Apple Yanks Mac Virus Immunity Claims From Website 327
redletterdave writes "Apple quietly switched out a statement that claimed its Mac computers were completely immune to viruses with a less-forward statement: 'It's built to be safe.' The PR shift comes in the aftermath of the Flashback Trojan, which affected hundreds of thousands of Macs back in early April. From the article: 'Apple strives for perfection, but stating something is perfect when it isn't is ultimately bad for PR and company morale. Jobs used his reality distortion field to "rally the troops," so to speak, but "Mountain Lion" will ensure Apple can tout its closed, highly-secure operating system for the foreseeable future in a much more realistic sense. Just because a product isn't impervious to sickness doesn't mean it isn't "insanely great."'"
Suprising that no one has sued. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Suprising that no one has sued. (Score:5, Insightful)
They were careful to say that Macs are immune to Windows viruses. It's sort of like saying that Ford cars are generally unaffected by Toyota's engineering flaws. Doesn't mean that they don't have any of their own.
Re:Suprising that no one has sued. (Score:5, Insightful)
Still seems a fair comparison. Hey, folks, product X is plagued with such and such problem. Ours isn't. Come buy ours.
Re:Suprising that no one has sued. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's saying that, but in such a way that it's strongly implying "we don't have that problem" when they actually do. What if Ford put out an advertisement saying "Are you afraid of your Toyota skidding off the road into a tree? Then come buy a Ford!"? Sure, if you're driving a Ford then your Toyota probably won't hit a tree... but your Ford still will.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on if the Toyotas have sticky throttles [toyota.com].
Re: (Score:3)
If Toyotas had some greater inclination to hit trees due to their design, then that would still be fine.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Suprising that no one has sued. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
It's like saying, "Buy a cat! Cats are not vulnerable to fin rot!"
Re: (Score:3)
Or like how Pixie Stix are naturally low fat...
Re:Suprising that no one has sued. (Score:5, Informative)
The first OS X malware in the wild was in 2006 - a worm/trojan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_virus [wikipedia.org]
As far as a true virus, in the sense that it infects a file and then replicates, is increasingly rare in Windows as well. In my experience, Trojans are by far the most common malware threat out there now - mostly because they rely on user stupidity/uneducation, which is something that is very difficult to patch.
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience, Trojans are by far the most common malware threat out there now - mostly because they rely on user stupidity/uneducation, which is something that is very difficult to patch.
I'd agree with that, although the drive-by web bug exploits are kind of an interesting take on a trojan that from a user's perspective are virtually indistinguishable from viruses or worms, although they are not self-replicating. (dare I say "interesting" in this context?)
In the terms of the Windows world, there seems to be a whole lot of ways to get infected, including until recently even viewing a JPG or WMF file, both of which could infect system files. This latter issue is something that generally does
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even ignoring the above, it is still pretty scummy to imply your system is secure against viruses when it isn't. Tricky wording doesn't make it any better. Indeed, it makes it worse,
Re:Suprising that no one has sued. (Score:4, Funny)
It's sort of like saying that Ford cars are generally unaffected by Toyota's engineering flaws.
Then someone's Ford gets rear-ended by a runaway Toyota, and you end up with a class action suit against Ford for making such an outlandish claim.
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly it. Everything I ever saw from Apple on this subject said their products were immune to the large volume of PC viruses out there, which is completely and totally true. They probably changed their tune in order to avoid a waste-of-time lawsuit from people who can't read.
Not necessarily. It isn't that hard to imagine someone has created a virus (or malware, Trojan, worm) that can infect both Windows and Mac. There wouldn't be much point to it, besides "just because I can", but someone probably has.
Re: (Score:2)
Well then that's not a Windows virus now is it. If it was written to infect a Mac, then it is a Mac virus.
Re: (Score:2)
Well then that's not a Windows virus now is it. If it was written to infect a Mac, then it is a Mac virus.
No, it's a Windows virus and a Mac virus. Same code, works on both (maybe different sections of the code, but still).
Re:Suprising that no one has sued. (Score:5, Informative)
No, it is correct that Windows is the only OS that can get a virus (and I'm not sure they still can get them). The International Business Times is a terrible source of tech news; wtf does an MBA know about computers?
They show their ignorance when they state
They're confusing the Flashback Trojan with Trojan BackDoor.Flashback, which is a worm. Worms and trojans can and often do contain viruses (most of the boot sector viruses in the '80s and '90s were also trojans).
