Slashdot Mirror

One could also say having a browser is a "demanded feature" of an OS. What was wrong about MS tying IE with Windows?

In addition to leveraging its monopoly position on 98% of the world's PCs to instantly create overwhelming market share for IE almost instantly in 1997, MS also added proprietary extensions to IE to distort the market of the web itself. That allowed MS to kill Netscape's revenue from servers. IE didn't compete with Netscape as a product until Netscape itself began to fail with the fiasco of Communicator 4. IE 1-3 were junk. IE 4-6 were better than what Netscape offered only because the company had been vanquished and was no longer offering anything.

Google faces the same impossible leverage. While MS can "compete" against Google desktop or browser tools, it can't compete in web search and marketing. So it is using its monopoly desktop position to roll out integrated search that can't be disabled or replaced by third party vendors. Once MS establishes market share on the basis of disposable PCs being replaced, and not consumer choice, it can then start directing all web search to its own servers exclusively.

Google currently has to fund Mozilla's Firefox to the tune of about $50 million a year to maintain an alternative browser. That reminds one of the fact that the only competition to Windows on the desktop PC is Linux, which is free. Microsoft has still managed to prevent OEMS from bundling it.

So anyone who thinks that MS' monopoly isn't in place or is no longer being abused is delusional:

- There is no free market in PC desktop OSs (Apple could not sign up OEMs, and even the free Linux struggles to gain adoption)
- There is no free market in desktop application suites (Office is rivaled mainly by free OpenOffice)
- There is hardly a free market in web browsers (the only option is the free, DIY Firefox)

Do we want to further restrict the market in online web search and offer Microsoft additional exclusive power over a market where there is now choice?

What's next, will we make all peripherals only something one can buy from Microsoft? How about games? What other markets would people prefer to hand over to Microsoft?

The problem is, when markets are handed to MS, they become entangled in proprietary tetherings to Windows and innovation rapidly stops. Once MS marginalized Netscape, it quit its own development of IE, and another major version wasn't shipped until *five years* later, and only then because Firefox had begun eating back some market share.

The problem with Windows enthusiasts is they they do not understand what is going on, they don't grasp what has happened, they fail to consider the consequences of further abuse. They are very much the same as the ~25% of Americans who support a rudderless war with a blank check, a president who had installed the beginnings of a fascist, terrorizing police state, and the beginnings of a pseudo-christian theocracy ruled by a clergy of corporate board members.

So far, so good! Let's see more of the same cause it's working so well. Don't consider the alternatives! Stay the course.

These people make my head explode.

-

Safari on Windows? Apple and the Origins of the Web
One of the surprises unveiled in the WWDC keynote was the beta release of Safari 3.0 for both Mac OS X Tiger and Windows XP and Vista. While it was known that a new version of Safari would appear in Mac OS X Leopard in October, getting a beta now for today's Tiger was news. The release of Safari for Windows PCs went even further, raising the question of why Apple would port its browser to a platform that perhaps has too many already.

Apple in the Web Browser Wars: Netscape vs Internet Explorer
Apple's surprise delivery of the Safari web browser for Windows at WWDC was described by seve

The Treo had fans until Palm sat on it for years without delivering any innovation.

The iPaq was built upon a shoddy copycat platform, offered little hardware innovation, and a was a generally poor product. The thousands of people who bought one were probably fans momentarily, until they found they'd need to buy the next one, and the next one, and so on, before it would ever become a practical device. No doubt with some searching, one could turn up an iPaq fan.

Calling the iPhone "overpriced" in relation to either the iPaq or the Palm Treo is, however, truly and outrageously funny.

The Spectacular Failure of WinCE and Windows Mobile
Windows Mobile, Palm OS, Linux, and Symbian currently power the world's smartphones. How does each stack up against Apple's OS X in the iPhone? Here's an overview looking at the merits of each, starting with Microsoft.

The Egregious Incompetence of Palm
Windows Mobile, Palm OS, Linux, and Symbian currently power the world's smartphones. How does each stack up against Apple's OS X in the iPhone? This article presents an overview of Palm. Palm's early products actually followed a trajectory strikingly similar to Apple's original Macintosh. Differences in the choices made at Palm provide an interesting glimpse into "what if" scenarios of a parallel universe.

The Treo had fans until Palm sat on it for years without delivering any innovation.

The iPaq was built upon a shoddy copycat platform, offered little hardware innovation, and a was a generally poor product. The thousands of people who bought one were probably fans momentarily, until they found they'd need to buy the next one, and the next one, and so on, before it would ever become a practical device. No doubt with some searching, one could turn up an iPaq fan.

Calling the iPhone "overpriced" in relation to either the iPaq or the Palm Treo is, however, truly and outrageously funny.

The Spectacular Failure of WinCE and Windows Mobile
Windows Mobile, Palm OS, Linux, and Symbian currently power the world's smartphones. How does each stack up against Apple's OS X in the iPhone? Here's an overview looking at the merits of each, starting with Microsoft.

The Egregious Incompetence of Palm
Windows Mobile, Palm OS, Linux, and Symbian currently power the world's smartphones. How does each stack up against Apple's OS X in the iPhone? This article presents an overview of Palm. Palm's early products actually followed a trajectory strikingly similar to Apple's original Macintosh. Differences in the choices made at Palm provide an interesting glimpse into "what if" scenarios of a parallel universe.

Third party development offers not just great rewards and also risk. On desktop platforms, the risk pales in comparison. On mobiles, reward>risk isn't as obvious. Existing phones offer very little potential despite offering "open" platforms. I calculated $449 of Windows Mobile software that is either wholly unnecessary or included on the iPhone. That software is all in the top popularity listings on Windows Mobile sites.

Gizmodo complains that Apple isn't offering the rest of the world free reign to build Cocoa apps for the iPhone. That would be great, but would also crack open serious security gremlins. If Apple can't deliver Safari on Windows without heaps of contempt that its beta browser can be DoS'ed or crashed remotely, it is hard to understand that more serious risks might relate to the iPhone?

What could Apple have done to impress people? Shortly before the event, I suggested the only thing that would blow me away would be Cocoa for Windows, or perhaps just Safari for Windows.

Paired with what I already stated would be the only reasonable 3rd party platform announcement for "the 'Phone that isn't yet here," that means Apple is embarking on a strategy of promoting standards compliant, AJAX web 2.0 style development in its first assault on the hegemony of Windows in the cross-platform space.

I find it entertaining that FOSS developers--who love dropping the "web 2.0" buzzword and chastising everything proprietary--are booing Apple for pushing standards compliant web-centric development and for not delivering yet another proprietary mobile development framework to compete against .Net.

That quite clearly shows that nothing Apple could do would go uncriticized.

