Posted on 12/31/2010 4:21:28 PM PST by Swordmaker
An iCal alarm popped up for us today. It said:
Mark Oct. 22 on your calendar. That's the day that Apple's classic 'I'm a Mac. I'm A PC' attack ads are going to cease to be humorous. Oct. 22 is, of course, the formal release date of Windows 7... Here's what I believe will happen: The Windows 7 launch will take those market-share gains Apple has seen over the past several years and make them disappear... Yes, the Mac has had a great run for the past couple of years. Gartner says Apple's share of the U.S. computer market for the third quarter amounted to 8.8 percent, up from 8.6 percent in the year-ago period. My bet is that market share is going to drop below 5 percent by the end of 2010... Windows 7 is a great product and Apple is going to feel the pain from it. — Steven Burke, CRN, October 15, 2009
Let's check in with Gartner:
Whoopsie. Let's hope for Steven's sake that all he bet was his reputation. Not a big loss. And, Steven, Apple's feeling no pain unless it's from the strain of driving dump trucks full of cash to the bank 24/7/365.
Now, granted, while those are the latest numbers, they're not truly "the end of 2010," so we'll check in again in a few weeks when Gartner releases their numbers for calendar 4th quarter.
Of course, nobody sane expects Apple to go from 10.4% to under 5% in three months, but we're certainly not averse to serving crow twice.
Send your New Year's wishes to Steven here: steve.burke@ec.ubm.com
You've been saying that since Apple was at, what, $80 a share? It's quadrupled since then.
Do NOT give up your day job to pursue your dreams of becoming a stock analyst.
No, he can't. He's a member of a cult, one that requires that the members recite a worn-out, tired litany of false slurs and inaccurate evaluations. If he ever stops calling Apple customers "cultists" and "fanboys", or stops calling Apple products "overpriced", -his- cult will disown him.
It's sort of a tribal thing, I guess.
As one with little-to-no brand loyalty, but who sees the value in quality products over cheap ones, I think those guys are a hoot. (You know, the -other- cultists...) ;-)
You know, given the choice between some hippy-dippy love-filled flower child wandering down the sidewalk smiling and giving away beads, versus a muttering, leering, hate-filled dude lurching down the sidewalk with a knife in his hand threatening the passersby,..... both are annoying, but I think I'll have to go with the flower child as the more reasonable character. Hate is an ugly thing...
WOW! Starting off with an ad hominem... You are really bereft of any logical arguments, aren't you.
I said I read the original article and that that author did not cite his source. The only mention of a source was the phrase "Gartner says..." and as an academic that is not a citation. I know who Gartner Research is only because I am educated on the matter. What I do not know is what subset of their research he is referring to nor is it my job as a reader to try to figure out what he was referring to. As I said, the article was poorly written and I was not referring to the subsequent MDN article in any way.
You were NOT referring to Steven Burke's snarky CRN column or Mac Daily News' original article that called him out on his prediction, both of which were published on October 15, 2009, because NEITHER of those articles referred to 10%,. Given everything you have posted, you would have agreed with everything Burke said. No, you were speaking about the original article that started this thread, because only the original article from Mac Daily News that started this thread mentions that figure! Here is what you said, verbatim, in post 52:
"First of all, I did read the original article. I do not agree with the author’s viewpoint and I believe that was made clear earlier. The author does not cite the source of any of his numbers, so when he talks about market share it is entirely unclear what he means. We do not know if he means sales or total installed base. Again, the article was poorly written.
I called you on it... and now you are dancing, trying to change what you said, because you don't like to be caught out in a lie. I suggest you stop dancing. You don't do it very well.
I was responding to your post (#57) where you make the claim that Apple's locked-down devices are in fact personal computers. Again, this has nothing to do with the original article. I'm talking about your claim. I stand by my statement that any claim that Apple holds more than 10% of the personal computer market is including the three handheld devices. This is not based solely on shipments in the calendar year 2010 as I hope you are aware the world existed prior to 2010. It is unknown (and almost certainly not quantifiable) what the worldwide market share is. You criticize web hits as a method but the fact is they remain the only reliable indicator of older machines and what they represent in terms of market share.