The wiki article on this worm says "The trojan, however, will only infect the user visiting the infected web page, meaning other users on the computer are not infected unless their user accounts have been infected separately. This is due to the UNIX security system". NOT a virus. It has to be able to self-replicate and spread by itself to be a virus.
Any computer can get a trojan, and Unix systems have been hit by worms (an example is the Morris worm [wikipedia.org] that almost took down the internet back in the '90s).
Unix and its bretheren, like BSD, Linux, and Mac, were designed from the beginning to be for networked, multi-user machines. Windows was never designed from the ground up to be for network computers, and MS now pays the price. Apple was smart to move to a Unix-like system when internet access became normal.
I just "fixed" an old "virus-laden" Dell last week that ran so slowly it would barely boot. But there were no worms or viruses, just useless memory-eating toolbars (I consider these to be malware, they do nothing or very little for the user and eat your performance for corporations' sake). It runs like a top now.
Odd how Norton won't warn you about that kind of crap, which slows your computer down as badly as being on a botnet.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is correct that Windows is the only OS that can get a virus (and I'm not sure they still can get them).
I'm not sure that is correct. Viruses "infect" existing programs; worms apparently replace them. From my understanding of Linux, I see no reason why, given root access, a virus could not be made to work on a Unix based system?
Re: (Score:3)
Odd how Norton won't warn you about that kind of crap, which slows your computer down as badly as being on a botnet.
That's not odd when you consider that's exactly what they're trying to sell you in the first place.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Couldn't be sued (Score:5, Informative)
Here is a link showing the before and after of the Apple web page in question.
http://sophosnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/mac-osx-before-after.jpg [wordpress.com]
I don't think they could be sued, there is no false advertising on their part. It blatantly states "A Mac isn't susceptible to the thousands of of viruses plaguing Windows-based computers."
That is a completely accurate statement. Mac OS X cannot be infected with a Windows virus.
Re: (Score:3)
The wording changed because of the recently added "sandboxing" built into the OS since Lion. This is not a step to distance the "Doesn't get PC Viruses" claim, it's updated marketing to advertise new features of the OS. So in addition to still not getting all those nasty viruses that PCs get (ostensibly), there are "built-in defenses" as well.
I think the slashdot hatesourcing is overthinking this (not you, per se, the comments in general.)
Re: (Score:2)
Any
Re: (Score:2)
When recommending Macs to people [1], I get the virus question asked all the time. I try to clarify the difference between malware types.
Viruses are not really a viable infection vector on Macs because people don't share executables, and Word macro stuff is pretty much stomped out.
Trojan horses are a major threat. Especially when someone wants a pirated copy of something and finds that their copy of iWork has more than just an office suite in the .DMG file. Executable signing helps here, but the Dancing
Re: (Score:3)
Last month the Dutch "ad regulation commission" forbade Apple to make invulnerability claims:
https://www.reclamecode.nl/webuitspraak.asp?ID=76881&acCode [reclamecode.nl] (in dutch offcourse, use your favorite translation engine).
The conclusion of the commission is that no software can guarantee immunity and asked Apple to prove their claims. Apple didn't (unclear if they even tried). So the commission ruled in favor or the complainer, thus banning Apple from making these false claims. It looks they changed this worldwid
Re: (Score:2)
Suprising that no one has sued.
I mean, that type of statement COULD be construed as false advertising? Or am I completely wrong?
Most software is delivered "as is" and some kind of problems are bound to appear anyway. Otherwise you couldn't release almost anything. Apple has everything set up quite nicely compared to Microsoft boasting in their old installers how the new Windows 98 is more secure than ever...
How could they have gotten away with that claim? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I think one of the reasons for the re-wording was to remove the word "viruses" since it so obviously confuses people who don't know the difference between viruses and trojans and think the handful of Mac malware in 12 years is equivalent to over 17,000,000 for Windows. Sorry, but market-share doesn't account for that discrepancy.
And why not? When you can design a virus (Trojan, whatever, no one outside the tech community gives a crap what term you use) that hits 20 times as many targets, many used in industrial or commercial settings (such as what Stuxnet targeted), why would you bother trying for a Mac virus? The point of most malware isn't to hit a specific target (there are exceptions of course, but as I said before, many of them run Windows, and are usually targeted in more precise attacks anyways), but to hit as many targets a
Re: (Score:2)
Because Mac OS X has an actual security model...
