a claim. Mevsherd (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

You also keep deleting the only semi-reliable source we have--Jobs--that I added. And, it was a source suggested by you. I no longer think it's adequate, but it suggests something about your willingness to collaborate that you have twice-deleted my addition of a source you suggested. Mevsherd (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Apple's financial reports state:

10/1997 - 09/1998 The Company believes that its balances of cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments will be sufficient to meet its cash requirements over the next twelve months.

10/1996 - 09/1997 The Company believes that its balances of cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments, and continued short-term borrowings from banks, will be sufficient to meet its cash requirements over the next twelve months.

10/1995 - 09/1996 The Company believes that its balances of cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments, together with continued short-term borrowings from banks, will be sufficient to meet its operating and other cash requirements, including the impact of planned restructuring actions, on a short- and long-term basis.

The Apple article states: "With Apple only weeks away from bankruptcy, the board preferred NeXTSTEP and purchased NeXT in late 1996 for $400 million, retaining Steve Jobs" A company that is weeks away from bankruptcy does not go around buying out other companies. The origin of the verge of bankruptcy stuff seems to Steve Jobs' comments on talk shows, talking about his own leadership and how he saved Apple.

The bottom line is the only credible source for claims of bankruptcy is the company, and the company said the opposite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mevsherd (talk • contribs) 17:40, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

RFC: Bankruptcy claims (and David Fuchs' role modeling or lack thereof)

This and the Apple article claim Apple was on the "brink" or "verge" of bankruptcy. Many sources express such opinions. Apple's own financial statements say the opposite. Should claims of imminent bankruptcy be removed? Mevsherd (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Secondary sources describe Apple as being close to bankruptcy. We should not use our own reading of the company's financial statements to dismiss what those sources say. If "on the brink of bankruptcy" is considered too strong, it can be attributed or softened rather than removed entirely. ~~~~ FoxInTheForest (talk) 05:08, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep - independent secondary sources all seem to describe apple as being close to bankruptcy. I wouldn't put undue weight on Apple's own financial statements as they are a self-assertion Jishara (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep - I was going to suggest a compromise, 'but Apple said otherwise', until I saw the going concern warnings you posted. Note: including the impact of planned restructuring actions. 'Restructuring' is a polite word for the kind of thing you do to avoid bankruptcy. This is, in my opinion, close enough to 'on the brink of bankruptcy'. — ac talk 17:39, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I didn't post any "going concern" warnings. Wikipedia is impossible. Mevsherd (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment

Yes, remove them. See the discussion above, and Apple's financial statements below. Apple's financial reports say the opposite (linked in the Apple article). Companies are legally required to disclose a significant risk of bankruptcy in the next 12 months (it's called a "going concern warning"), and Apple issued no such warnings. In fact, it said the opposite:

10/1997 - 09/1998 "The Company believes that its balances of cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments will be sufficient to meet its cash requirements over the next twelve months."

10/1996 - 09/1997 "The Company believes that its balances of cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments, and continued short-term borrowings from banks, will be sufficient to meet its cash requirements over the next twelve months."

10/1995 - 09/1996 "The Company believes that its balances of cash and cash equivalents and short-term investments, together with continued short-term borrowings from banks, will be sufficient to meet its operating and other cash requirements, including the impact of planned restructuring actions, on a short- and long-term basis."

The Apple article states: "With Apple only weeks away from bankruptcy, the board preferred NeXTSTEP and purchased NeXT in late 1996 for $400 million, retaining Steve Jobs." A company that is weeks away from bankruptcy does not go around buying out other companies. The origin of the verge of bankruptcy stuff seems to be Steve Jobs' comments on talk shows, talking about his own leadership and how he saved Apple.

The bottom line is the only credible source for claims of bankruptcy is the company, and the company said the opposite. Mevsherd (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment

All this discussion about whether Apple was on the brink of bankruptcy is irrelevant. Wikipedia's standard is not that it reports the truth; it is that Wikipedia faithfully paraphrases the reliable sources. The only appropriate discussion here is whether there are reliable sources that say Apple was on the brink of bankruptcy and whether there are reliable sources that say it was not. If both, the article has to report both claims. The source footnoted on the sentence in the article that says Apple was on the brink of bankruptcy is Newsweek, which I believe passes the reliable source test, and I looked at it and found that it does say Apple was on the brink of bankruptcy; that would seem to justify Wikipedia saying the same. I am not a Wikipedia reliable source expert, but I think a company's own reports about itself probably don't qualify.