It simply makes the most sense for Apple to continue to partner with Google and Yahoo, and build strong support for the kind of development people already know how to build and are interested in building, rather than trying to immediately deploy something that--like QuickDraw GX--is very appealing in theory, but worthless if nobody pokes at it.

Mobile Disruption: Apple's iPhone and Third Party Software
I previously wrote about Apple's comments to deliver the iPhone as a closed platform, explaining why this makes sense for Apple, but also presenting why I though that the panic feared by some was overstated. Since I don't make decisions at Apple, and really do not wield any influence at all over those making the decisions, it seemed to make more sense to logically explore the subject rather than quickly pass judgment.

iPhone Gremlins: Crashing, Security, and Network Collapse!
In addition to showing off the iPhone's pretty interface as part of its first impression--including the Google Maps client Steve Jobs used to locate a Starbucks in order to place a crank call for a thousand coffees at Macworld--he also described the rationale behind the closed platform iPhone as a security and stability issue.

An iPhone SDK? Predictions for WWDC 2007!
The fate of third party application development for the iPhone is one of a few objects of speculation for Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference next week. What is likely in view of Apple's existing stance on the iPhone's platform? Here's a look, leading into some other predictions for WWDC 2007.

More Predictions for WWDC 2007: Solaris, Google, Surround
Yesterday's article presented the likelihood of any new iPhone news at WWDC, but it appears that this years' event will be almost exclusively about Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard. What's in store for developers? Here's my list of inevitable new releases, good possibilities, a

Third party development offers not just great rewards and also risk. On desktop platforms, the risk pales in comparison. On mobiles, reward>risk isn't as obvious. Existing phones offer very little potential despite offering "open" platforms. I calculated $449 of Windows Mobile software that is either wholly unnecessary or included on the iPhone. That software is all in the top popularity listings on Windows Mobile sites.

Gizmodo complains that Apple isn't offering the rest of the world free reign to build Cocoa apps for the iPhone. That would be great, but would also crack open serious security gremlins. If Apple can't deliver Safari on Windows without heaps of contempt that its beta browser can be DoS'ed or crashed remotely, it is hard to understand that more serious risks might relate to the iPhone?

What could Apple have done to impress people? Shortly before the event, I suggested the only thing that would blow me away would be Cocoa for Windows, or perhaps just Safari for Windows.

Paired with what I already stated would be the only reasonable 3rd party platform announcement for "the 'Phone that isn't yet here," that means Apple is embarking on a strategy of promoting standards compliant, AJAX web 2.0 style development in its first assault on the hegemony of Windows in the cross-platform space.

I find it entertaining that FOSS developers--who love dropping the "web 2.0" buzzword and chastising everything proprietary--are booing Apple for pushing standards compliant web-centric development and for not delivering yet another proprietary mobile development framework to compete against .Net.

That quite clearly shows that nothing Apple could do would go uncriticized.

It simply makes the most sense for Apple to continue to partner with Google and Yahoo, and build strong support for the kind of development people already know how to build and are interested in building, rather than trying to immediately deploy something that--like QuickDraw GX--is very appealing in theory, but worthless if nobody pokes at it.

Mobile Disruption: Apple's iPhone and Third Party Software
I previously wrote about Apple's comments to deliver the iPhone as a closed platform, explaining why this makes sense for Apple, but also presenting why I though that the panic feared by some was overstated. Since I don't make decisions at Apple, and really do not wield any influence at all over those making the decisions, it seemed to make more sense to logically explore the subject rather than quickly pass judgment.

iPhone Gremlins: Crashing, Security, and Network Collapse!
In addition to showing off the iPhone's pretty interface as part of its first impression--including the Google Maps client Steve Jobs used to locate a Starbucks in order to place a crank call for a thousand coffees at Macworld--he also described the rationale behind the closed platform iPhone as a security and stability issue.

An iPhone SDK? Predictions for WWDC 2007!
The fate of third party application development for the iPhone is one of a few objects of speculation for Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference next week. What is likely in view of Apple's existing stance on the iPhone's platform? Here's a look, leading into some other predictions for WWDC 2007.

More Predictions for WWDC 2007: Solaris, Google, Surround
Yesterday's article presented the likelihood of any new iPhone news at WWDC, but it appears that this years' event will be almost exclusively about Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard. What's in store for developers? Here's my list of inevitable new releases, good possibilities, a

Third party development offers not just great rewards and also risk. On desktop platforms, the risk pales in comparison. On mobiles, reward>risk isn't as obvious. Existing phones offer very little potential despite offering "open" platforms. I calculated $449 of Windows Mobile software that is either wholly unnecessary or included on the iPhone. That software is all in the top popularity listings on Windows Mobile sites.

Gizmodo complains that Apple isn't offering the rest of the world free reign to build Cocoa apps for the iPhone. That would be great, but would also crack open serious security gremlins. If Apple can't deliver Safari on Windows without heaps of contempt that its beta browser can be DoS'ed or crashed remotely, it is hard to understand that more serious risks might relate to the iPhone?

What could Apple have done to impress people? Shortly before the event, I suggested the only thing that would blow me away would be Cocoa for Windows, or perhaps just Safari for Windows.

Paired with what I already stated would be the only reasonable 3rd party platform announcement for "the 'Phone that isn't yet here," that means Apple is embarking on a strategy of promoting standards compliant, AJAX web 2.0 style development in its first assault on the hegemony of Windows in the cross-platform space.

I find it entertaining that FOSS developers--who love dropping the "web 2.0" buzzword and chastising everything proprietary--are booing Apple for pushing standards compliant web-centric development and for not delivering yet another proprietary mobile development framework to compete against .Net.

That quite clearly shows that nothing Apple could do would go uncriticized.

It simply makes the most sense for Apple to continue to partner with Google and Yahoo, and build strong support for the kind of development people already know how to build and are interested in building, rather than trying to immediately deploy something that--like QuickDraw GX--is very appealing in theory, but worthless if nobody pokes at it.

Mobile Disruption: Apple's iPhone and Third Party Software
I previously wrote about Apple's comments to deliver the iPhone as a closed platform, explaining why this makes sense for Apple, but also presenting why I though that the panic feared by some was overstated. Since I don't make decisions at Apple, and really do not wield any influence at all over those making the decisions, it seemed to make more sense to logically explore the subject rather than quickly pass judgment.

iPhone Gremlins: Crashing, Security, and Network Collapse!
In addition to showing off the iPhone's pretty interface as part of its first impression--including the Google Maps client Steve Jobs used to locate a Starbucks in order to place a crank call for a thousand coffees at Macworld--he also described the rationale behind the closed platform iPhone as a security and stability issue.

An iPhone SDK? Predictions for WWDC 2007!
The fate of third party application development for the iPhone is one of a few objects of speculation for Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference next week. What is likely in view of Apple's existing stance on the iPhone's platform? Here's a look, leading into some other predictions for WWDC 2007.