Of course, the security model of "No, you can't install that because technically we're only renting this box to you" is probably a large part of why their market share has been practically non-existent until recently...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
like a larger screen or a faster processor. Apple can't compete there.
Huh? Apple comes with an HDMI port. Short of the absolutely gigantic screens that require completely custom hardware, what can't it run? As for processors:
2x Xeon 5675's with 12 cores ain't the best. But I don't know many people who get more than that.
"Windows viruses" (Score:3)
IIRC, the claim was that Macs were immune to "Windows viruses".
Re:"Windows viruses" (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and Windows is immune to Mac security bugs.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No, they made two claims. 1) They don't get PC (as in personal computer) viruses. and 2) That they are immune from Windows-based viruses. Claim #2 can be true if they are referring to viruses/vulnerabilities that affect the underlying Windows operating system - hence the Windows-based claim and could equally be claimed by Microsoft or Linux in the same manner. We already know there are cross-platform issues with Flash that affect both equally and led to Flash being banned from iOS devices. So claim #1 could
Still an impressive record (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Still an impressive record (Score:4, Insightful)
Because was gots ta hates on the Applez! GOTTA HATEZ! Kill! Kill! Hate! Faster LOLCat! Kill! (pant) (pant) (shakes fist)
Geek cred must be constantly watered by the dripping spittle of hate against a gadget company, and refusing to let others (The Sheep!) like what we don't like!
Re:Still an impressive record (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is why half the comments here, and on the last story which will not be named, nearly all of them, were blindly defending Apple, no matter what?
Some of us are seriously worried about what would happen were Apple in Microsoft's position. Say what you will about Microsoft, they have never yet attempted the walled garden to the level Apple has made a business model and sold to billions of people with questionable claims. Speaking of which - pot, kettle, black, since most people complaining about Apple being attacked love to go and do the exact same thing they accuse others of when a story about Microsoft (and even Linux at times) comes up.
I'd personally prefer if neither company existed, but Microsoft is the incompetent demon I know, Apple is the devil I don't. They have already proven they are able to manipulate the market to absurd levels (iTunes, locked down mobile OSes and service lockin, increasingly walled off desktop OSes, etc) in ways that harm ALL computer users, not just Apple users. You can bet when Apple does something sneaky like quietly remove implications that they are immune to viruses I am going to pay attention. If that looks like irrational hatred like you claim it is, well, I think it says a lot about how objective you are to your "gadget company."
Re: (Score:3)
Well, in all seriousness, one can't use pot kettle black if I parody Apple bashing because someone else NOT me does the opposite. I'm not responsible for what other kettles do. Despite how often it happens in political discussions, it doesn't really work to call a *group* of people hypocritical. You need to demonstrate that individuals in the group are being hypocritical and there's not just a difference of opinion within the group.
You savvy?
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the before and after (Score:5, Informative)
Here are before and after images of the marketing text [macrumors.com].
Also, contrary to the summary, it never claimed complete immunity to viruses, merely immunity to Windows viruses, which is, admittedly, a trivial and silly distinction to make, but I like playing the pedant.
Re: (Score:2)
it never claimed complete immunity to viruses, merely immunity to Windows viruses
The full quote: "It doesn't get PC viruses. A Mac isn't susceptible to the thousands of viruses plaguing Windows-based computers. That's thanks to built-in defenses in Mac OS X that keep you safe, without any work on your part."
Technically you are right - a Mac won't be susceptible to a PC/Windows virus. However, if we are playing pedant, then we should also consider the claim that this immunity is due "to built-in defenses in Mac OS X". An immunity to PC/Windows viruses is not due to any special defenses
Re: (Score:2)
Here are before and after images of the marketing text [macrumors.com].
Also, contrary to the summary, it never claimed complete immunity to viruses, merely immunity to Windows viruses, which is, admittedly, a trivial and silly distinction to make, but I like playing the pedant.
Actually, it makes several statements:
1: In big, bold type, the site declares regarding their brand of computer:
It doesn't get PC viruses.
So, unless your Mac is not a personal computer, it's obvious that is an untrue statement; even Mac-target virii are, technically, "PC viruses."
Below that heading, the site spells things out a bit more specifically:
A Mac isn't susceptible to the thousands of viruses plaguing Windows-based computers.
