Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Crow for one: ‘Microsoft’s Windows 7 will drive Mac market share below 5% by the end of 2010’
Mac Daily News ^ | Friday, December 31, 2010 - 09:42 AM EST

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


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Computers/Internet; Humor
KEYWORDS: apple; ilovebillgates; iwanthim; iwanthimbad; microsoftfanboys; windows7
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121 next last
To: dennisw; cmsgop
Hold onto your AAPL and ride it down to the sub sub sub basement

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.

61 posted on 01/05/2011 8:32:45 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
> You can stop it with the “cult” thing.

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...) ;-)

62 posted on 01/06/2011 12:51:39 AM PST by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker; antiRepublicrat
Ain't it amazing, how pitifully dedicated the haters are? For all that some people are mindlessly ga-ga over Apple products, I've seen a lot more people who lose their sh*t all over the street with their hatred of Apple.

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...

63 posted on 01/06/2011 1:04:46 AM PST by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
You are absolutely incapable of carrying on a discussion. Well, you might be about other topics, but not about this. While I atribute your inability to respond to what I am saying a byproduct of your obsession, it may be that you just aren't good at this.

You claim you read the article and in the same paragraph you claim the author does not cite the source of any of his number?! Simply amazing! You proved you DIDN'T READ THE ARTICLE! Or what part of "let's check in with with Gartner" and the posting of a chart with the heading: Preliminary US PC ( that means personal computer for the reading comprehension challenged) Vendor Shipment Estimates for 3Q10 (units) FROM "Source: Gartner, the pre-imminent (sic) source of industry statistics for tech sales data, do you fail to grasp? Please be aware that the chart specifies what IS inluded in the data on the chart.Note: Data includes Desk-based PCs and Mobile PCs.. . . It does Not say it includes iPods, iPads, or iPhones.

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 then try to lecture me on "market share" further demonstrating you haven't got a clue what you are talking about. My degree is in Economics. Your explanations are totally wrong. . . And irrelevant to the point of the article. They are incompetent. Comparing the sales of personal computers to personal computers, regardless of operating system, IS what this article is referring to, regardless of your attempt to falsely claim that Apple's numbers are inflated by iPod and other non-computer device sales. . . Which I rebutted clearly and completely. Why you choose to ignore that factual rebuttal, which is easily discoverable, is anyone's guess, but I suspect you are more interested in spreading your FUD than finding the truth.

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.

You further compound your FUD with your assertion that "vulnerabilities" being pro-actively patched by Apple is somehow the equivalent of active, in-the-wild "exploits!" . . . and then you advance the totally ABSURD notion that there is "no quantifiable difference in quality" between OSX and Windows! Let's just count the number, a quantifiable difference, of viable malware in-the-wild that have been seen for all versions of both OSX and Windows since 2001. The fact is, Flintsilver7, after11years, the number of self-transmitting, self-installing, self-replicating computer viruses and worms found in the wild for Mac OSX is still ZERO! On the other hand, the number of similar viruses and worms that have been found in-the-wild for the various Windows oprating Systems number in the multiple hundreds of thousands.That's a quantifiable difference in quality between OSX and Windows. Incidentally, if you want to limit it to Windows7, there are involuntary Windows7 bots out there already. There are, however, zero Involuntary Macbots (despite the claims made by the two guys who claimed to have found a 20,000 computer Macbot two years ago... No one but them, including their own former employer (who discharged them for publishing their claim without reporting their "find" to the employer) has EVER found a member of that bot)... Gosh, Flintsilver7, another quantifiable difference in the two systems! Do you enjoy being hoist on your own petard? I suggest you stop digging before your hole gets any deeper. The fact is that 99% of Mac OSX users can and do operate their Macs on the Internet bare naked, with no anti-malware applications, except for OSX's built in warning system about the four known Trojan families that will kick in if a user starts to download or install one of the 17 known members of those four families or a newly created trojan that matches the characteristics of one of the families. Windows users are still having to use third party anti-malware applications to remain safe on the internet. That's ANOTHER quantifiable difference between the two systems.