Reasoning such as that the law requires a company to report if it's going insolvent is especially inappropriate, as it invites editors to use original research. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 05:33, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I concur. We rely on reliable sources, not our own logic nor our own analysis of cirporate documents. (Invited randomly by a bot) Jojalozzo (talk) 12:30, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that's pretty much all wrong! But, I appreciate the feedback. My points of disagreement: 1) We don't do this "Wikipedia faithfully paraphrases the reliable sources." We don't do that when reliable sources express opinions, which this is. Comments like "one step from the liquidators in 1996" are opinions and are supposed to be attributed. 2) This makes little sense to me: "a company's own reports about itself probably don't qualify." What non-speculative source for a company's financial condition could there be, other than the company? Maybe Steve Jobs on a talk show, talking about Apple before he "saved" it, but that seems to be it (David Fuchs deleted that source). There are no other sources. 3) Original research refers to what we put in the article. It might apply if I proposed an addition like: "Apple was not anywhere near bankruptcy, despite rumors to the contrary." but that's not the proposal here. If we have good reason to think reliable sources have spread a rumor, we should avoid putting it in the article (also, if the claim is an opinion), and that's the case here. 4) Reliability shouldn't just be a blanket stamp of approval for certain publishers, e.g. "I can find it in Newsweek; Newsweek is reliable; therefore, it can go in an article." In this case, the source is an offhand comment, not the main subject of the column, or even the paragraph, or even the sentence. 5) I found the Apple financial statements as sources in the Apple article. There are about 10 of them, so it seems to be accepted practice. Bottom line: Apple repeatedly said it had the financial strength to continue operating for the next 12 months. It seems very odd to withhold that information, while claiming it was on the verge of bankruptcy. Mevsherd (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Your focus on Newsweek is irrelevant; I've provided above similar sources from The New York Times, CNBC, Business Insider, the direct quote from Jobs, two different books (now that I'm home, I can add two more books on top of those.) Consider which is more likely—all these sources are incorrect, or you are incorrect on the legal requirements for going notice and whether Apple had to mention it?

Consider how ridiculous it would be to restate the sentence you're taking issue with as "Steve Jobs, Stephen Levy, Leander Kahney, Patrick McGee, and Walter Isaacson considered Apple on the brink of bankruptcy." There's no one except you who is disputing this. It's not an exceptional claim—if it was, you would be able to find sources other than your synthesis of financial filings. Myself and other editors keep explaining to you how sourcing works on Wikipedia and you are not getting it. That's a competence issue on your side, not a failing of Wikipedia. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 11:48, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Company financial reports are simply a primary source and should be treated as such, not simply ignored as one editor suggested. I don't think the bankruptcy issue is meaningfully important to the article, and given the conflicting information, my opinion is that its inclusion has the appearance of adding unnecessary drama. I would omit. JerryGraf (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

"There's no one except you who is disputing this." You are making me repeat myself. 1) Apple disputes it. The meaning of "The Company believes that its balances of cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments will be sufficient to meet its cash requirements over the next twelve months." is "We are not going bankrupt in 90 days." 2) Claims like "90 days from bankruptcy" and "brink of bankruptcy" are opinions. AS JerryGraf pointed out, this topic is not even important in this article, but it is more relevant to the Apple article. Mevsherd (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• Remove as UNDUE and not supported by cites. Plus OFFTOPIC. -- Nobody should doubt that 1996-1997 was bad times, but it is not correct portrayal for the coverage of the Power Mac G4 Cube to mention what was going on 3 to 4 years prior as if it was a major, minor, or even teeny microscopic mention or using the wording "Brink" of bankruptcy. (What exactly is the "brink" anyway ???) Nor does that 4 years prior seem at all relevant to the topic of the Cube - not development, sales, or decline. Please prioritize coverage of facts for the topic. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:56, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

  Can you explain how the claim is not supported by citations when there's a half-dozen provided? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:55, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

• • Sure, though again it is UNDUE when the vast bulk of Cube articles make no mention of 1996 and three years prior is OFFTOPIC and irrelevant to the cube and events surrounding it. There is not good support for the language "Returning from the brink of bankruptcy" from that line cite "Inside The Box". The fourth paragraph of the cite mentions that "It better" do well because even though "the company just racked up its 11th straight profitable quarter, quite a feat for a place that was one step from the liquidators in 1996--the dark clouds haven't totally lifted from Cupertino, Calif." So the article use of "11 quarters" is fine, but the phrasing "Brink" is not the best paraphrase. Mostly just seems not worth any mention for this article as even where this RS has both there is no effect to the development of the Cube and obviously the poor Cube sales did not push Apple over the edge -- so really no relationship visible and hence no reason to bring it up in this article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:38, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

• Include. The sources are clear and Apple's financial statements, as a WP:PRIMARY source, cannot be used for interpretation or analysis (though for what it's worth I dispute your reading of them and do not believe they support your position.) You repeatedly frame the statements that Apple was on the verge of bankruptcy as opinions; this is wrong (and also a violation of WP:RFCNEUTRAL, since you made that error in the RFC statement.) The sources being used are citable for facts; they are not opinion-pieces. Likewise, whether Apple was on the verge of bankruptcy is just the sort of straightforward financial fact that we rely on secondary sources to perform interpretation and analysis on. It is your opinion, based on your personal reading of Apple's financial statements, that this is not the case; but that is something we can't use to dictate what we say in the article voice. But either way your statement that the only credible source for claims of bankruptcy is the company is completely wrong; they are a WP:PRIMARY source. For a question like this, which involves interpretation and analysis, they have no value and cannot be used at all. --Aquillion (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Make up your mind: "For a question like this, which involves interpretation and analysis..." Yeah, it involves interpretation, and cannot be stated as fact. So don't simultaneously argue: "You repeatedly frame the statements that Apple was on the verge of bankruptcy as opinions; this is wrong....The sources being used are citable for facts" (And what do you mean by "sources" plural? There is a single source.)

