@P.A.C.: Yeah, we kinda should judge companies by what they have made in the past, because, you know, they fucking made it.
We could judge them by what they make in the present too, though I suppose, but I don't think video chipset overheating causing artifacts on a $3,000 is something many companies would want to be brought up. We could talk about a workstation with a mid range gaming video card. Or maybe a 4GB mp3 player that is "just $79" and needs proprietary headphones to work.
It's not like they'd know how to hack anything anyway. Hell, opening up Control Panel would be so terrifying or uncool that they'd wet their little pants.
I have to call BS on his statement. My laptop is stable, secure, and does everything I could ever want it to, when I want it to. Unlike a Mac, it does do what i want it to, this statement is BS.
I’ve been developing for M$ software for 13 years all I can say is that M$ OS’s are pure shit. When will the head engineers ever get off their lazy asses and do some real Q&A and usability testing? Apple’s gained so much attention because it’s true that it ‘just works’.
!!! ITS ABOUT THE SOFTWARE STUPID !!!
Yes, Apple ‘just works’ on old, dated hardware that’s overpriced when compared to the PC with much BETTER hardware, but with the software on it that *doesn’t* work. In the end, something that actually works is the one thing that will get the job done.
!!! ITS ABOUT THE SOFTWARE STUPID !!!
Vista’s interface is a schizophrenic mess. Now by default, the window manager hides all the pull down menus. Is this supposed to be helpful to new users, by hiding something like the Help menu? How did this ever pass Q&A?
!!! ITS ABOUT THE SOFTWARE STUPID !!!
I just installed MSN Messenger 2009 and guess what? The pull down menus are back in this new application, with Photos, File, etc. sitting right at the top, although when you press Alt+F the original OS’s File, Edit, View pull down menus appear like magic ontop of these new ‘other’ pull down menus with the same names, but totally different menu items…. Its schizophrenia all over again… Apple’s solution: ONE menu bar, accelerator keys supported, that’s it.
!!! ITS ABOUT THE SOFTWARE STUPID !!!
UAC nags and annoys to no end unlike Apple’s UNIX like security model which ‘gently’ asks about security permissions (usually once) without blacking out everything … so much for multitasking on Vista.
!!! ITS ABOUT THE SOFTWARE STUPID !!!
It only gets worse with viruses and Trojans abound. Norton, TrendMicro anyone? Once dependable third parties are now on the bloatware bandwagon. You’ll need all that new ‘quasi-tested’ hardware running as fast as possible because these anti-virus apps suck CPU cycles left and right. Microsoft’s OneCare is pretty decent when it’s not losing your Outlook files but again Q&A is lacking. You’d think the OS manufacturer would be in tune with their own anti-virus, firewall, backup solution. Try remote assistance and you’ll see that it will tell you that its ‘easy’, and that it will ‘open up firewall ports for you’. All lies. OneCare blocks terminal services atop of OneCare’s firewall, atop of Windows Firewall (yes they are separate, redundant products), atop of the dozen other checkboxes you need to click to enable remote assistance… and even then, your chances of helping mom are questionable. Apple? Just plug it in and turn it on.
!!! ITS ABOUT THE SOFTWARE STUPID !!!
Like I said, as a M$ user and developer for at least 13 years, and a Windows Mobile user as well (three generation of WinMo phones and I gave in to an iPhone last fall), all I can do is laugh. Yes Window’s can do everything that a more expensive Apple can do with enough tweeking and hacking. I’ve heard the same from Windows Mobile users vs. iPhone. But here is the deal: Apple does it better.
!!! ITS ABOUT THE SOFTWARE STUPID !!!
Its fun to hack. But at some point, driving a $25k Honda soap’d up with $15k of accessories and neon lights does not equate to a $40k BMW. Even if the Honda does 0 to 60 faster. Time to grow up and realize that its not all about the hardware, rather …
!!! ITS ABOUT THE SOFTWARE STUPID !!!
And all the testing and Q&A… that’s what Apple premium price goes to.
@PAC As a Windows user I wouldn't know much about viruses either. Macs would get viruses if they had a large enough market share for hackers to care about. It isn't like they are more secure, just no one uses them.
Reinstalled vista on my toshiba tablet today. Have to install something like 15 drivers to get full functionality. Each one requires a restart between. The best part is it will be running like shit in 6 months again. And I can't install a vista with SP1 built in because the key on my laptop doesn't work with it. Awesome.
Mac OS 9 had viruses and it had even less market share than OS X. OS X is more secure because it has a Unix foundation.
And you're telling me that not ONE hacker can make a virus just to shut up the "pretentiously smug Apple fanboys." That makes no sense at all. Some of the first viruses and worms in history were started as jokes and had no financial motive.
And what about that? I keep hearing people saying that no one make viruses for OS X because they can't make any money with such small market share, but if that is true, why do so many developers make software for OS X?
Adobe, Alias, DigiDesign, Roxio, even Microsoft, all these large companies make software for OS X, so they must be making some money. I mean, Mac users on average have more money and pay for their software, compared to PC users. There have been studies that prove this.
So spare me the security through obscurity myth. It sounds reasonable, but when you analyze the argument, nothing about it makes sense.
@ben, use your factory disc next time. I haven't used anything other than windows 7 in around 5 months, but doesn't it automatically find drivers and install them?
Personally, I think anyone who defines their 'coolness' by their computer hardware is more likely to be a narcissistic prat than anything close to the definition of 'cool', but have at 'er nerdlingers.
You linked to an article about a trojan. A trojan is not a virus.