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.

Look, the reality is none of this matters. Both Microsoft and Apple are very good about patching the vulnerabilities in their software. This does not fix the main problem (and what has been the main problem for years) - the user. Windows UAC was designed to effectively recreate Unix-type elevation. Nonetheless, the average user fell victim to many social engineering attacks. This is true on both OS X and Windows - but it doesn't matter if the malware is written for the other problem. According to Sophos, not only does Mac malware exist, it has since the beginning - and many Mac users are infected right now. Sure, most of the installed malware is Windows-specific - but the point is that if the software had been written for OS X then it would happen.

http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2010/11/18/free-anti-virus-for-mac-150000-active-users-and-plenty-of-malware-found/

http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2010/11/24/apple-mac-malware-short-history/

You are free to believe whatever you want to believe. 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.

I'm sorry, but you are just going to have to get used to reality.
64 posted on 01/09/2011 4:00:17 PM PST by flintsilver7 (Honest reporting hasn't caught on in the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7; dayglored; antiRepublicrat; ReignOfError; Mind-numbed Robot; PreciousLiberty; ...
You are absolutely incapable of carrying on a discussion. Well, you might be about other topics, but not about this. While I atribute your inability to respond to what I am saying a byproduct of your obsession, it may be that you just aren't good at this.

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...

65 posted on 01/10/2011 3:34:36 AM PST by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft product "insult" free zone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7

“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. ;-)


66 posted on 01/10/2011 4:55:02 AM PST by PreciousLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
Now you're telling me what I meant and what I was referring to? This has devolved into first you misunderstanding or misprepresenting, deliberately or otherwise, what I was stating. You then go into a trademarked cultist rage where you defend with righteous indignation all that is holy with the Church of Apple. (I will withhold my other psychological evaluations of you.)

I stand by what I say. You still apparently don't know what that is. There's no point in continuing this discussion as anything I say, whether clearly marked as fact or opinion, will be met with more furious pounding on the keyboard as you defend your beloved computer company (again, you are a cultist). You can preach to the other members of your church.

I mean, you're telling a person with both professional and academic credentials in Computer Science (myself) that I am not an expert on computers. 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.

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.
67 posted on 01/10/2011 6:21:37 AM PST by flintsilver7 (Honest reporting hasn't caught on in the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7; Swordmaker
I mean, you're telling a person with both professional and academic credentials in Computer Science (myself) that I am not an expert on computers.

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.

68 posted on 01/10/2011 8:21:35 AM PST by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot

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.


69 posted on 01/10/2011 9:03:09 AM PST by flintsilver7 (Honest reporting hasn't caught on in the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7
I mean, you're telling a person with both professional and academic credentials in Computer Science (myself) that I am not an expert on computers. 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.

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.

70 posted on 01/10/2011 9:54:24 AM PST by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft product "insult" free zone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7
I generally do avoid the Mac circle jerk threads, by the way, because I lose faith in humanity when I do enter them.

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.

71 posted on 01/10/2011 10:44:03 AM PST by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Mind-numbed Robot

Nah, that’s what the internet is for.


72 posted on 01/10/2011 10:49:12 AM PST by flintsilver7 (Honest reporting hasn't caught on in the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

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


73 posted on 01/10/2011 11:05:55 AM PST by flintsilver7 (Honest reporting hasn't caught on in the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7
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.

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?

74 posted on 01/10/2011 1:29:11 PM PST by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft product "insult" free zone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7; dayglored; antiRepublicrat; ReignOfError; Mind-numbed Robot; PreciousLiberty
By the way, have you yet noticed that each time I rebut you I'm using your own links? Kind of using your own arguments against you. Pointing out what you choose to ignore. Thread judo.

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.