More Predictions for WWDC 2007: Solaris, Google, Surround
Yesterday's article presented the likelihood of any new iPhone news at WWDC, but it appears that this years' event will be almost exclusively about Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard. What's in store for developers? Here's my list of inevitable new releases, good possibilities, a

Third party development offers not just great rewards and also risk. On desktop platforms, the risk pales in comparison. On mobiles, reward>risk isn't as obvious. Existing phones offer very little potential despite offering "open" platforms. I calculated $449 of Windows Mobile software that is either wholly unnecessary or included on the iPhone. That software is all in the top popularity listings on Windows Mobile sites.

Gizmodo complains that Apple isn't offering the rest of the world free reign to build Cocoa apps for the iPhone. That would be great, but would also crack open serious security gremlins. If Apple can't deliver Safari on Windows without heaps of contempt that its beta browser can be DoS'ed or crashed remotely, it is hard to understand that more serious risks might relate to the iPhone?

What could Apple have done to impress people? Shortly before the event, I suggested the only thing that would blow me away would be Cocoa for Windows, or perhaps just Safari for Windows.

Paired with what I already stated would be the only reasonable 3rd party platform announcement for "the 'Phone that isn't yet here," that means Apple is embarking on a strategy of promoting standards compliant, AJAX web 2.0 style development in its first assault on the hegemony of Windows in the cross-platform space.

I find it entertaining that FOSS developers--who love dropping the "web 2.0" buzzword and chastising everything proprietary--are booing Apple for pushing standards compliant web-centric development and for not delivering yet another proprietary mobile development framework to compete against .Net.

That quite clearly shows that nothing Apple could do would go uncriticized.

It simply makes the most sense for Apple to continue to partner with Google and Yahoo, and build strong support for the kind of development people already know how to build and are interested in building, rather than trying to immediately deploy something that--like QuickDraw GX--is very appealing in theory, but worthless if nobody pokes at it.

Mobile Disruption: Apple's iPhone and Third Party Software
I previously wrote about Apple's comments to deliver the iPhone as a closed platform, explaining why this makes sense for Apple, but also presenting why I though that the panic feared by some was overstated. Since I don't make decisions at Apple, and really do not wield any influence at all over those making the decisions, it seemed to make more sense to logically explore the subject rather than quickly pass judgment.

iPhone Gremlins: Crashing, Security, and Network Collapse!
In addition to showing off the iPhone's pretty interface as part of its first impression--including the Google Maps client Steve Jobs used to locate a Starbucks in order to place a crank call for a thousand coffees at Macworld--he also described the rationale behind the closed platform iPhone as a security and stability issue.

An iPhone SDK? Predictions for WWDC 2007!
The fate of third party application development for the iPhone is one of a few objects of speculation for Apple's Worldwide Developer Conference next week. What is likely in view of Apple's existing stance on the iPhone's platform? Here's a look, leading into some other predictions for WWDC 2007.

More Predictions for WWDC 2007: Solaris, Google, Surround
Yesterday's article presented the likelihood of any new iPhone news at WWDC, but it appears that this years' event will be almost exclusively about Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard. What's in store for developers? Here's my list of inevitable new releases, good possibilities, a

The problem with making broad and sweeping generalizations that play upon the contrived stereotypes invented by the media is that such ideas rarely convey an accurate portrayal of what is really happening.

If Jobs' arrogance was the only factor involved in Apple's decisions, the company would not have surpassed Dell and the $100 billion market cap, sold 100 million iPods, etc. Bluster can make things appear to happen for a limited period of time, but you can't fool the market for seven years--not the stock market, and not the consumer market--without a huge amount of privilege or leverage, neither of which Jobs possessed ten years ago.

Apple quite obviously does make mistakes and errors, but every company that works to innovate will. What is interesting is not whether a company has ever failed, but how often its risks have been made in the right direction, and how many of its failures it has offset with huge successes at the same time.

The four factors of the iPhone you mention are indeed related to Apple's success with Cocoa and OS X, and some of them are tied to and dependant upon them. I've previously written about the differences in the iPhone and in competing environments, from the generic J2ME to the weak Flash Lite to Windows Mobile and the Palm OS. Clearly, Cocoa provides the iPhone with clear advantages.

And quite obviously, this allows Apple to deliver the kind of apps that other developers will want to create themselves. There is no question that native Cocoa development offers the tantalizing potential to deliver a major jump over the "web 2.0" apps Apple described as its 3rd party dev platform for the iPhone.

There is also no question that Apple does have limited resources. Should it hold up both the iPhone and Leopard to deliver "Leopard on the iPhone," even before the platform is delivered and before any market exists?

It's easy to make demands. But how much value will be immediately delivered by the release of mobile-Cocoa on the iPhone? How much risk? If your position is that it would be all win and no lose, then please explain why delivering Safari on Windows was immediately met by scorn and criticism. Safari is a web browser, not a mobile platform!

Certainly you can imagine that the Apple Trolls and Black Hat hackers--who already have a bone to pick with Apple over being exposed as frauds--would pounce upon even minor security issues on the iPhone exposed by a wide open, full access API, just as they do so over the ability to crash the new beta Safari 3.0 browser.

People can "walk and chew gum," but its a bit outside the world of simple cliches to expect a company like Apple, competing in a fully monopolized market (the desktop PC/IT platform is dominated by Windows, if you have been in a cave for 20 years) to launch a full assault on every Microsoft product all at once. Quite obviously, Apple does have to pick its targets wisely. I believe the company is doing well at the targets it is picking.

While I'd be happy to hear alternative viewpoints based on reason and logic, I'm a bit tired of hearing a nothing but a mixture of tired stereotype and cliche to explain why Jobs and Apple are persecuting the innocent just because Jobs is a maniac and Apple is a monstrous entity threatening the freedom of people who are happy to be monopolized.

iPhone Gremlins: Crashing, Security, and Network Collapse!
In addition to showing off the iPhone's pretty interface as part of its first impression--including the Google Maps client Steve Jobs used to locate a Starbucks in order to place a crank call for a thousand coffees at Macworld--he also described the rationale behind the closed platform iPhone as a security and stability issue.

An iPhone SDK? Predictions for WWDC 2007!
The fate of third party application development for the iPh

The problem with making broad and sweeping generalizations that play upon the contrived stereotypes invented by the media is that such ideas rarely convey an accurate portrayal of what is really happening.

If Jobs' arrogance was the only factor involved in Apple's decisions, the company would not have surpassed Dell and the $100 billion market cap, sold 100 million iPods, etc. Bluster can make things appear to happen for a limited period of time, but you can't fool the market for seven years--not the stock market, and not the consumer market--without a huge amount of privilege or leverage, neither of which Jobs possessed ten years ago.