Here's the definition of a virus. From Wikipedia:
"A computer virus is a computer program that can copy itself and infect a computer without the permission or knowledge of the owner. The term "virus" is also commonly but erroneously used to refer to other types of malware, adware, and spyware programs that do not have the reproductive ability. A true virus can only spread from one computer to another."
A trojan has to be installed by a user. In the case of the iWork trojans, users were asked to give root access to the install, which required their Administration password. If a user has to download a program, prompt an install, ignore a download warning built into OS X and type in their Administration password, it doesn't fit the virus definition.
It's funny, every time I have a conversation with PC users about viruses, they always bring up 1 of 3 trojans (you guys should know better) that have been created for Macs in eight years. Even if they WERE viruses, that's a hell of a track record after eight years.
Yeah, sorry, but that's a trojan, which is a bit different than a virus.
Windows users can visit a website unprotected and BAM! You've got a POS ruining your brand-new computer.
A Mac user has to download (in the case of your example, from a torrent), decompress (usually, not always), open, install, choose the target HD, and then enter an admin password or be logged in as an admin with none of the OS security settings on to get a trojan wreaking havoc on their system.
So basically what they have to do is download and install a 3rd party app, and give it full permissions to their system. I think they deserve a trojan if they're that trusting- don't you?
OK, let's cut Apple some slack on past products that use plastic. I mean they were in the past. Of course, if current gen products using plastic are crap, then I guess these are poor products (there are more, but it will only allow 3 urls):
But somehow I know there will be some excuse behind why this is OK, especially on the iPhone 3G where it was all metal, but they decided to use plastic for the back.
@ Steveorevo "I’ve been developing for M$ software for 13 years"
Knew that there was a reason that some PC software had problems.
"Norton, TrendMicro anyone?" The fact that you've ever had either installed just threw what was left of your credibility out the window.
The fact that you are even comparing WinMo phones to the iPhone shows your incompetence. The iPhone is not a smartphone, I'm only willing to argue this point when you can copy paste on one.
Has anyone here ever wondered why so many Engadget writers use Macs? I mean, these guys see and use hundreds of gadgets every year. They're probably better educated in multiple OSes than anyone in these forums and yet, if you listen to some of the podcasts, you'll know that they like Macs and feel more productive on Macs.
Are they smug pretentious jerks too? I mean, if the biggest gadget lovers on the planet use Macs, Apple must be doing something right.
What about that hacking contest in which the mac was simply surfing to a website that completely overrode the confirmation and infected the computer? It can be done. It just isn't because nobody cares. Viruses have an equal ability to attack macs and pcs, including trojans which then install spyware.
Although really, when you think about it, wouldn't mac users be the most likely to shell out tons of money to people in order that their computer might "just work"? Hostage taking virus makers would make so much money!
"You linked to an article about a trojan. A trojan is not a virus."
P.A.C. Man, seriously? You're going to slap down a trojan on a technicality?
I'm sorry, but everything people said about Macs now being infected by malware thanks to popularity is coming true. What's worse is the fact that all of the infections are trojans installed by users: the OS has no native protection for such malware. Windows has the malware removal tools and Windows defender at the very least, and most of the users aren't stupid enough to click random links and download pirated software without A/V scans. If anything, this proves that most of the users who migrated to Mac OS X are the ones who know nothing about keeping their affairs in order.
It doesn't matter if trojans technically aren't viruses. What matters is that there's now a Mac-only botnet free in the wild, and I'm shocked that you're trying to rationalize it on the grounds that a trojan technically isn't a virus.
Most viruses actually don't infect via holes in the machine anymore. Most viruses typically infect the machine through user interaction, at least on Windows (all thanks to UAC). Same with trojans. Therefore, it's safe to assume that Trojans are a subset of modern viruses.
In other words, Apple took the idiots off of Microsoft.
You're comparing the security ecosystem of Windows, which has 140,000 confirmed viruses, with a platform that has 0 viruses and 3 trojans? That to you is confirmation that Macs are DOOMED to a future full of security issues?
Give me a break.
It's impossible to secure an OS if a person gives an application their Administration password. The best alarm system in the world can be circumvented if you give out your password to it. I could walk into Fort Knox if someone opens a door. The real test of an operating system is whether it can be infected without user interaction. So far, no one has been able to do that in OS X.
Wow, thats pretty dumbass comment. iPhone just does more then some computers. Yeah, no cut n' paste until 3.0. But have your ever used an iPhone? Try RDP or VNC using a WinMo without pinch and squeez. Or even a web browser for gods sake.
A Unix file system, image recognition, image editing, word processing, voice recognition, GPS, Skype, Google earth, wireless printing,
...and 15,000 other applications
says its more then just a smartphone. It is ironic that iPhones are jailbroken from Windoz PCs. You can't take the Ghetto out of the user by dressing them up in diamonds. Like I said, a Honda with neon lights is not a BMW. Now go back to your rice burner...LOL
hey the iDiots saying that a trojan is not a virus, well it's not, it's worse. If you install a trojan you can install a virus... i could do more damage to a person with trojan than what i can do with a virus. So even thought it's not a virus it is sure effective in penetrating a user system. I see that everytime something comes to light about Apple their fanbois go on the defensive and denial... please for your own sake don't do that it will only hurt your system in the long run.
"You're comparing the security ecosystem of Windows, which has 140,000 confirmed viruses, with a platform that has 0 viruses and 3 trojans? That to you is confirmation that Macs are DOOMED to a future full of security issues?"
How many of those Windows viruses exploited unpatched (zero day) security holes in the OS? Even Conflicker only exploited holes which were patched months in advance.