FUNNY! And wrong again. I was responding to YOUR TOTALLY SPECIOUS CLAIM in Post 52 that Apple had fraudulently included handheld devices to get to an over 10% Market share in Gartner's reports. Here is what you claimed in Post 52:
"While the timeframes aren't the same, it is clear that any Apple numbers claiming a 10% or greater market share are listing other devices (like the iPhone and its variants) as "computers," which they aren't."
My response was totally hypothetical, which stated that if we accepted your ABSURD claim that Apple was fraudulently inflating its AUDITED computer sales figures—which would open it to lawsuits from its stock holders and criminal prosecution from numerous government agencies—then Apple would have been able to claim over 150 million shipped computers in 2010, not just a mere 13.7 million. They did not. So, FlintSilver7, your idiotic claim is specious. Do you REALLY think the second largest company in the world by market cap is going to risk all that to inflate their sales numbers??? Do you REALLY want to go there??? Do you see how silly you look???
Now, as to what is "Market Share:" FlintSilver, Market share is an economic term. "Market Share" does not equal "Installed Base." Gartner understands this and when they report Market Share, they do not conflate, like YOU DO, to mean Installed Base. They use actual hard number data provided by the manufacturers of actual sold and shipped computers and devices to compile their statistics to determine MARKET SHARE statistics... this is reliable, hard data. It is not nose picking. On the other hand, determining installed base is pretty much nose picking done by people like NetApplications who count website hits... and guesses. Your claim that Mac data includes all those handheld devices there is ALSO wrong... as iOS devices are counted separately from Mac OSX computers and compiled seperately. So again YOU ARE WRONG. You repeatedly make assumptions about things you know very little about.
Sigh...you really are dense. Your first line here builds a gigantic strawman argument from a claim I didn't make, and you then proceed to furiously foam at the mouth and pound on your keyboard with righteous zeal. I know you don't want to believe it but I said exactly what I said and I was clear. Try answering that, not what you really wanted me to say. While I have no obligation to whatsoever to respond to the remainder of this drivel (being based on a false premise) I will point out that you have not provided any source, reliable or otherwise, for most of what you claim. Don't state numbers as fact if you can't back them up.
WOW! Again, you lead off with ad hominem argument. That is a strong indicator you have no compelling facts. . . and you don't. I do NOT post things I cannot back up with facts, Flint. I can back up everything I post. You should know that by now. What, exactly do you think I cannot back up? Do you think your two links to Sophos are a slam dunk proof that shoots me down? Far from it.
I posted BOTH of those articles to FreeRepublic back in November when Sophos first published them... and they were soundly laughed out of the Mac community. FlintSilver7, you are trying to lecture me on something you know VERY LITTLE ABOUT... the Mac. I am am a 29 year professional in Computer Consulting and even own a business doing that very thing for both Windows and Macs. I am an EXPERT on Macs... you are NOT. Yet you have the AUDACITY to try and tell me about something I know far more than you ever will.
You're not entitled to your own facts, though, so if you choose to ignore them your argument becomes completely meaningless. I mean, the facts are that Mac malware has existed and exists today. Apple patches security vulnerabilities just as Microsoft does. CanSecWest alone proves that the OSX platform (and iOS for that matter) is not any more secure than any other platform.
Nor are YOU entitled to your own facts... nor is Sophos. Nor are they entitled to rewrite history or to distort that history so they can sell software.
Sophos was laughed out of the Mac community in November and has been before when they released other breathless press releases about dire warnings of Mac dangers from malware. Why? Let me educate you about why.
In the past, Sophos has released dire warnings about threats only seen in the lab... their lab.
This year, Sophos wants to sell it's commercial grade OSX antivirus package to businesses, so THEY are pushing a free consumer package hoping to gin up some publicity. They pull some FUD stuff every year. This free anti-virus was this years.
