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...