Apple quite obviously does make mistakes and errors, but every company that works to innovate will. What is interesting is not whether a company has ever failed, but how often its risks have been made in the right direction, and how many of its failures it has offset with huge successes at the same time.

The four factors of the iPhone you mention are indeed related to Apple's success with Cocoa and OS X, and some of them are tied to and dependant upon them. I've previously written about the differences in the iPhone and in competing environments, from the generic J2ME to the weak Flash Lite to Windows Mobile and the Palm OS. Clearly, Cocoa provides the iPhone with clear advantages.

And quite obviously, this allows Apple to deliver the kind of apps that other developers will want to create themselves. There is no question that native Cocoa development offers the tantalizing potential to deliver a major jump over the "web 2.0" apps Apple described as its 3rd party dev platform for the iPhone.

There is also no question that Apple does have limited resources. Should it hold up both the iPhone and Leopard to deliver "Leopard on the iPhone," even before the platform is delivered and before any market exists?

It's easy to make demands. But how much value will be immediately delivered by the release of mobile-Cocoa on the iPhone? How much risk? If your position is that it would be all win and no lose, then please explain why delivering Safari on Windows was immediately met by scorn and criticism. Safari is a web browser, not a mobile platform!

Certainly you can imagine that the Apple Trolls and Black Hat hackers--who already have a bone to pick with Apple over being exposed as frauds--would pounce upon even minor security issues on the iPhone exposed by a wide open, full access API, just as they do so over the ability to crash the new beta Safari 3.0 browser.

People can "walk and chew gum," but its a bit outside the world of simple cliches to expect a company like Apple, competing in a fully monopolized market (the desktop PC/IT platform is dominated by Windows, if you have been in a cave for 20 years) to launch a full assault on every Microsoft product all at once. Quite obviously, Apple does have to pick its targets wisely. I believe the company is doing well at the targets it is picking.

While I'd be happy to hear alternative viewpoints based on reason and logic, I'm a bit tired of hearing a nothing but a mixture of tired stereotype and cliche to explain why Jobs and Apple are persecuting the innocent just because Jobs is a maniac and Apple is a monstrous entity threatening the freedom of people who are happy to be monopolized.

iPhone Gremlins: Crashing, Security, and Network Collapse!
In addition to showing off the iPhone's pretty interface as part of its first impression--including the Google Maps client Steve Jobs used to locate a Starbucks in order to place a crank call for a thousand coffees at Macworld--he also described the rationale behind the closed platform iPhone as a security and stability issue.

An iPhone SDK? Predictions for WWDC 2007!
The fate of third party application development for the iPh

Had Apple released a proprietary "mobile-Cocoa," would you be happier as a FOSS developer? Would your iPhone apps run at something closer to "full speed"? Would you even write apps for a proprietary mobile platform if you called yourself a FOSS developer?

Your sniveling about the sucking and blowing of FOSS in and out of commercial developers fails to account for the fact that without Apple, nobody would be using KHTML. Apple adapted it, made very significant updates, and then contributed innovation back, not just in the form of the open source WebKit, but also in the form of contributing the very useful canvas tags adopted by other browsers, as well as the future HTML 5 contributions Apple is making in web multimedia.

You clearly do not know what you are talking about as you spew false information. I encourage you to stop before you end up old and cranky with nothing left for yourself other than a podcast and a few speaking engagements or quotation gigs, like Enderle or Dvorak. It's an ugly path to the ignominy of trolldom.

It's not like nobody predicted Web 2.0 being the extent of third party software development for the iPhone, and its not like the world needs another mobile .Net rival anyway.

An iPhone SDK? Predictions for WWDC 2007!

>>The last thing that enjoyed this much hype was Snakes on A Plane. Remember how good that was when it actually came out? I predict iPhone will share the same fate, and shares of Apple will plummet!

I already used that joke on about the Zune!

In both cases = lots of fake astroturfed excitement, no real excitement from users. The media celebrated the Zune until it was obvious that it had bombed.

With the iPhone, there is real excitement from users, but lots of criticism from the media, particularly trolls hoping to FUD it out of existence.

If you haven't noticed, the market does not agree with you.

iPod vs Zune: Microsoft's Slippery Astroturf
Zune vs. iPhone: Five Phases of Media Coverage

>>The last thing that enjoyed this much hype was Snakes on A Plane. Remember how good that was when it actually came out? I predict iPhone will share the same fate, and shares of Apple will plummet!

I already used that joke on about the Zune!

In both cases = lots of fake astroturfed excitement, no real excitement from users. The media celebrated the Zune until it was obvious that it had bombed.

With the iPhone, there is real excitement from users, but lots of criticism from the media, particularly trolls hoping to FUD it out of existence.

If you haven't noticed, the market does not agree with you.

iPod vs Zune: Microsoft's Slippery Astroturf
Zune vs. iPhone: Five Phases of Media Coverage

It's funny how the meme that Motorola's crappy ROKR was somehow Apple's design keeps getting replayed. Apple quite obviously floated Motorola's phone while also cutting off its legs with the Nano at the same event. Nobody mentions the iTunes client on the SLVR, which actually didn't suck (the phone, not the limited client).

It's like he can't resist tying an albatross around Apple's neck to desperately make the company seem less magical or something. Is it wrong to give the company some credit for blowing out amazing crap over the recent years? If so, I don't want to be right.

- iPhone Gremlins: Crashing, Security, and Network Collapse!

"In addition to showing off the iPhone's pretty interface as part of its first impression--including the Google Maps client Steve Jobs used to locate a Starbucks in order to place a crank call for a thousand coffees at Macworld--he also described the rationale behind the closed platform iPhone as a security and stability issue. Was he kidding?"

Remember that Apple's Macs are EFI Intel PCs now. You don't need LILO and GRUB to start up an operating system, as EFI provides a minimal but sophisticated environment for handling multiple boot devices and system launching. It's like the Sun/Apple OpenFirmware that Macs have always had.

You'd only need those things to get Mac OS X running on a DOS PC, or when using ZFS with Linux, right?

---
Microsoft Surface: the Fine Clothes of a Naked Empire
What happens when the core values of an empire are exposed as a fraud? Does it prompt it change? More likely, it results in the generation of more false information to cover up the embarrassing failings.

It actually displays whatever buttons would make sense in the given context.

How many tiny physical buttons do you think it needs? I've used everything from a Treo to a BBerry, and can't say physical buttons push my buttons. Dialing numbers or mixed number/text is annoying with a full mini keyboard, and is painful with T9. I for one welcome our new touch screen overlords.

Recall seeing any keyboards on Star Trek? We have to make the move at some point in order to get into the future, and its not like Microsoft is going to usher in something new.