Their consumer anti-virus package TURNS OFF the built in Apple OSX Trojan blocker and Sophos's AV will THEN find a few OSX Trojans on a few machines. WOW! Stop the presses! Issue a press release!
Yes, Flintsilver7, the Sophos antivirus software DID indeed find a lot of malware on the Macs on the 150,000 Mac users who bothered to install it. It found it in email, in JPEGs, in Windows Media, in Flash Scrips, in MP3 files, in a host of XXX.exe files... all on Macs.
When the malware actually reported by Sophos as having been found on these Macs was analyzed, only 1.6% of it was OSX malware, ALL of the rest, 98.4% of the malware that Sophos was crowing its Mac antivirus app found on those Macs was WINDOWS malware that will not even run on a Mac!!!!
To top the analysis off, Flintsilver7, to add injury to the insult of what Sophos had done, ALL of the Mac malware it had found would have been prevented from entering the Macs IF the Sophos antivirus HAD NOT turned OFF that feature so that it could detect it To my way of thinking, that borders on outright fraud!
Now, let's address the second linked file... the History of Mac malware...
EVERYTHING BEFORE 2004 is for an operating system that is MOOT! Irrelevant If you are counting, though, there were 113, known viruses for the Mac up to MacOS 9.2. But none of that counts for OSX, because it bears NO RELATIONSHIP to the old Mac system.
From 2001 on, Sophos reports a total of 22 malware… and the vast majority of those simply DON'T WORK!
The ones that do are Trojans, malware that are merely programs that require the active participation of the user to download, install, and run them. OSX has an active, system level function that will warn the user when ANY of the known Trojans in the four families of recognized Trojans are attempted to be downloaded, installed, or run… and it requires an administrator level password to do any of those three things. A user has to be very stupid to do all three to get infected.
The listed malware are as follows from Sophos, "Apple Mac malware: A short history (1982-2010)" The malware is names, with my comments based on the articles and research that appeared after the "malware" appeared.
Renepo… proof of concept never worked, never in the wold.
Amphimx… proof of concept… never in the wild… didn't work
Leap-A and B… proof of concept never in the wild. Claimed could spread by iChat… was not true. It took two Mac engineers and two security specialists from Secunia SIX HOURS to get it to merely copy itself from one Mac to another … and failed to install.
Inqtana… proof of concept. Never worked. Supposed to work over Bluetooth… required the recipient to accept download and install. did not work.
Macarena… did not work.
The Open Office worm would run the script on Macs… but attempted to format Drive C: and attempted to install itself to C: Windows only.
Bad Bunny NEVER REPORTED IN THE WILD… it was just sent to SOPHOS lab.
OSX RSPlugA - Trojan… requires the use to download and install. OSX will warn you that you are downloading this file and all members of the family.
Macsweeper scareware… Not truly malware… just advertising… sold useless antimalware software.
The rest are merely social engineering Trojans that OSX has built in recognition capabilities for and will warn the user against downloading and installing… IF it is not turned off by misguided AV software such as Sophos' Free AV.
Basically all 17 variants of the four families of Trojans, and any based on those families, are recognized by OSX and the user is warned on download attempts, again at installation, and at first run of any of the infected files.
So, except for the Trojans, which are NOT VIRUSES, I stand by my claim that there ARE NO VIRUSES in the wild for Mac OSX... and your article basically proves it. I further stand by my statement that this is a QUANTIFIABLE difference between the two platforms... you REALLY don't want to post a similar article entitled "Microsoft PC Malware: a Short History (1982 - 2010)" do you??? I suggest you REALLY don't want to go there...
“This is not news or interesting in the least.”
It’s very interesting and good news for those of us who use Macs. I’d suggesting not reading the articles, and ESPECIALLY not commenting on them if you don’t find them interesting. ;-)
An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less. You seem to have been educated beyond your means.
You're also telling everyone that you, with your shiny economics degree, know more about malware than one of the world's foremost computer security companies.