With this in mind, your comparison brings nothing to the table. Windows malware authors code for patched holes because they know that many businesses use Windows as opposed to Mac. Because many businesses use Windows, these businesses also need to make sure that the patches won't break features of various applications used in their operations. Mac OS X, on the other hand, has no viruses exploiting patched holes because any businesses which do use Macs in the workplace don't use legacy applications (or they patch instantly because patch testing takes hours as opposed to weeks or months given the limited [500 v. 50,000] number of computers being patched)
Simple logic. Neither Vista nor OS X are being exploited through zero-day holes, so it breaks down to the idiocy of the users. Mac used to never suffer from this, but now that the layperson is migrating from Windows to Mac... well, you guys have a problem.
Wow I can't believe all this hate. I actually really think that the ads are not fair to Window run PCs. It only proves that there are people that are happy with inferior machines.
Comparing Bestbuy's HP 17" laptop at $1600 to Apple's basic 17" model at $2700 is like comparing box wine for $6.99 to a fine reserve bottle of wine for $25.00. The Apple 17" laptop has twice the power and better specs so it's obvious that it's more money..
If Microsoft wants to get my attention, why not compare a real PC laptop with the same specs and quality parts as it's Apple counterpart.
The reason they don't do that is because the prices would be basically the same.
The reason am sure of this is because I build media and graphic specific PCs for professionals. SOme like windows, some like mac os...either way, what ever OS they choose the build cost the same.
"PCs can play Blu-ray, Macs cannot. O wait... Macs just work, does it, Apple?" They do what is claimed by Apple. And they do it well. Obviously Blu-ray will never come to the Mac officially, but who cares? It's gonna die soon anyway.
For the record, no one answered the following questions:
Why hasn't anyone made a virus for a Mac?
If there is no profit motive for making viruses on a Mac because of small market share, why do so many developers like Adobe and Microsoft make software for Macs?
If Macs are inferior, why do the biggest gadget geeks on the planet, Engadget editors, use Macs?
Why are Macbooks, which have a unibody design, lower weight, metal casing, better battery life and the ability to run ANY operating system, inferior to a plastic POS laptops from a PC manufacturer?
Until someone can answer all those questions, without using an argument that amounts to "Just Because" Macs are still overwhelming better than the competition. That is all.
If there is no profit motive for making viruses on a Mac because of small market share, why do so many developers like Adobe and Microsoft make software for Macs?"
You answered your first question yourself. Theres also the point that Apple isn't really a public enemy to the hackers like Microsoft, so Windows gets most of the abuse. Not to mention less users means less computer-literate users (although I would hesitate on this point because I've seen the type of people who switch to Mac)
"If Macs are inferior, why do the biggest gadget geeks on the planet, Engadget editors, use Macs?"
Because, in terms of sheer desirability due in part to advertising, gloss and lovely aesthetics, Macs are really bloody want-worthy. Of course, Engadget might also be able to get a little bit of a discount on their Mac products, but who can be sure?
"Why are Macbooks, which have a unibody design, lower weight, metal casing, better battery life and the ability to run ANY operating system, inferior to a plastic POS laptops from a PC manufacturer?"
Objection, leading question. Like I said, Macs win on nearly all the desirability stakes (VAIOs and some of the newer Dells come a very close second though imo). But why are they inferior? Well if you compare like for like in pricing, you're going to get an inferior specced Mac, thats just obvious.
"If market share is all that matters in the computer equation, why is Apple worth more than both HP and Dell combined?"
Oh come, thats a really easy one. Apple makes iPods, its the only company to make Macs and Macbooks. HP make printers, computers, phones. Dell make computers. So do Sony, Asus, Lenovo, IBM, etc etc. How can you compare a company which produces 100% of Macs to companies which might only produce a fraction of the entire PC market? Think about it.
Shouldnt feed a troll, or *peep*, but to answer your question why people dont write viruses to macs.
If you have a operating systems with about 90% market share and another with 10% market share, which one would you select as a target? Anybody with brains will select the 80% one as if you go for macs the potential targets will be mutch fewer.
Now a troll starts to think of some argument why it would be a good idea to make a virus for mac, like they arent expecting it or theres a untapped market there, but none of these will fly as the base difference is that big. The argument why people write programs for macs but not viruses is daft. Theres competition between commersial programs, but viruses don't compete. Same machine can be infecteed by a multiple trojans, viruses etc.
In conclusion, the market difference between osx and windows is so huge theres no reason to write viruses for macs. The possible revenue from pcs is too tempting to even think about osx.
get lost PAC Man, I replied to you with a measured response and you just pull some insults out of your behind. You clearly don't want to debate, just insult. Can this guy be banned?
Apple's marketing is a clever business tactic to feel like your "in" by owning their products. Basically it exploits the whole "me too" mentality people naturally have. I have countlessly many times seen hipsters in starbucks randomly doodling crap in photoshop or editing videos pretending that they are the target audience for the media capabilities of Macs. Yet none of them seem to be on par with my abilities and I'm just a freelancer on a PC. The whole agreeing with the "cool" statement is marketing, regardless of how shoddy their products are, their marketing makes the products cool to have and then the buyers become billboards for Apple further extending the misconception. Keeping up with the Jones and their brand new iPod whatnot cause your previous gen is so previous gen.
"Apple makes iPods, its the only company to make Macs and Macbooks. HP make printers, computers, phones. Dell make computers. So do Sony, Asus, Lenovo, IBM, etc etc. How can you compare a company which produces 100% of Macs to companies which might only produce a fraction of the entire PC market? Think about it."
"What does the fact that Apple is the only company that makes Macbooks have to do with anything? Dell is the only company that makes XPS laptops. Sony is the only company that makes VAIOs. Your point has no relevance."
What MatthewJ means is that Apple is the sole distributor of their OS and laptop bodies whereas Microsoft only distributes their software and does not produce their own laptop bodies (i.e. you can't buy a "Windows Air" or "Windows Book Pro"). If other companies such as HP, Dell, or Sony sold laptops containing Apple's OS with varying hardware specs then u may see Apple's market cap decrease, albeit very slightly due to increased choices for the end consumer. What you need to remember is that when people buy a Windows laptop, the asthetics of the laptop must also be taken into consideration (in addition to the specs) which is where HP, Dell, and Sony come in..whereas for Apple there are no third party distributors that allow for various hardware configurations and laptop body asthetics to be chosen from..hopefully this answers ur market cap question.
If you insist on comparing market cap based on OS then perhaps you should also take Microsofts market cap into consideration as well
Wow Engadget, you totally missed the point. I guess when your head's so far up Steve's... [that's rude, i'll stop there] ... that you think people trying desperately to defend themselves is an offensive action.
First of all, stop speaking for MatthewJ, if he was talking about Apple's OS, then he would have said that. He was just dropping a lot of BS and he knows it. And what you said has nothing to do with my original question. HP and Dell both have more market share than Apple and according to the PC fanboys, this means that HP and Dell are better than Apple (using their logic).
My question is this: if market share is the only thing important in the PC versus Mac equation, why is it that Apple has a market cap that is bigger than both HP and Dell combined? The answer to that question is that Apple makes more money than HP and Dell. Their profit margin is better. People are willing to pay more for a Mac because it has something that PCs don't have. Better design and a better operating system.
If Macs were truly inferior, their market cap wouldn't be as big as it is now. No one would be willing to pay the cost to get a Mac. And the fact that even sophisticated gadget lovers like Engadget writers also like Macs, just proves that Macs aren't for stupid people, despite PC fanboys comments to the contrary.
@ P.A.C Man Apple have higher value, cos well Dell make PC's n Monitor's. HP come close because they also make printer's, camera's n some PC part's(which even Apple don't do). Apple make PC's, Monitor's, software, Phones, and Mp3 player's and a DVR. So with more product's to sell, especially the highly profitable iPod line ( the one with a $80 DAP that costs $21 to make)
Sony are the closest company with range of product's with laptop's, Walkmans, phones, software, as well as console's(which Apple did have the failed Pippin), Blu-Ray(i.e the whole thing), and camera's.
However Net income(i.e Profit) last year(which i cant find anything close to your numbers, cos well they don't even have a $/£/E/Y)- Apple - $3billion ($39billion) HP - $10billion ($113billion) Dell - $2.5billion ($27billion) Sony - $10billion ($100billion) current Asset's (how much company is worth) in the bracket's
I do find it odd (no really) that after writing multiple posts celebrating every time Apple made a huge profit, and continuing to write today how other companies are losing profits, that magically they no longer want to write about Apple financial statements anymore.
Just so you know I am neither a PC or Mac fanboy I was just trying to clarify the response to you. In fact, I agree that the PC fanboy logic does not make sense since neither HP or Dell make the OS or the hardware components that come with their products. But as I tried to state previously, part of the reason why Apple has a market cap that is bigger than HP and Dell (when comparing their computers at least) is that they are the only company that sells computers with the Mac OS installed meaning they have 100% of the Mac OS market whereas companies like HP and Dell share just a fraction of the Windows OS market and must compete on other aspects such as hardware configs, pricing, and asthetics.
When comparing market cap you must also remember that Apple also produces the ipod and iphone and has control over the highly successful app store. Therefore, a direct market cap comparison of Apple to HP and Dell is not correct..a better comparison would be to Microsoft as their product line is much closer to Apple than HP and Dell. Furthermore, just because Apple has a larger market cap does not necessarily mean their computers are better than HP and Dell computers. A large part of that market cap is because of their much more successful ipod, iphone, and app store sales. When was the last time you heard of or even saw an HP or Dell mp3 player, phone, or app store?
Comparing Apple's market cap that to the market cap of HP and Dell is as incorrect as the PC fanboy logic as you previously stated IMO. If you must compare then compare the computer sales of Apple to those of HP and Dell.
The Cobra Tag may help you win that losing battle, acting as a Bluetooth device that attaches to your key ring and connects to your phone, it gives you the opportunity to find the missing item if it's less than 30 feet away.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Zing!
FUUUUUUUUU
Haha. That sounded more like a defensive response which totally lacked any punch at all.
Apple already has a response to the Microsoft ads. I guess you guys at Engadget are a little behind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbJSuduTrPs
Killer line: "Is this Plastic?"
*defensive response from Apple of course.
PCs can play Blu-ray, Macs cannot. O wait... Macs just work, does it, Apple?
Does it?
http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/04/10/mces-8x-internal-blu-ray-burner-for-mac-pros-now-shipping-grea/
@ P.A.C. MAN
Um... my macbook is plastic and it cuts my wrists almost as bad as a fourteen year old girl with low self-esteem.
@Amish
You hired a low-esteem 14-year-old girl to cut your wrists? How much'd you pay her?
@P.A.C.: Yeah, we kinda should judge companies by what they have made in the past, because, you know, they fucking made it.
We could judge them by what they make in the present too, though I suppose, but I don't think video chipset overheating causing artifacts on a $3,000 is something many companies would want to be brought up. We could talk about a workstation with a mid range gaming video card. Or maybe a 4GB mp3 player that is "just $79" and needs proprietary headphones to work.
Yeah, that looks much better.