Ignoring the obvious FUD ("plaguing?" Bit hyperbolic, no?), that
Re: (Score:2)
In Apple marketing land, a PC is a Windows box. That's why the commercials go, "Hi, I'm a Mac, and I'm a PC." When you hear their executives talk, they're smart enough to know that Macs are PCs, but for marketing purposes, they've always drawn that line.
As for the rest, I agree.
Re: (Score:2)
Although Windows is mentioned in the small text, their original tagline was "It doesn't get PC viruses." That's not necessarily Windows-specific.
Re:Here's the before and after (Score:4, Informative)
I can explain it. It goes back to the very origin of the word "PC". PC was a term of IBM's computer based on the Intel 8088 (not a typo), which competed against the Apple II, Dec Rainbow, Commodore... It was an IBM brandname. Once the IBM Bios was cracked it got applied to IBM and the clone manufacturers who made "IBM compatible" or sometimes even "PC compatible" computers.
The fact that PC was an abbreviation for "Personal Computer" doesn't really matter in the context of thinking of it as a proper noun.
Re:Here's the before and after (Score:5, Informative)
Immediately after it, they expanded on the statement you quoted with, "A Mac isn't susceptible to the thousands of viruses plaguing Windows-based computers," which you apparently neglected to read.
Again though, as I said, I'm playing the pedant, since it's not much of a distinction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have to agree with Anubis - they were only claiming total immunity to Windows-based viruses. Against malware in general, they're just claiming excellent security... but not perfect. It's a valid claim and doesn't do the tap-dancing around terms that the original claim did. Some could say that because Macs are technically personal computers, claiming to be immune to "PC viruses" like in their original statement was an outright lie.
In short, they've gone from tapdancing around terms and implying things that
Re: (Score:2)
Closed? (Score:5, Insightful)
...its closed, highly-secure operating system...
Apple's OS is a lot of things, but it's still Unix based. If I want to do something, a terminal window is a click away. They've made the low level settings harder to get to via a settings window, to be sure; but at the end of the day, I can always issue the appropriate command. Closed might describe their mobile OS well, but that doesn't apply to their desktop OS (yet).
Re: (Score:3)
Apple's OS is a lot of things, but it's still Unix based. If I want to do something, a terminal window is a click away
For now; I have been saying this for a long time, but Apple is moving towards a product line where only their most expensive workstations give users the freedom to open terminals or write their own software. People did not flee from iOS; they embraced it like it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Re: (Score:2)
People did not flee from iOS; they embraced it like it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
That would be because compared to everything out there, it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. That's more a statement about how bad the market was than how great iOS is. And the market hasn't really improved much, despite the wailing and whining of the Android crowd. Android as it currently exists is a disaster - no real standards, multiple versions, no defined upgrade path, essentially all the problems of the market when iOS debuted. For those that come by saying "but, I can root my Android device
Re: (Score:2)
Any citation for the claim that access to the Terminal will be restricted in the future? Or that the putative restrictions will only apply to expensive "workstations"? Or is it just something you've been saying?
Anyone can write software for the Mac. If it's for your own use, that's the end of the story. In the future, anyone can request a certificate that will permit distribution of their software (either through the App store or independently). XCode runs on all Macs from Mini to MacPro (I know, I run it o
Re: (Score:2)
Any citation for the claim that access to the Terminal will be restricted in the future? Or that the putative restrictions will only apply to expensive "workstations"? Or is it just something you've been saying?
Just something I have been saying, based on where the general market for personal computers is moving and based on the enormous success Apple has had with its "App Store." There is a trend towards locked-down computing, and Apple is a leader in that category. So far, they have been nice enough to limit the lock-down to their iPad/iPhone/iPod line, but there is no real reason why their "consumer" MacBooks and Mac Mini systems could not be locked down. There would be plenty of money in it for them if the
Re: (Score:2)
> Closed might describe their mobile OS well, but that doesn't apply to their desktop OS (yet).
Closed can be read multiple ways.
1. Closed as in closed-source. Contrary to open-source. i.e. So where is the source for Finder or for Quartz or basically all the non-kernel functionality?
2. Closed as in API and what programs are allowed to run. You just can't add whatever API extensions you like to the OS, say like Linux / BSD. For right now you can run whatever programs you want (you don't need Apple's ap
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
About the only thing I use on my Mac anymore is the video apps. Once the Linux versions get just a little better I wont give a damn what they do. My Mac Mini can run Linux too.