Would a computer security company have any reason to spread FUD? Would it perhaps scare some folks into buying their products? Are they smarter than the millions of us who run naked on a Mac with no bad consequences? As SM said, OSX warns us before we open a suspicious package.
I won't lie and I say I really took you seriously before, but you may (or may not, as it is) realize that the way you act and what you say is a very good way to be laughed off the stage yourself.
Are you familiar with projection? It is probably not taught in computer science class but it is taught in the behavior sciences. SM warned you to stop digging but you persist. My advice is that you avoid these threads in the future. SM handed you your hat but you still insist on displaying your shiny pate.
Your name is certainly fitting. That much is for sure.
I generally do avoid the Mac circle jerk threads, by the way, because I lose faith in humanity when I do enter them. I make an argument supported by facts and I get insulted and told I’m wrong. Reality doesn’t sit well with you folks. That’s all well and good. Attacking me and ignoring the stark reality of the matter doesn’t change it and no amount of bootlicking is going to change that.
By the way, there has only been one civil response to me in this forum from a Mac person. That person remains, in the nearly five years since I’ve joined, the only individual I believe is actually educated about operating systems that participates in these threads. Sadly, everyone else basically remains a complete jackass.
I’ve never been accused of beating around the bush.
I do, when they are trying to pull the wool over the consumer's eyes to SELL them something they do not need... especially when they have TURNED OFF built in protections with their software so they CAN FIND SOMETHING and COUNT other things that cannot infect your machine and trumpet them as if they were somehow a danger! How ignorant do you have to be to not understand that???
You do GREAT cut and past... but you do not understand what you are cutting and pasting. It's that simple, Flintsilver7. I've dealt with your type before. You've never used a Mac so you really don't know.
I won't lie and I say I really took you seriously before, but you may (or may not, as it is) realize that the way you act and what you say is a very good way to be laughed off the stage yourself.
Those who use Macs are not laughing... only you who haven't. All I can tell you is our experience does NOT match with the FUD. As Galileo said... still, it moves. You are the blind one. Look at what Sophos itself published in its "Apple Mac malware: A short history (1982-2010):" After the introduction of OSX, Flintsilver, they were HARDPRESSED to come up with a list of 22 candidates... and the only real threats were Trojans. Apple addressed that by building in Trojan recognition capability at the core level. To get their Sophos AV to even FIND any Mac malware, they were forced to turn off that system level defense and allow that malware to be downloaded so that the Sophos AV COULD intercept it! That is despicable.
Sophos sees their Windows business flagging as Microsoft improves its Windows' core system's defenses... and is looking for another market to keep itself afloat... and wants to scare a large 55 million strong market of Mac users into using their product so they can sell its Commercial Sophos Mac AV to businesses with the same fear when they can point to finding Mac malware.
Have you considered therapy? Quite often one can just talk these things out with a sympathetic listener. Of course, that cost a coin or two. I say that in all compassion and it's free.
Nah, that’s what the internet is for.
As a general rule I don’t cut and paste anything. When I do, it will be explicitly cited as such.
First, I have used Apple products dating back to the Apple IIc when I was all of about six years old. I still use them on occasion, though as I have said repeatedly over the years my main machines are Linux and Windows.
Second, the Sophos software is free. They are not trying to sell you anything. In their own words they’re trying to increase brand awareness.
http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2010/11/12/free-mac-anti-virus-we-just-cant-win/
Lastly, there is zero indication that the Sophos software in any way allows malware in that otherwise wouldn’t be. That would make the Sophos software malware itself. You’re making claims that Sophos disables built-in protection to expose the machine to malware and there is no evidence of that that I can find. I am willing to listen if you can provide any real evidence of this (and I’m sure the competitors of Sophos are as well).
http://www.securemac.com/sophos-anti-virus-review.php
TAANSTAAFL, Flintsilver7. "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch!" it's time you learned that. I'm economist at heart. People usually don't do things for altruistic motives like give away the products they've invested time and money developing to people so they can sell something else to somebody else. Here is what your linked article actually, truthfully says:
"So, why are we giving it away for free to home users? Well, I thought that would be obvious. It makes people think we're cool and gets our name out there. That should help us sell even more software to businesses. In other words, it's all about brand awareness."