From where I stand things seem yet unzung.
@P.A.C Man: How's Conflicker working out for you? Did I spell it right? As a Mac user, I don't know a lot about viruses.
I guess you're lucky there aren't a lot of hipster hackers out there.
Why would someone waste their time writing viruses for a computer that has less than a 5% face in the pc market?
@ Dave
It's not like they'd know how to hack anything anyway. Hell, opening up Control Panel would be so terrifying or uncool that they'd wet their little pants.
I have to call BS on his statement. My laptop is stable, secure, and does everything I could ever want it to, when I want it to. Unlike a Mac, it does do what i want it to, this statement is BS.
I’ve been developing for M$ software for 13 years all I can say is that M$ OS’s are pure shit. When will the head engineers ever get off their lazy asses and do some real Q&A and usability testing? Apple’s gained so much attention because it’s true that it ‘just works’.
!!! ITS ABOUT THE SOFTWARE STUPID !!!
Yes, Apple ‘just works’ on old, dated hardware that’s overpriced when compared to the PC with much BETTER hardware, but with the software on it that *doesn’t* work. In the end, something that actually works is the one thing that will get the job done.
!!! ITS ABOUT THE SOFTWARE STUPID !!!
Vista’s interface is a schizophrenic mess. Now by default, the window manager hides all the pull down menus. Is this supposed to be helpful to new users, by hiding something like the Help menu? How did this ever pass Q&A?
!!! ITS ABOUT THE SOFTWARE STUPID !!!
I just installed MSN Messenger 2009 and guess what? The pull down menus are back in this new application, with Photos, File, etc. sitting right at the top, although when you press Alt+F the original OS’s File, Edit, View pull down menus appear like magic ontop of these new ‘other’ pull down menus with the same names, but totally different menu items…. Its schizophrenia all over again… Apple’s solution: ONE menu bar, accelerator keys supported, that’s it.
!!! ITS ABOUT THE SOFTWARE STUPID !!!
UAC nags and annoys to no end unlike Apple’s UNIX like security model which ‘gently’ asks about security permissions (usually once) without blacking out everything … so much for multitasking on Vista.
!!! ITS ABOUT THE SOFTWARE STUPID !!!
It only gets worse with viruses and Trojans abound. Norton, TrendMicro anyone? Once dependable third parties are now on the bloatware bandwagon. You’ll need all that new ‘quasi-tested’ hardware running as fast as possible because these anti-virus apps suck
CPU cycles left and right. Microsoft’s OneCare is pretty decent when it’s not losing your Outlook files but again Q&A is lacking. You’d think the OS manufacturer would be in tune with their own anti-virus, firewall, backup solution. Try remote assistance and you’ll see that it will tell you that its ‘easy’, and that it will ‘open up firewall ports for you’. All lies. OneCare blocks terminal services atop of OneCare’s firewall, atop of Windows Firewall (yes they are separate, redundant products), atop of the dozen other checkboxes you need to click to enable remote assistance… and even then, your chances of helping mom are questionable. Apple? Just plug it in and turn it on.
!!! ITS ABOUT THE SOFTWARE STUPID !!!
Like I said, as a M$ user and developer for at least 13 years, and a Windows Mobile user as well (three generation of WinMo phones and I gave in to an iPhone last fall), all I can do is laugh. Yes Window’s can do everything that a more expensive Apple can do with enough tweeking and hacking. I’ve heard the same from Windows Mobile users vs. iPhone. But here is the deal: Apple does it better.
!!! ITS ABOUT THE SOFTWARE STUPID !!!
Its fun to hack. But at some point, driving a $25k Honda soap’d up with $15k of accessories and neon lights does not equate to a $40k BMW. Even if the Honda does 0 to 60 faster. Time to grow up and realize that its not all about the hardware, rather …
!!! ITS ABOUT THE SOFTWARE STUPID !!!
And all the testing and Q&A… that’s what Apple premium price goes to.
@PAC
As a Windows user I wouldn't know much about viruses either. Macs would get viruses if they had a large enough market share for hackers to care about. It isn't like they are more secure, just no one uses them.
Reinstalled vista on my toshiba tablet today. Have to install something like 15 drivers to get full functionality. Each one requires a restart between. The best part is it will be running like shit in 6 months again. And I can't install a vista with SP1 built in because the key on my laptop doesn't work with it. Awesome.
Mac OS 9 had viruses and it had even less market share than OS X. OS X is more secure because it has a Unix foundation.
And you're telling me that not ONE hacker can make a virus just to shut up the "pretentiously smug Apple fanboys." That makes no sense at all. Some of the first viruses and worms in history were started as jokes and had no financial motive.
And what about that? I keep hearing people saying that no one make viruses for OS X because they can't make any money with such small market share, but if that is true, why do so many developers make software for OS X?
Adobe, Alias, DigiDesign, Roxio, even Microsoft, all these large companies make software for OS X, so they must be making some money. I mean, Mac users on average have more money and pay for their software, compared to PC users. There have been studies that prove this.
So spare me the security through obscurity myth. It sounds reasonable, but when you analyze the argument, nothing about it makes sense.
How can you blame microsoft for plastic laptops. If you want a metal one, then buy one. Microsoft doesn't make the laptops.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=3157
say what now? your mac doesn't get viruses?
@P.A.C
Hackers are concerned with taking shots at the system. They're not concerned with trying to keep tweens in skinny jeans from using their Garage Band.
@ben, use your factory disc next time. I haven't used anything other than windows 7 in around 5 months, but doesn't it automatically find drivers and install them?
Personally, I think anyone who defines their 'coolness' by their computer hardware is more likely to be a narcissistic prat than anything close to the definition of 'cool', but have at 'er nerdlingers.
You linked to an article about a trojan. A trojan is not a virus.
Here's the definition of a virus. From Wikipedia:
"A computer virus is a computer program that can copy itself and infect a computer without the permission or knowledge of the owner. The term "virus" is also commonly but erroneously used to refer to other types of malware, adware, and spyware programs that do not have the reproductive ability. A true virus can only spread from one computer to another."
A trojan has to be installed by a user. In the case of the iWork trojans, users were asked to give root access to the install, which required their Administration password. If a user has to download a program, prompt an install, ignore a download warning built into OS X and type in their Administration password, it doesn't fit the virus definition.
It's funny, every time I have a conversation with PC users about viruses, they always bring up 1 of 3 trojans (you guys should know better) that have been created for Macs in eight years. Even if they WERE viruses, that's a hell of a track record after eight years.
@Shadow
Yeah, sorry, but that's a trojan, which is a bit different than a virus.
Windows users can visit a website unprotected and BAM! You've got a POS ruining your brand-new computer.
A Mac user has to download (in the case of your example, from a torrent), decompress (usually, not always), open, install, choose the target HD, and then enter an admin password or be logged in as an admin with none of the OS security settings on to get a trojan wreaking havoc on their system.
So basically what they have to do is download and install a 3rd party app, and give it full permissions to their system. I think they deserve a trojan if they're that trusting- don't you?
OK, let's cut Apple some slack on past products that use plastic. I mean they were in the past. Of course, if current gen products using plastic are crap, then I guess these are poor products (there are more, but it will only allow 3 urls):
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_ipod/family/ipod_nano
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/macbook_air
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone
But somehow I know there will be some excuse behind why this is OK, especially on the iPhone 3G where it was all metal, but they decided to use plastic for the back.
@ Steveorevo
"I’ve been developing for M$ software for 13 years"
Knew that there was a reason that some PC software had problems.
"Norton, TrendMicro anyone?"
The fact that you've ever had either installed just threw what was left of your credibility out the window.
The fact that you are even comparing WinMo phones to the iPhone shows your incompetence. The iPhone is not a smartphone, I'm only willing to argue this point when you can copy paste on one.
Has anyone here ever wondered why so many Engadget writers use Macs? I mean, these guys see and use hundreds of gadgets every year. They're probably better educated in multiple OSes than anyone in these forums and yet, if you listen to some of the podcasts, you'll know that they like Macs and feel more productive on Macs.
Are they smug pretentious jerks too? I mean, if the biggest gadget lovers on the planet use Macs, Apple must be doing something right.
@P.A.C. Man
What about that hacking contest in which the mac was simply surfing to a website that completely overrode the confirmation and infected the computer? It can be done. It just isn't because nobody cares. Viruses have an equal ability to attack macs and pcs, including trojans which then install spyware.
Although really, when you think about it, wouldn't mac users be the most likely to shell out tons of money to people in order that their computer might "just work"? Hostage taking virus makers would make so much money!
@Mike10010100
I don't remember reading about that hacker infecting a Mac with anything. What did he infect it with? What was the name of the virus?
"You linked to an article about a trojan. A trojan is not a virus."
P.A.C. Man, seriously? You're going to slap down a trojan on a technicality?
I'm sorry, but everything people said about Macs now being infected by malware thanks to popularity is coming true. What's worse is the fact that all of the infections are trojans installed by users: the OS has no native protection for such malware. Windows has the malware removal tools and Windows defender at the very least, and most of the users aren't stupid enough to click random links and download pirated software without A/V scans. If anything, this proves that most of the users who migrated to Mac OS X are the ones who know nothing about keeping their affairs in order.
It doesn't matter if trojans technically aren't viruses. What matters is that there's now a Mac-only botnet free in the wild, and I'm shocked that you're trying to rationalize it on the grounds that a trojan technically isn't a virus.
Most viruses actually don't infect via holes in the machine anymore. Most viruses typically infect the machine through user interaction, at least on Windows (all thanks to UAC). Same with trojans. Therefore, it's safe to assume that Trojans are a subset of modern viruses.
In other words, Apple took the idiots off of Microsoft.
@Bryant
You're comparing the security ecosystem of Windows, which has 140,000 confirmed viruses, with a platform that has 0 viruses and 3 trojans? That to you is confirmation that Macs are DOOMED to a future full of security issues?
Give me a break.
It's impossible to secure an OS if a person gives an application their Administration password. The best alarm system in the world can be circumvented if you give out your password to it. I could walk into Fort Knox if someone opens a door. The real test of an operating system is whether it can be infected without user interaction. So far, no one has been able to do that in OS X.
@chansthename
"iPhone is not a smartphone"
Wow, thats pretty dumbass comment. iPhone just does more then some computers. Yeah, no cut n' paste until 3.0. But have your ever used an iPhone? Try RDP or VNC using a WinMo without pinch and squeez. Or even a web browser for gods sake.
A Unix file system, image recognition, image editing, word processing, voice recognition, GPS, Skype, Google earth, wireless printing,
...and 15,000 other applications
says its more then just a smartphone. It is ironic that iPhones are jailbroken from Windoz PCs. You can't take the Ghetto out of the user by dressing them up in diamonds. Like I said, a Honda with neon lights is not a BMW. Now go back to your rice burner...LOL
hey the iDiots saying that a trojan is not a virus, well it's not, it's worse. If you install a trojan you can install a virus... i could do more damage to a person with trojan than what i can do with a virus. So even thought it's not a virus it is sure effective in penetrating a user system. I see that everytime something comes to light about Apple their fanbois go on the defensive and denial... please for your own sake don't do that it will only hurt your system in the long run.
@P.A.C. Man
"You're comparing the security ecosystem of Windows, which has 140,000 confirmed viruses, with a platform that has 0 viruses and 3 trojans? That to you is confirmation that Macs are DOOMED to a future full of security issues?"
How many of those Windows viruses exploited unpatched (zero day) security holes in the OS? Even Conflicker only exploited holes which were patched months in advance.
With this in mind, your comparison brings nothing to the table. Windows malware authors code for patched holes because they know that many businesses use Windows as opposed to Mac. Because many businesses use Windows, these businesses also need to make sure that the patches won't break features of various applications used in their operations. Mac OS X, on the other hand, has no viruses exploiting patched holes because any businesses which do use Macs in the workplace don't use legacy applications (or they patch instantly because patch testing takes hours as opposed to weeks or months given the limited [500 v. 50,000] number of computers being patched)
Simple logic. Neither Vista nor OS X are being exploited through zero-day holes, so it breaks down to the idiocy of the users. Mac used to never suffer from this, but now that the layperson is migrating from Windows to Mac... well, you guys have a problem.
Wow I can't believe all this hate. I actually really think that the ads are not fair to Window run PCs. It only proves that there are people that are happy with inferior machines.
Comparing Bestbuy's HP 17" laptop at $1600 to Apple's basic 17" model at $2700 is like comparing box wine for $6.99 to a fine reserve bottle of wine for $25.00. The Apple 17" laptop has twice the power and better specs so it's obvious that it's more money..
If Microsoft wants to get my attention, why not compare a real PC laptop with the same specs and quality parts as it's Apple counterpart.
The reason they don't do that is because the prices would be basically the same.
The reason am sure of this is because I build media and graphic specific PCs for professionals. SOme like windows, some like mac os...either way, what ever OS they choose the build cost the same.
"PCs can play Blu-ray, Macs cannot. O wait... Macs just work, does it, Apple?"
They do what is claimed by Apple. And they do it well. Obviously Blu-ray will never come to the Mac officially, but who cares? It's gonna die soon anyway.
For the record, no one answered the following questions:
Why hasn't anyone made a virus for a Mac?
If there is no profit motive for making viruses on a Mac because of small market share, why do so many developers like Adobe and Microsoft make software for Macs?
If Macs are inferior, why do the biggest gadget geeks on the planet, Engadget editors, use Macs?
Why are Macbooks, which have a unibody design, lower weight, metal casing, better battery life and the ability to run ANY operating system, inferior to a plastic POS laptops from a PC manufacturer?
Until someone can answer all those questions, without using an argument that amounts to "Just Because" Macs are still overwhelming better than the competition. That is all.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Here's another question.
If market share is all that matters in the computer equation, why is Apple worth more than both HP and Dell combined?
Here's the stats.
Apple market cap: 108.16 Billion. Apple has 28 BILLION in cash with no debt.
HP's market cap: 87.72 Billion
Dell's market cap: 21.23 Billion (Apple could buy Dell with the cash they have on hand)
Someone explain these numbers to me.
"Why hasn't anyone made a virus for a Mac?
If there is no profit motive for making viruses on a Mac because of small market share, why do so many developers like Adobe and Microsoft make software for Macs?"
You answered your first question yourself. Theres also the point that Apple isn't really a public enemy to the hackers like Microsoft, so Windows gets most of the abuse. Not to mention less users means less computer-literate users (although I would hesitate on this point because I've seen the type of people who switch to Mac)
"If Macs are inferior, why do the biggest gadget geeks on the planet, Engadget editors, use Macs?"
Because, in terms of sheer desirability due in part to advertising, gloss and lovely aesthetics, Macs are really bloody want-worthy. Of course, Engadget might also be able to get a little bit of a discount on their Mac products, but who can be sure?
"Why are Macbooks, which have a unibody design, lower weight, metal casing, better battery life and the ability to run ANY operating system, inferior to a plastic POS laptops from a PC manufacturer?"
Objection, leading question. Like I said, Macs win on nearly all the desirability stakes (VAIOs and some of the newer Dells come a very close second though imo). But why are they inferior? Well if you compare like for like in pricing, you're going to get an inferior specced Mac, thats just obvious.
"If market share is all that matters in the computer equation, why is Apple worth more than both HP and Dell combined?"
Oh come, thats a really easy one. Apple makes iPods, its the only company to make Macs and Macbooks. HP make printers, computers, phones. Dell make computers. So do Sony, Asus, Lenovo, IBM, etc etc. How can you compare a company which produces 100% of Macs to companies which might only produce a fraction of the entire PC market? Think about it.
Shouldnt feed a troll, or *peep*, but to answer your question why people dont write viruses to macs.
If you have a operating systems with about 90% market share and another with 10% market share, which one would you select as a target? Anybody with brains will select the 80% one as if you go for macs the potential targets will be mutch fewer.
Now a troll starts to think of some argument why it would be a good idea to make a virus for mac, like they arent expecting it or theres a untapped market there, but none of these will fly as the base difference is that big. The argument why people write programs for macs but not viruses is daft. Theres competition between commersial programs, but viruses don't compete. Same machine can be infecteed by a multiple trojans, viruses etc.
In conclusion, the market difference between osx and windows is so huge theres no reason to write viruses for macs. The possible revenue from pcs is too tempting to even think about osx.
get lost PAC Man, I replied to you with a measured response and you just pull some insults out of your behind. You clearly don't want to debate, just insult. Can this guy be banned?
Apple's marketing is a clever business tactic to feel like your "in" by owning their products. Basically it exploits the whole "me too" mentality people naturally have. I have countlessly many times seen hipsters in starbucks randomly doodling crap in photoshop or editing videos pretending that they are the target audience for the media capabilities of Macs. Yet none of them seem to be on par with my abilities and I'm just a freelancer on a PC. The whole agreeing with the "cool" statement is marketing, regardless of how shoddy their products are, their marketing makes the products cool to have and then the buyers become billboards for Apple further extending the misconception. Keeping up with the Jones and their brand new iPod whatnot cause your previous gen is so previous gen.
Sup Apple Sheep.
"Apple makes iPods, its the only company to make Macs and Macbooks. HP make printers, computers, phones. Dell make computers. So do Sony, Asus, Lenovo, IBM, etc etc. How can you compare a company which produces 100% of Macs to companies which might only produce a fraction of the entire PC market? Think about it."
"What does the fact that Apple is the only company that makes Macbooks have to do with anything? Dell is the only company that makes XPS laptops. Sony is the only company that makes VAIOs. Your point has no relevance."
What MatthewJ means is that Apple is the sole distributor of their OS and laptop bodies whereas Microsoft only distributes their software and does not produce their own laptop bodies (i.e. you can't buy a "Windows Air" or "Windows Book Pro"). If other companies such as HP, Dell, or Sony sold laptops containing Apple's OS with varying hardware specs then u may see Apple's market cap decrease, albeit very slightly due to increased choices for the end consumer. What you need to remember is that when people buy a Windows laptop, the asthetics of the laptop must also be taken into consideration (in addition to the specs) which is where HP, Dell, and Sony come in..whereas for Apple there are no third party distributors that allow for various hardware configurations and laptop body asthetics to be chosen from..hopefully this answers ur market cap question.
If you insist on comparing market cap based on OS then perhaps you should also take Microsofts market cap into consideration as well
Wow Engadget, you totally missed the point. I guess when your head's so far up Steve's... [that's rude, i'll stop there] ... that you think people trying desperately to defend themselves is an offensive action.
@Pantyryder
First of all, stop speaking for MatthewJ, if he was talking about Apple's OS, then he would have said that. He was just dropping a lot of BS and he knows it. And what you said has nothing to do with my original question. HP and Dell both have more market share than Apple and according to the PC fanboys, this means that HP and Dell are better than Apple (using their logic).
My question is this: if market share is the only thing important in the PC versus Mac equation, why is it that Apple has a market cap that is bigger than both HP and Dell combined? The answer to that question is that Apple makes more money than HP and Dell. Their profit margin is better. People are willing to pay more for a Mac because it has something that PCs don't have. Better design and a better operating system.
If Macs were truly inferior, their market cap wouldn't be as big as it is now. No one would be willing to pay the cost to get a Mac. And the fact that even sophisticated gadget lovers like Engadget writers also like Macs, just proves that Macs aren't for stupid people, despite PC fanboys comments to the contrary.
@ P.A.C Man Apple have higher value, cos well Dell make PC's n Monitor's. HP come close because they also make printer's, camera's n some PC part's(which even Apple don't do).
Apple make PC's, Monitor's, software, Phones, and Mp3 player's and a DVR. So with more product's to sell, especially the highly profitable iPod line ( the one with a $80 DAP that costs $21 to make)
Sony are the closest company with range of product's with laptop's, Walkmans, phones, software, as well as console's(which Apple did have the failed Pippin), Blu-Ray(i.e the whole thing), and camera's.
However Net income(i.e Profit) last year(which i cant find anything close to your numbers, cos well they don't even have a $/£/E/Y)-
Apple - $3billion ($39billion)
HP - $10billion ($113billion)
Dell - $2.5billion ($27billion)
Sony - $10billion ($100billion)
current Asset's (how much company is worth) in the bracket's
(wow, Printer's are profitable)
@inno8sky
I do find it odd (no really) that after writing multiple posts celebrating every time Apple made a huge profit, and continuing to write today how other companies are losing profits, that magically they no longer want to write about Apple financial statements anymore.
What, did they think we didn't notice, Engadget?
Why the cover-up???
@P.A.C MAN
Just so you know I am neither a PC or Mac fanboy I was just trying to clarify the response to you. In fact, I agree that the PC fanboy logic does not make sense since neither HP or Dell make the OS or the hardware components that come with their products. But as I tried to state previously, part of the reason why Apple has a market cap that is bigger than HP and Dell (when comparing their computers at least) is that they are the only company that sells computers with the Mac OS installed meaning they have 100% of the Mac OS market whereas companies like HP and Dell share just a fraction of the Windows OS market and must compete on other aspects such as hardware configs, pricing, and asthetics.
When comparing market cap you must also remember that Apple also produces the ipod and iphone and has control over the highly successful app store. Therefore, a direct market cap comparison of Apple to HP and Dell is not correct..a better comparison would be to Microsoft as their product line is much closer to Apple than HP and Dell. Furthermore, just because Apple has a larger market cap does not necessarily mean their computers are better than HP and Dell computers. A large part of that market cap is because of their much more successful ipod, iphone, and app store sales. When was the last time you heard of or even saw an HP or Dell mp3 player, phone, or app store?
Comparing Apple's market cap that to the market cap of HP and Dell is as incorrect as the PC fanboy logic as you previously stated IMO. If you must compare then compare the computer sales of Apple to those of HP and Dell.
The Mac will own those MS PC biyatches shortly. Take 'em straight from behind. To hell with logical arguments. Coolness rulez.