Another point of interest is that nobody is crying about the LG Prada phone, which uses a similar arrangement of a touch screen, albeit using the horrific Flash Lite.

Origins: Why the iPhone is ARM, and isn't Symbian
Apple iPhone vs LG Prada KE850

It actually displays whatever buttons would make sense in the given context.

How many tiny physical buttons do you think it needs? I've used everything from a Treo to a BBerry, and can't say physical buttons push my buttons. Dialing numbers or mixed number/text is annoying with a full mini keyboard, and is painful with T9. I for one welcome our new touch screen overlords.

Recall seeing any keyboards on Star Trek? We have to make the move at some point in order to get into the future, and its not like Microsoft is going to usher in something new.

Another point of interest is that nobody is crying about the LG Prada phone, which uses a similar arrangement of a touch screen, albeit using the horrific Flash Lite.

Origins: Why the iPhone is ARM, and isn't Symbian
Apple iPhone vs LG Prada KE850

The OP is right that Apple has sold 100 million iPods over the last ~6 years (since 2001), but what is interesting is that the company has sold about 70 million of those IN THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF. That's why the installed base graph looks like a population explosion curve (just like Apple's stock price).

By (fiscal) year, Apple sold this many iPods:
2002 381,000
2003 939,000
2004 4,416,000
2005 22,497,000
2006 39,409,000
2007 31,615,000 (the two fiscal quarters ending in March 07)

So Microsoft's sales of 1,000,000 would be impressive if it had actually sold that many to consumers. The fact is however, that Microsoft reports sales by counting how many units it has pushed off on retailers. Microsoft reported sales of 10 million Xbox 360s last fall, after only selling 6 million to users. It continues to push retailers to take deliveries of units to create the appearance that the 360 has not reached saturation, despite little new growth. Given that it could dump 4 million 360's on retailers last fall, it's actually a pretty dismal failure that Microsoft can't manage to similarly fake sales of 4 million Zunes, even without ever selling one. If it can only mange to announce meeting its stated goal for June, it doesn't even care anymore. This is a very dead product.

Zune vs. iPhone: Five Phases of Media Coverage
iPod vs Zune: Microsoft's Slippery Astroturf
Next Gen Sales - Q1 2007 - Zune, Xbox, PS3, Wii, Apple TV

The OP is right that Apple has sold 100 million iPods over the last ~6 years (since 2001), but what is interesting is that the company has sold about 70 million of those IN THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF. That's why the installed base graph looks like a population explosion curve (just like Apple's stock price).

By (fiscal) year, Apple sold this many iPods:
2002 381,000
2003 939,000
2004 4,416,000
2005 22,497,000
2006 39,409,000
2007 31,615,000 (the two fiscal quarters ending in March 07)

So Microsoft's sales of 1,000,000 would be impressive if it had actually sold that many to consumers. The fact is however, that Microsoft reports sales by counting how many units it has pushed off on retailers. Microsoft reported sales of 10 million Xbox 360s last fall, after only selling 6 million to users. It continues to push retailers to take deliveries of units to create the appearance that the 360 has not reached saturation, despite little new growth. Given that it could dump 4 million 360's on retailers last fall, it's actually a pretty dismal failure that Microsoft can't manage to similarly fake sales of 4 million Zunes, even without ever selling one. If it can only mange to announce meeting its stated goal for June, it doesn't even care anymore. This is a very dead product.

Zune vs. iPhone: Five Phases of Media Coverage
iPod vs Zune: Microsoft's Slippery Astroturf
Next Gen Sales - Q1 2007 - Zune, Xbox, PS3, Wii, Apple TV

The OP is right that Apple has sold 100 million iPods over the last ~6 years (since 2001), but what is interesting is that the company has sold about 70 million of those IN THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF. That's why the installed base graph looks like a population explosion curve (just like Apple's stock price).

By (fiscal) year, Apple sold this many iPods:
2002 381,000
2003 939,000
2004 4,416,000
2005 22,497,000
2006 39,409,000
2007 31,615,000 (the two fiscal quarters ending in March 07)

So Microsoft's sales of 1,000,000 would be impressive if it had actually sold that many to consumers. The fact is however, that Microsoft reports sales by counting how many units it has pushed off on retailers. Microsoft reported sales of 10 million Xbox 360s last fall, after only selling 6 million to users. It continues to push retailers to take deliveries of units to create the appearance that the 360 has not reached saturation, despite little new growth. Given that it could dump 4 million 360's on retailers last fall, it's actually a pretty dismal failure that Microsoft can't manage to similarly fake sales of 4 million Zunes, even without ever selling one. If it can only mange to announce meeting its stated goal for June, it doesn't even care anymore. This is a very dead product.

Zune vs. iPhone: Five Phases of Media Coverage
iPod vs Zune: Microsoft's Slippery Astroturf
Next Gen Sales - Q1 2007 - Zune, Xbox, PS3, Wii, Apple TV

The Zune isn't a bad product "just because it's from Microsoft." It's a bad product because it's from Microsoft.

A subtle difference. Don't confuse causation with simple correlation.

Microsoft isn't working to make the Zune a good product, it's working to sell a bad product through FUD and intimidation, but in the consumer electronics world, MS isn't doing well at all, having lost many billions every year since 2001. If Microsoft spun its Apple-like hardware/consumer products off into its own company, it would be many times more beleagured than Apple ever was in the mid 80s.

What's really going to be fun to watch is not how the Zune shrivels up next to the iPod, but how Windows Mobile is going to implode as soon as business customers realize that mobile phones don't have to spontaneously crash, spend 2 minutes rebooting, and offer arcane and bizarre interfaces and a generally crappy software experience. That is set to happen as soon as the iPhone hits. Not even AT&T can screw that up. That may make IT people question why they're continuing to use Windows products rather than an open operating systems based on Unix.

This is simply Bill Gates' second pie in the face.

Zune vs. iPhone: Five Phases of Media Coverage
iPod vs Zune: Microsoft's Slippery Astroturf
Next Gen Sales - Q1 2007 - Zune, Xbox, PS3, Wii, Apple TV

The Zune isn't a bad product "just because it's from Microsoft." It's a bad product because it's from Microsoft.

A subtle difference. Don't confuse causation with simple correlation.

Microsoft isn't working to make the Zune a good product, it's working to sell a bad product through FUD and intimidation, but in the consumer electronics world, MS isn't doing well at all, having lost many billions every year since 2001. If Microsoft spun its Apple-like hardware/consumer products off into its own company, it would be many times more beleagured than Apple ever was in the mid 80s.