75 posted on 01/10/2011 1:53:57 PM PST by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft product "insult" free zone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7
This is the last comment on Sophos' website from your link you provided:

"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.

76 posted on 01/10/2011 2:07:17 PM PST by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft product "insult" free zone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
So where's the evidence, then, that installing Sophos on a Mac actually decreases its security? You're not stating something very simple or obvious like the fact that antivirus software by necessity cannot operate in parallel with other antivirus software. You're saying that Sophos' software is tampering with "system-level protections." There is no evidence of this and you have not provided any. I see none. You're making outrageous claims with no evidence to back them up. I'm a full-time engineer and a part-time academic and I can assure you anybody making claims like you are with no proof whatsoever would not be taken seriously. Were you in any way doing so commercially, you would be guilty of libel. The burden of proof is on you. Your refusal to believe the obvious does not change that.

And what, precisely, did you rebut? Sophos was painfully clear on their intent with their Mac antivirus software. It's free, and they made it known they have zero plans to ever charge for updates or service. What they hope is to increase brand awareness, and I would think that a super-brilliant economist like yourself would understand there is a financial motive behind that. Did I need to say that? They aren't hoping only to sell Mac antivirus software to people. They are hoping to sell anything they produce to people and businesses who they hope become more familiar with (and presumably happy with) their products. It's really quite a simple concept.

You like to keep stating that you're using my posts against me because you are constantly misrepresenting what I say. I didn't specify the obvious (but apparently I have to). The software they provide is free with no strings attached. It's not a trial version or a temporarily free version. If you don't like it, fine. If you use it and don't want to give them one red cent otherwise, fine. If you use it, you like it, and you wish to buy other Sophos products, great - that's the best outcome for them.

By the way, your statement that reads:

...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.

...illustrates that you apparently do not understand how operating systems work. If you fall victim to a social engineering attack and type in your administrator password or bypass UAC, there is nothing the operating system can or will do to stop the malware. You've given it elevated privileges and by design the operating system assumes you aren't an idiot and wished to do that. Your statement that OSX provides some sort of magical "system-level protection" is not only incorrect - its inaccuracy is likely to introduce malware into people's systems because they think they are invulnerable.
77 posted on 01/10/2011 2:22:37 PM PST by flintsilver7 (Honest reporting hasn't caught on in the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
A comment? Wow, consider me "hoist on my own petard." (Verb tense agreement, your mortal enemy, would appear to have hoisted you on your own petard.)

I am not (nor have I ever) argued that there is a plethora of OSX-specific malware out there. I take issue with the idea that security through obscurity is in fact any security at all. This applies to Unix in general as well. If malware exists, either as proof of concept or otherwise, then a security vulnerability exists. If an application-level vulnerability exists (such as those in Safari that allow Macs to be given away at CanSecWest), then by definition a security vulnerability exists. If Apple patches security vulnerabilities, then again by definition security vulnerabilities exist. This argument is completely idiotic - it's like saying that because you've never gotten into an accident in your car then it's accident-proof.

By the way, cross-platform malware has increased substantially and will continue to do so as the heterogeneity of the computing market increases.
78 posted on 01/10/2011 2:36:43 PM PST by flintsilver7 (Honest reporting hasn't caught on in the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7
(Verb tense agreement, your mortal enemy, would appear to have hoisted you on your own petard.)

It's always a good thing to understand what you're attempting to correct before doing so, lol. You clearly don't.

79 posted on 01/10/2011 3:26:16 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7
> (Verb tense agreement, your mortal enemy, would appear to have hoisted you on your own petard.)

Nope, sorry. 10 points deducted for ignorance of the classics, to wit, Shakespeare's Hamlet:

Let it work;
For 'tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petar; and 't shall go hard...
Swordmaker's use of the phrase is an obvious reference to the original.

I must say, however, that other than this bit of unintentional humor, the exchange is getting a bit long in the tooth.

80 posted on 01/10/2011 4:07:18 PM PST by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson