advertisement

Weblog:   Mac's New Slogan: Viruses for the Rest of Us
Subject:   John Gruber's demolition of a similar argument
Date:   2005-03-23 02:27:39
From:   dscotson
John Gruber already addressed this very weak argument about viruses and market share:


http://daringfireball.net/2004/06/broken_windows


The money shot:
The reason this argument is so popular with Windows apologists is that it’s a convenient bit of rhetoric. They say it’s so, we say it’s not. You can’t get past this argument, because it can’t be disproven without the Mac OS actually attaining a Windows-like market share.


So, let’s concede the point, just for the sake of argument: OK, fine, if the Mac had the same market share as Windows, the tables would be turned and there’d be just as many Mac security exploits as there are Windows exploits today.


Now what? Given that the Mac is never going to attain a monopoly share of the operating systems market — that merely expanding its share to, say, 10 percent would be universally hailed as an almost-too-good-to-be-true success — isn’t it thus only logical to conclude that the Mac is forever “doomed” to be significantly more secure than Windows?
Full Threads Oldest First

Showing messages 1 through 4 of 4.

  • John Gruber's demolition of a similar argument
    2005-03-23 04:43:56  jwenting [Reply | View]

    so a MacAddict tells us Mac users have nothing to worry about because he says so...<br/>
    Indeed Mac users will always have less to worry about, but only because Macs will never get any real market share...
    • Nothing to worry about, 'cause we've never seen it
      2005-03-23 09:50:01  mwalker [Reply | View]

      On the plus side, he does claim existing Mac users are smarter and more technically savvy than Windows users as it stands:

      '"The market penetration of Macintosh platforms will be accelerated by the much lower-priced Mac mini, which may be purchased by less security-savvy users," the report said. "As a result, the number of vulnerabilities can be expected to increase, as will malicious activity that targets them."'

      Okay, I'm being a little facetious here, but I still gotta wonder. "Less security-savvy users?" Less than the grade-schoolers who use them, for example?

      If Symantec is right, and the Mac Mini does eat up the market share of the PC manufacturers, maybe doubling the Mac marketshare, how many viruses do you think should we expect to see? 1? 2? 0.5?

      Under OS 9, which was much more likely to be infected, the major anti-virus program, the one EVERYONE ran, was freeware. Maintained by one guy somewhere. Back then, the Mac had so few viruses that a freeware program took care of them all. And there's never even been one for Mac OS X that I've ever heard of.

      Don't come to me with tales of future problems. When an actual virus hits, we'll deal with it. Until then, Symantec and all the other FUDdie-duddies can just shut up.
    • John Gruber's demolition of a similar argument
      2005-03-23 08:23:36  dscotson [Reply | View]

      Why did you dismiss Gruber's argument as partisan and then repeat it almost word for word with a slightly snide tone?

      Try answering this question with, as they say in cheesy courtroom dramas, just 'yes' or 'no':

      Mac users don't ever have to worry about their platform *ever* suffering as many viruses and attacks as Windows. Do you agree? (remember, one word, yes or no)


  • John Gruber's demolition of a similar argument
    2005-03-23 02:31:43  dscotson [Reply | View]

    I just noticed that Preston goes further than the articles and their quoted experts and actually concedes that the Mac malware problem will always be magnitudes less than the Windows one. A sobering reflection after quoting all the scaremongering, but one that is missing from almost every other report on this publicity stunt, so well done.
Showing messages 1 through 4 of 4.