What's really going to be fun to watch is not how the Zune shrivels up next to the iPod, but how Windows Mobile is going to implode as soon as business customers realize that mobile phones don't have to spontaneously crash, spend 2 minutes rebooting, and offer arcane and bizarre interfaces and a generally crappy software experience. That is set to happen as soon as the iPhone hits. Not even AT&T can screw that up. That may make IT people question why they're continuing to use Windows products rather than an open operating systems based on Unix.

This is simply Bill Gates' second pie in the face.

Zune vs. iPhone: Five Phases of Media Coverage
iPod vs Zune: Microsoft's Slippery Astroturf
Next Gen Sales - Q1 2007 - Zune, Xbox, PS3, Wii, Apple TV

The Zune isn't a bad product "just because it's from Microsoft." It's a bad product because it's from Microsoft.

A subtle difference. Don't confuse causation with simple correlation.

Microsoft isn't working to make the Zune a good product, it's working to sell a bad product through FUD and intimidation, but in the consumer electronics world, MS isn't doing well at all, having lost many billions every year since 2001. If Microsoft spun its Apple-like hardware/consumer products off into its own company, it would be many times more beleagured than Apple ever was in the mid 80s.

What's really going to be fun to watch is not how the Zune shrivels up next to the iPod, but how Windows Mobile is going to implode as soon as business customers realize that mobile phones don't have to spontaneously crash, spend 2 minutes rebooting, and offer arcane and bizarre interfaces and a generally crappy software experience. That is set to happen as soon as the iPhone hits. Not even AT&T can screw that up. That may make IT people question why they're continuing to use Windows products rather than an open operating systems based on Unix.

This is simply Bill Gates' second pie in the face.

Zune vs. iPhone: Five Phases of Media Coverage
iPod vs Zune: Microsoft's Slippery Astroturf
Next Gen Sales - Q1 2007 - Zune, Xbox, PS3, Wii, Apple TV

...one million units in seven months of sales is simply nothing in consumer electronics. In reality, Apple will sell roughly another twenty million iPods by June 2007 ... if Microsoft can meet its goal by stuffing the channel with unsold Zunes, just as it did with the Xbox.

Sun's jPhone is in a bit of a pickle: Sun Tries to Jump on iPhone Bandwagon with jPhone, Ballmer's adoring infactuation with the problematic Motorola Q is a bit over the top: Cingular Apple iPhone vs. Verizon Motorola Q, and LG's Prada Phone is an overpriced Flash in the pan Apple iPhone vs LG Prada KE850.

The iPhone stacks up pretty well against other smartphones in the Phone Wars, particularly with regard to its OS X in comparison to the rival Palm OS, WinCE, Symbian, and the state of mobile platforms using Linux--many of which, like Motorola's Linux phones, are really as closed as Apple's.

Of course, they say I'm biased, but so is everyone else.

Sun's jPhone is in a bit of a pickle: Sun Tries to Jump on iPhone Bandwagon with jPhone, Ballmer's adoring infactuation with the problematic Motorola Q is a bit over the top: Cingular Apple iPhone vs. Verizon Motorola Q, and LG's Prada Phone is an overpriced Flash in the pan Apple iPhone vs LG Prada KE850.

The iPhone stacks up pretty well against other smartphones in the Phone Wars, particularly with regard to its OS X in comparison to the rival Palm OS, WinCE, Symbian, and the state of mobile platforms using Linux--many of which, like Motorola's Linux phones, are really as closed as Apple's.

Of course, they say I'm biased, but so is everyone else.

Sun's jPhone is in a bit of a pickle: Sun Tries to Jump on iPhone Bandwagon with jPhone, Ballmer's adoring infactuation with the problematic Motorola Q is a bit over the top: Cingular Apple iPhone vs. Verizon Motorola Q, and LG's Prada Phone is an overpriced Flash in the pan Apple iPhone vs LG Prada KE850.

The iPhone stacks up pretty well against other smartphones in the Phone Wars, particularly with regard to its OS X in comparison to the rival Palm OS, WinCE, Symbian, and the state of mobile platforms using Linux--many of which, like Motorola's Linux phones, are really as closed as Apple's.

Of course, they say I'm biased, but so is everyone else.

Sun's jPhone is in a bit of a pickle: Sun Tries to Jump on iPhone Bandwagon with jPhone, Ballmer's adoring infactuation with the problematic Motorola Q is a bit over the top: Cingular Apple iPhone vs. Verizon Motorola Q, and LG's Prada Phone is an overpriced Flash in the pan Apple iPhone vs LG Prada KE850.

The iPhone stacks up pretty well against other smartphones in the Phone Wars, particularly with regard to its OS X in comparison to the rival Palm OS, WinCE, Symbian, and the state of mobile platforms using Linux--many of which, like Motorola's Linux phones, are really as closed as Apple's.

Of course, they say I'm biased, but so is everyone else.

Sun's jPhone is in a bit of a pickle: Sun Tries to Jump on iPhone Bandwagon with jPhone, Ballmer's adoring infactuation with the problematic Motorola Q is a bit over the top: Cingular Apple iPhone vs. Verizon Motorola Q, and LG's Prada Phone is an overpriced Flash in the pan Apple iPhone vs LG Prada KE850.

The iPhone stacks up pretty well against other smartphones in the Phone Wars, particularly with regard to its OS X in comparison to the rival Palm OS, WinCE, Symbian, and the state of mobile platforms using Linux--many of which, like Motorola's Linux phones, are really as closed as Apple's.

Of course, they say I'm biased, but so is everyone else.

Sun's jPhone is in a bit of a pickle: Sun Tries to Jump on iPhone Bandwagon with jPhone, Ballmer's adoring infactuation with the problematic Motorola Q is a bit over the top: Cingular Apple iPhone vs. Verizon Motorola Q, and LG's Prada Phone is an overpriced Flash in the pan Apple iPhone vs LG Prada KE850.

The iPhone stacks up pretty well against other smartphones in the Phone Wars, particularly with regard to its OS X in comparison to the rival Palm OS, WinCE, Symbian, and the state of mobile platforms using Linux--many of which, like Motorola's Linux phones, are really as closed as Apple's.

Of course, they say I'm biased, but so is everyone else.

Sun's jPhone is in a bit of a pickle: Sun Tries to Jump on iPhone Bandwagon with jPhone, Ballmer's adoring infactuation with the problematic Motorola Q is a bit over the top: Cingular Apple iPhone vs. Verizon Motorola Q, and LG's Prada Phone is an overpriced Flash in the pan Apple iPhone vs LG Prada KE850.

The iPhone stacks up pretty well against other smartphones in the Phone Wars, particularly with regard to its OS X in comparison to the rival Palm OS, WinCE, Symbian, and the state of mobile platforms using Linux--many of which, like Motorola's Linux phones, are really as closed as Apple's.

Of course, they say I'm biased, but so is everyone else.