  Your comment doesn't even make sense. Sources are not "citable for facts" when the claim is not a factual one. Speculation in reliable sources is still speculation, and "on the brink of bankruptcy" is speculation.

  On the other hand, this is 2+2=4. The meaning of "The Company believes that its balances of cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments will be sufficient to meet its cash requirements over the next twelve months." is "We are not going bankrupt in 90 days." That's not interpretation or analysis, unless you think rudimentary logic is "interpretation." That is Apple's own statements contradicting the speculation that it was on the "brink" of bankruptcy. Notice even Apple says it "believes," not "it is a fact."

  If the article is going to include speculation and rumor, then it should also include Apple's own statements, but that would be undue weight in this article.

  "But either way your statement that the only credible source for claims of bankruptcy is the company is completely wrong; they are a WP:PRIMARY source."

  Yeah, a primary source that is cited about 10 times in the Apple article. There is no possible other primary source on whether a company is going to declare bankruptcy. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources summarizing primary sources, but in this case the secondary sources show every sign of merely spreading rumor. What they say is the opposite of what the primary source says, on a very literal, non-synthesis level.

  Can you find a source that provides any evidence at all for the bankruptcy claim? No, you can't. Mevsherd (talk) 21:46, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Many, many citations have been given to you, repeatedly, that explicitly say Apple was close to bankruptcy. At some point, this is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT-level disruption. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:56, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

This doesn't seem particularly close, our editors have touched on it here. But Wired Magazine covered the problems at the time and Steve Jobs famously talked about this himself. Apple's financials that are referenced show Apple losing over a billion dollars. The opposing editor would have you believe Apple was in fact in fine shape. Saying Apple wasn't close to bankruptcy would be upending decades of established narrative, precedent, and independent coverage. Also agree with above reasoning Per User talk:David Fuchs and User talk:Aquillion AadamentAardvark (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

OK, now it is not merely a primary source: https://www.stratrix.com/turnaround/how-apple-came-back-from-near

Undoubtedly, those opposed will find new excuses to oppose. In this case, the primary source requires no interpretation: Apple repeatedly said it was able to meet its cash requirements for the next 12 months, and the language in the financial statements is in literal, plain English. But, now there is a secondary source, for those who insist on that.

The subject itself is inherently speculative: predictions about what will or would have happened are opinions. Nonetheless, those opposed are finding reasons to state the opinions as facts, in violation of Wikipedia's policies. "The opinion is in a reliable source" means we can report an attributed opinion, not that the opinion is fact. This non-subtle point is too abstract for editors who have been here 25 years, administrators, and former members of ArbCom.

The alleged period of near-bankruptcy was 4 years prior to the release of the PowerMac G4 Cube. It is irrelevant to this article.

The frequent references to Jobs making the bankruptcy claim are odd, because I added Jobs as a source--twice--and Fuchs deleted it both times. Add that to Fuchs describing my attempt to respond to him as "vomit," and his constant sneering and threats to "report" me, and the discovery that he was heavily involved in shaping this article, and you get a WP:OWN case.

It's tempting to withdraw the RFC, and add the disputing sources instead. But that's undue weight for this particular article, and something tells me the personal attacks and straw-man distortions over this really trivial issue would continue. Mevsherd (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I have no interest in this dispute, but I'm fairly certain that source is AI-generated, which per WP:RSPLLM is not a reliable source. Apart from the writing just reeking of AI use, the bottom of the page says it is "Autonomous research". ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:34, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Hm, I can't find any editors named at the site, which is suspicious. In my experience, AI is usually very non-contrarian, so taking a unpopular view like this isn't AI-ish, but, I'm not an expert on it. In any case, there is no rationale for ignoring Apple's own statements about its finances. The primary source is not needed to establish notability, nor does it require expertise to understand. And, any statements about what would have happened are opinions anyway, and so on. Thanks for the closer scrutiny of the source. Mevsherd (talk) 23:47, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a 100% AI generated post from the very first sentence. "Picture the cash balance, not the eulogy"? "That is not... that is..."? — ac talk 17:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what you're saying, but in any case, as I keep repeating, there is no proposal to add something to this article disputing the claim. Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines are for material put into an article. The relevance of Apple's financial reports (which you misrepresented) and other sources including AI-reports is that they should influence our editorial decisions, e.g. they suggest mainstream sources are repeating rumor, meme, etc. So, the mainstream sources should be avoided. Another reason to question them is that while the publishers may be generally reliable, the authors have no expertise in accounting or financial analysis or anything that would qualify them to predict bankruptcy. And, any prediction of hypothetical bankruptcy is an opinion, not to be stated in Wikivoice. And, the topic has no relevance to the Power G4 Cube, which was released years later. And so on. Do people ever actually read what has been said? Finally, I would appreciate it if you didn't follow me around, simply because I interacted with you on an unrelated article. That hounding is distressingly common on Wikipedia, and I find it really counter-productive. Mevsherd (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2026 (UTC)