Re: (Score:3)
So? for techincal users this will be easy to undo
for people who just want a computer like they want a toaster this will mean the software they install has been checked for malware. this using the computer thing like a manual transmission was cool 20 years ago but at this point people just want to use the software on it and don't care about the monkey work
Re:Closed? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
*facepalm*
Yes, closed.
OSX is absolutely a closed OS.
A terminal window has nothing to do with openness. Android doesn't put a terminal window in the forefront, but it's an open OS.
And for the record, UNIX(TM) is absolutely not open either. Linux is, FreeBSD is, UNIX is as closed as anything from Apple or Microsoft.
Progress (Score:4, Interesting)
I consider this to significant progress on the part of Apple and they deserve to get credit. Much as Microsoft has their head buried in the sand for years before they started making changes, we should applaud Apple for taking the first step. I welcome Apple to world of reality, a world in which operating system have security flaws, require patches and get viruses.
Now that Apple is in at least some small way acknowledging the real world, let's see if they can clean up their act the way Microsoft did years ago. Admitting you have a problem is always the first step, now we can always hope that they will start to embrace industry standards for dealing with security issues. Perhaps someday their users will no longer also have their heads in the clouds about security issues?
Kind of funny thinking about it, a decade ago I never would have imagined citing Microsoft as a company that can be cited as cleaning up their act for security. /responsible for securing an environment that is %50 mac, so I'm not trolling.....
There is still hope (Score:2)
Google can still claim that ChromeOS is virus free!
Umm, it's still true (Score:3)
"claimed its Mac computers were completely immune to viruses"
No, that's not what it said. It said, and I quote, "A Mac isn't susceptible to the thousands of viruses plaguing Windows-based computers."
That is still true today.
Re: (Score:3)
And everyone that ever used Linux will eventually die.
Re: (Score:2)
And everyone that has used one SAP's systems, but it will be a death by confusion.
Re: (Score:3)
It's like when your Pokemon uses Confusion. It makes fanboys rabidly attack anyone and everyone near by while mostly just hurting themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
It's like a Someone Else's Problem (SEP) field run in reverse; instead of people subconsciously avoiding the problem, they're all drawn to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How can someone with a six digit /.UID not know what a reality distortion field is? [wikipedia.org] The phrase was coined 31 years ago and spoken of here quite often.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel like no one got the reference. It was a tongue-in-cheek reference to having an article talking about Steve Jobs (a dead person) with references to AD&D while the title is about something happening today.
Re: (Score:3)
Re-animating the dead had nowhere near the profit margins as printer ink.
Re:Reality Distortion Field (Score:5, Insightful)
The reality distortion field is what causes Apple fanboys to think that Apple invented the mouse.
Wow I've never actually heard this. I've never heard that Apple has invented the smartphone or the mp3 player, either. I sometimes think people think they heard the word 'invent' when the word used was 'innovate'.
Re:Reality Distortion Field (Score:5, Funny)
Blame Al Gore, for innovating the Internet :)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And Microsoft fanboys to think that MS invented windows.
Re: (Score:2)
*sigh*
All tech companies copy off of other tech companies, then patent everything in between in case they get sued.
It still happens today!
Re:Reality Distortion Field (Score:5, Insightful)
The reality distortion field is what causes Apple fanboys to think that Apple invented the mouse.
No true Apple fan believes Apple invented the mouse. The story of Steve Jobs visiting PARC and exclaiming "you're sitting on a goldmine!" in exasperation when they said that they had no intention of commercialising it then rushing back to Apple and calling the hardware guy in and told him to drop all current projects because "*this* [the mouse] is what we've got to make".
I mean, if we're being truthful about what the RDF is.
It would be more accurate to say that it's the effect that gets people to cheer during the keynote when Jobs announced that they had updated iOS4 to enable the volume-up key to work as the shutter release in the camera app (and yes, that did happen. I eyerolled with amusement - I mean, it's a nice feature but it received a round of applause for goodness sake).
Re: (Score:2)
*missing words. "The story of Steve Jobs visiting PARC is famous...."
Re: (Score:3)
No true Apple fan believes...
Provided that they're not Scottish as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Twenty? I used a one-button Mac six years ago - one of those ugly uncomfortable puck mice. It was made maybe ten years ago, probably a bit less.
Not to mention that *technically* their current touchpad mice have only one "button"...