Sun's jPhone is in a bit of a pickle: Sun Tries to Jump on iPhone Bandwagon with jPhone, Ballmer's adoring infactuation with the problematic Motorola Q is a bit over the top: Cingular Apple iPhone vs. Verizon Motorola Q, and LG's Prada Phone is an overpriced Flash in the pan Apple iPhone vs LG Prada KE850.

The iPhone stacks up pretty well against other smartphones in the Phone Wars, particularly with regard to its OS X in comparison to the rival Palm OS, WinCE, Symbian, and the state of mobile platforms using Linux--many of which, like Motorola's Linux phones, are really as closed as Apple's.

Of course, they say I'm biased, but so is everyone else.

Sun's jPhone is in a bit of a pickle: Sun Tries to Jump on iPhone Bandwagon with jPhone, Ballmer's adoring infactuation with the problematic Motorola Q is a bit over the top: Cingular Apple iPhone vs. Verizon Motorola Q, and LG's Prada Phone is an overpriced Flash in the pan Apple iPhone vs LG Prada KE850.

The iPhone stacks up pretty well against other smartphones in the Phone Wars, particularly with regard to its OS X in comparison to the rival Palm OS, WinCE, Symbian, and the state of mobile platforms using Linux--many of which, like Motorola's Linux phones, are really as closed as Apple's.

Of course, they say I'm biased, but so is everyone else.

Sun's jPhone is in a bit of a pickle: Sun Tries to Jump on iPhone Bandwagon with jPhone, Ballmer's adoring infactuation with the problematic Motorola Q is a bit over the top: Cingular Apple iPhone vs. Verizon Motorola Q, and LG's Prada Phone is an overpriced Flash in the pan Apple iPhone vs LG Prada KE850.

The iPhone stacks up pretty well against other smartphones in the Phone Wars, particularly with regard to its OS X in comparison to the rival Palm OS, WinCE, Symbian, and the state of mobile platforms using Linux--many of which, like Motorola's Linux phones, are really as closed as Apple's.

Of course, they say I'm biased, but so is everyone else.

Sun's jPhone is in a bit of a pickle: Sun Tries to Jump on iPhone Bandwagon with jPhone, Ballmer's adoring infactuation with the problematic Motorola Q is a bit over the top: Cingular Apple iPhone vs. Verizon Motorola Q, and LG's Prada Phone is an overpriced Flash in the pan Apple iPhone vs LG Prada KE850.

The iPhone stacks up pretty well against other smartphones in the Phone Wars, particularly with regard to its OS X in comparison to the rival Palm OS, WinCE, Symbian, and the state of mobile platforms using Linux--many of which, like Motorola's Linux phones, are really as closed as Apple's.

Of course, they say I'm biased, but so is everyone else.

http://roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q2.07/60A1C8 8F-B504-4CD7-ACC4-4104C9887A5A.html

Microsoft's Unwinnable War on Linux and Open Source
Microsoft, threatened by the encroachment of competition from open source, has long waged a detached propaganda war against free software and in particular Linux, but has recently escalated its conflict into a full blown attack. Here's what's happening, and why it will greatly accelerate the company's undoing.

"Among the patents infringed upon are 45 that apply to OpenOffice and 83 that apply to FOSS applications that are not part of the Linux kernel or its commonly associated graphical interface.

This isn't just an attack on Linux, it's an attack on open source development in general. That is a spectacularly bad idea for Microsoft to pursue."

Microsoft's Unwinnable War on Linux and Open Source

McCracken had an editorial debate with his manager. The debate was over a pile of made-for-Digg crap stories that were complete rubbish, not over some withholding of investigative journalism due to outside advertiser pressure.

All it proves is that IDG is desperate, McCracken really enjoys publishing "fluff" (as one staffer descirbed the articles in question), and that IDG's fortunes don't come from breaking news or informing readers but rather in manipulating Digg throngs with its sensationalist headlines slapped on non-content garbage. What a great business plan to pursue. I'm sure that will reward the company richly in the future.

Great job McCracken, you now have the capacity to make IDG's magazines worse. Any cred you deserved for walking out has now vaporized.

Harry McCracken and the Apple Censorship Myth

Finale - Act 4, Scene 2

"According to Greenpeace (click here for PDF), PCs are greener than their Mac brethren."

Two things:

Firstly this is a lie:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/A6 63D76C-DCED-442A-BD2E-6A557E98CA39.html

And secondly I'd like to point out that with OSX you could view that PDF without any additional software, whereas with Windos you'll need to install a 3rd party product to do so :)

I'd say that hands the final point to OSX, thus it is the true winner.

Now, whether OSX truly wants that hairy reward is another matter...

they don't run high-profile/high-bandwidth/strategic targets like Linux does, so who'd bother trying to exploit them?

Have you forgotten that "Linux" server software is also Mac OS X software? Nobody has to buy a Mac and learn some new set of exploits to attack Apache, Samba, or PHP running on a Mac, or to attack the common TCP/IP stack and protocols in Mac OS X, which are to outside hosts either very similar or exactly identical to BSD. There are no new tools or methods that need to be invented to attack Macs.

It appears you are saying that Windows has a security problem because it is everywhere, that Linux is a target because--while it is not as everywhere as Windows--it has high profile targets. Do you only believe factoids that support what you want to believe?

The myth of numbers
If attacks were related to deployments, the Mac should have at least 2% of the world viruses, or over 6% of US attacks (or around 10-15% of attacks if you look at installed base rather than a percentage of new PC sales). It does not. There are zero real Mac viruses; the math suggests that there should be hundreds.

Apple has a much larger desktop user base than all Linux + other commercial Unix OS' combined, and certainly has a less sophisticated user base. The majority of Mac users aren't security experts who compile their own software. So Macs "should" have problems similar to Windows, if it were only a matter of numbers.

The myth of different software
Mac users do, however, commonly use Linux/POSIX open source software, the kind that is frequently exploited by attackers trying to expoit Linux servers that you mention. Linux server users in most cases are run by IT professionals who understand security. Mac OS X comes with a wide array of open source apps and components. The only difference in Mac OS X and Ubuntu or other Linux distributions is that Apple manages all the security updates for the software it ships. It is the same software, and open to the same attacks.

The myth of targets
Suggesting that Macs aren't targets is absurd, and was addressed in the article. You failed to mention that. How many crackers have taken at shot at exploiting the iTunes store servers, or any other of several Apple store websites? Apple's .Mac is also under constant attack, both from usual mail expoits and in specifically targeted ones. Apple doesn't maintain some magical shroud of occult that prevents attackers from being able to use the tricks they already know to exploit Macs on the desktop or as servers.

The CanSecWest attack used typical methods to exploit a weak link between Java and QuickTime using typical, standard methods of exploit. Anyone with the expertise to exploit Mac security certainly also has the capacity to run Mac OS X on the hardware they already have.