It says exactly what I told you they were doing. They intend to sell their commercial Mac AV software to businesses who use Macs. Or do you think they are giving away Mac AV software to sell Windows AV software to businesses? To do this they needed to gin up some buzz that there is a danger. How? Give away some free AV and then make press releases about all the scary stuff it finds! Don't differentiate it . . . Just make sure there's some Mac specific malware on the list and if you have to turn off the system level protections to assure your user level protection will get to see it, so be it. All's fair in war and business is war... or at least one robber baron said that.
Lastly, there is zero indication that the Sophos software in any way allows malware in that otherwise wouldn’t be. That would make the Sophos software malware itself. You’re making claims that Sophos disables built-in protection to expose the machine to malware and there is no evidence of that that I can find.
That YOU can find. The thing speaks for itself, Flintsilver. I did not say that it let's it in. I said it finds it, but to find it, it allows it to download first, a greater intrusion than the core level protection allowed. Sophos AV does block it but it does disable the other built -in protection so that IT can claim to find it. Is it malware itself? No. I'd call it mostly unnecessary ware. it does a job the system already does adequately and then tells you needlessly about things that are not at all threats to your system. . . all so a third party can sell something to someone else. It's a marketing ploy I chose not to be part of.
I've run OSX Macs bare naked without a firewall on the Internet as an experiment for over two years and not been invaded. You cannot safely do that with a Windows computer. I don't do that any more only because I have several virtual Windows machines running in windows on my Mac for testing purposes. . . and I don't want them compromised. Why should any Mac user waste computer resources running Sophos' AV for no reason?
How about addressing the fact that Sophos could only name 22 malware for Mac OSX in the exhaustive history, now covering 10 years... And seventeen of those malware, were the known social engineering Trojans that any platform can be made susceptible to because they target human foibles and that OSX WILL block these Trojans at the system level if allowed to operate normally.
That leaves just five of the 22... all of them failed proof-of-concept, never seen in-the-wild, virus candidates that ultimately did not work and failed for lack of a viable vector, and two non-malware scareware ad campaigns?
Sophos actually missed a few that I've posted over the years here on FR... but they also were failed POC candidates that were not viable. Two day tempests in a teapot in the Mac community that were announced and quickly faded when they were proved either frauds or failures.
Using your own ammo against you is hoisting you on your own petard, Flint.
"I agree that it's a great idea for Sophos to offer this product free for Mac home users. Our company has used Sophos for several years on Mac and Windows systems. I like being able to tell our users that they can have all their Macs protected with a free version.However, as the admin who receives automated alerts about everything Sophos finds on our Macs, I can tell you that it is very, very rare to see any threat with OSX in the name. I have never had any Mac threat on any of the Macs I use at home, and that is even with teen-agers using them. This is not my head in the sand, this is still the reality that Mac threats are exceedingly rare, and virtually every one of them requires users to do something stupid to become affected or infected. I await Mr. Cluley's response! ;-)
I save every Sophos alert generated from one of the several hundred Macs in our business. Right now, I have 1,068 of them going back to 2005 -- so that in itself is not a huge number. Out of those 1,068 alerts, only four of them contain the letters OSX in the threat description. Now I suppose some of the others could be cross-platform?
Sophos' Brian Cluley did not respond. I think that more than makes the case for the LACK of any threat! Again you are hoist on your petard, Flint.
It's always a good thing to understand what you're attempting to correct before doing so, lol. You clearly don't.
Nope, sorry. 10 points deducted for ignorance of the classics, to wit, Shakespeare's Hamlet:
Let it work;Swordmaker's use of the phrase is an obvious reference to the original.
For 'tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petar; and 't shall go hard...
I must say, however, that other than this bit of unintentional humor, the exchange is getting a bit long in the tooth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.