Re:Reality Distortion Field (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you'll find most people who do not think highly of Apple here think just as little of Microsoft. I know it can be hard to get out of the mentality that it is Apple vs. Microsoft and you have to pick one, but there are, in fact, people who have legitimate reasons to dislike both the company you love and the company you hate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And it's a lie.
No it's not.
All depends on your definition of "perfect" vs. theirs.
And as our bullshit legal system can attest, there are so many ways to skin that cat that if it were carried out literally, the feline species would be extinct.
Re: (Score:2)
It also has less legacy cruft.
Re: (Score:3)
The old (but still true) fact is that Mac OS X has less malware because it is a smaller target (about 10% market share) than Windows for the bad guys to be cost effective.
Baloney. If Apple and Mac developers are making money off of the platform - and they are - then malware writers should be as well. We're not talking
"a tenth of the malware of Windows", we're talking a significant order of magnitude less malware, almost all of it trojans requiring user intervention to install itself, and just two that were
Re: (Score:2)
It is precisely those unequivocal words like "nothing" that get people into trouble.
I like how you deride him for making a blanket statement, and then go on to do just that yourself. Are you just being ironic? The "architecture" is a sweeping generalization which you need to qualify. What about the "architecture"? What aspects?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The NPD Group has reported that Apple is market share at retail store fronts for the first quarter in the U.S. is 66 percent, but only for those PCs costing more than US$1,000. For all PCs, it is 14%.
You used 4 qualifiers (bolded) to find a niche subsegment where Apple performed well. Moreover, your "report" is from 2008, before Windows 7 was released. Since then, Microsoft has sold 600 million copies of Windows 7, whereas Apple estimates only 66 million people use Macs in total. The PC market is fantastically huge, which is what makes it such an appealing target for malware.
Re: (Score:3)
Another little fact the author felt worth mentioning that you did not is that $1,000+ PC's purchased at retail stores only make up about 14% of the PC market.
So, the whole snippet (minus your arbitrary edits) reads like this:
Of the 14% of PCs sold for more than $1000 at brick-and-mortar retailers, 66% are Macs.
Gee, sounds far less impressive when you put in all the facts, I se
Re: (Score:3)
Apple's market share [macobserver.com] is 66% for all personal computers sold in stores for more than $1,000. In addition, Apple's market share as been increasing as sales of PCs as a whole have been dropping.
Are you serious? Those are sales figures (sold new at retail stores in first quarter 2008 for over $1000), not usage figures. You're not talking about what's being used in the market, just what was sold during the first quarter - OF 2008! - and even then you're only considering retail stores and $1000+ computers, where the average PC cost is $650. So not only are your sales figures irrelevant to a discussion about usage share, but they're cherrypicked to such a ridiculous level that they're not even relevan
Re: (Score:3)
Luvaglio's market share is 100% for all personal computers sold for more than $X and Apple's is 0%.
X being quite a large number, mind you.
Market share comparisons don't mean a damn thing when you cut out broad portions of the overall market.
Re:Yawn (Score:4, Funny)
What fool thinks that any computer system is immune to one sort of malware or another?
Linux zealots.
Re:The first crack in the shell! (Score:5, Insightful)
Jobs would have kept saying it. Mac user would parrot it. You won't believe how often I hear Mac users (although I am one) delude themselves into thinking how great their platform is. The marketing speak of "Macs are immune to viruses" doesn't have to be true, the consumers just have to believe it is.
It's sort of like how Howard Camping said the world was going to end in May last year and then it didn't, and then people STILL believed him when he said it was going to end in October.
Re:The first crack in the shell! (Score:5, Insightful)
The platform is great (or not) irrespective of what idiot fan boys think. This is what I hate most about any conversation about Apple ever. I too am a Mac user (think they are great) and accept that malware is not impossible to get. I, however, am not the stereotypical hyper-logical binary slashdotter who doesn't realize that marketing is marketing and exists to try to get people to buy your stuff.
Whether a bunch of fanboi hipsters buy Macs or not, I'm still going to like my Mac, regardless what others think. People who hate Macs, for whatever reason, think I am trying to tell them how awesome my Mac is (really don't care what you think), or even worse, that I'm trying to IMPRESS you by purchasing something anyone else can also buy. Again, I don't really care what you think about my computer. I'm using it a public space, because, a) I have it with me, and b) there's free wi-fi. Not c) to try and impress all the chicks with my Macbook...but this is slashdot, so maybe that's the logical conclusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly what I thought. I did a double take on the title as well.