The real reason why Macs aren't experiencing the security crisis of Windows is because Apple manages the platform better and spends more effort in considering security implications of the software it delivers. Microsoft has only attempted to deal with security in the last couple years. Throughout the 90s, it ran a completely insecure platform that resulted in a prolific malware/virus industry.

That can't be washed away in a few years.

Linux/Unix is certainly also under attack, but when properly managed, can be kept reasonably secure. Mac OS X is just another Unix-like platform that is properly managed by its vendor. Will there be exploits? Of course. Will they be promptly fixed? They are. Will there be a festering boil of viruses and malware like Windows? No. Is it because Macs only make up a tiny fraction of all the PCs sitting in office cubes? No.

they don't run high-profile/high-bandwidth/strategic targets like Linux does, so who'd bother trying to exploit them?

Have you forgotten that "Linux" server software is also Mac OS X software? Nobody has to buy a Mac and learn some new set of exploits to attack Apache, Samba, or PHP running on a Mac, or to attack the common TCP/IP stack and protocols in Mac OS X, which are to outside hosts either very similar or exactly identical to BSD. There are no new tools or methods that need to be invented to attack Macs.

It appears you are saying that Windows has a security problem because it is everywhere, that Linux is a target because--while it is not as everywhere as Windows--it has high profile targets. Do you only believe factoids that support what you want to believe?

The myth of numbers
If attacks were related to deployments, the Mac should have at least 2% of the world viruses, or over 6% of US attacks (or around 10-15% of attacks if you look at installed base rather than a percentage of new PC sales). It does not. There are zero real Mac viruses; the math suggests that there should be hundreds.

Apple has a much larger desktop user base than all Linux + other commercial Unix OS' combined, and certainly has a less sophisticated user base. The majority of Mac users aren't security experts who compile their own software. So Macs "should" have problems similar to Windows, if it were only a matter of numbers.

The myth of different software
Mac users do, however, commonly use Linux/POSIX open source software, the kind that is frequently exploited by attackers trying to expoit Linux servers that you mention. Linux server users in most cases are run by IT professionals who understand security. Mac OS X comes with a wide array of open source apps and components. The only difference in Mac OS X and Ubuntu or other Linux distributions is that Apple manages all the security updates for the software it ships. It is the same software, and open to the same attacks.

The myth of targets
Suggesting that Macs aren't targets is absurd, and was addressed in the article. You failed to mention that. How many crackers have taken at shot at exploiting the iTunes store servers, or any other of several Apple store websites? Apple's .Mac is also under constant attack, both from usual mail expoits and in specifically targeted ones. Apple doesn't maintain some magical shroud of occult that prevents attackers from being able to use the tricks they already know to exploit Macs on the desktop or as servers.

The CanSecWest attack used typical methods to exploit a weak link between Java and QuickTime using typical, standard methods of exploit. Anyone with the expertise to exploit Mac security certainly also has the capacity to run Mac OS X on the hardware they already have.

The real reason why Macs aren't experiencing the security crisis of Windows is because Apple manages the platform better and spends more effort in considering security implications of the software it delivers. Microsoft has only attempted to deal with security in the last couple years. Throughout the 90s, it ran a completely insecure platform that resulted in a prolific malware/virus industry.

That can't be washed away in a few years.

Linux/Unix is certainly also under attack, but when properly managed, can be kept reasonably secure. Mac OS X is just another Unix-like platform that is properly managed by its vendor. Will there be exploits? Of course. Will they be promptly fixed? They are. Will there be a festering boil of viruses and malware like Windows? No. Is it because Macs only make up a tiny fraction of all the PCs sitting in office cubes? No.

they don't run high-profile/high-bandwidth/strategic targets like Linux does, so who'd bother trying to exploit them?

Have you forgotten that "Linux" server software is also Mac OS X software? Nobody has to buy a Mac and learn some new set of exploits to attack Apache, Samba, or PHP running on a Mac, or to attack the common TCP/IP stack and protocols in Mac OS X, which are to outside hosts either very similar or exactly identical to BSD. There are no new tools or methods that need to be invented to attack Macs.

It appears you are saying that Windows has a security problem because it is everywhere, that Linux is a target because--while it is not as everywhere as Windows--it has high profile targets. Do you only believe factoids that support what you want to believe?

The myth of numbers
If attacks were related to deployments, the Mac should have at least 2% of the world viruses, or over 6% of US attacks (or around 10-15% of attacks if you look at installed base rather than a percentage of new PC sales). It does not. There are zero real Mac viruses; the math suggests that there should be hundreds.

Apple has a much larger desktop user base than all Linux + other commercial Unix OS' combined, and certainly has a less sophisticated user base. The majority of Mac users aren't security experts who compile their own software. So Macs "should" have problems similar to Windows, if it were only a matter of numbers.

The myth of different software
Mac users do, however, commonly use Linux/POSIX open source software, the kind that is frequently exploited by attackers trying to expoit Linux servers that you mention. Linux server users in most cases are run by IT professionals who understand security. Mac OS X comes with a wide array of open source apps and components. The only difference in Mac OS X and Ubuntu or other Linux distributions is that Apple manages all the security updates for the software it ships. It is the same software, and open to the same attacks.

The myth of targets
Suggesting that Macs aren't targets is absurd, and was addressed in the article. You failed to mention that. How many crackers have taken at shot at exploiting the iTunes store servers, or any other of several Apple store websites? Apple's .Mac is also under constant attack, both from usual mail expoits and in specifically targeted ones. Apple doesn't maintain some magical shroud of occult that prevents attackers from being able to use the tricks they already know to exploit Macs on the desktop or as servers.

The CanSecWest attack used typical methods to exploit a weak link between Java and QuickTime using typical, standard methods of exploit. Anyone with the expertise to exploit Mac security certainly also has the capacity to run Mac OS X on the hardware they already have.

The real reason why Macs aren't experiencing the security crisis of Windows is because Apple manages the platform better and spends more effort in considering security implications of the software it delivers. Microsoft has only attempted to deal with security in the last couple years. Throughout the 90s, it ran a completely insecure platform that resulted in a prolific malware/virus industry.

That can't be washed away in a few years.

Linux/Unix is certainly also under attack, but when properly managed, can be kept reasonably secure. Mac OS X is just another Unix-like platform that is properly managed by its vendor. Will there be exploits? Of course. Will they be promptly fixed? They are. Will there be a festering boil of viruses and malware like Windows? No. Is it because Macs only make up a tiny fraction of all the PCs sitting in office cubes? No.

The article didn't make excuses; had you read more than a paragraph, you'd know the article only pointed out the discrepancy between the article and the headline regarding a local/remote exploit. The article described a local exploit, the headline said it was remote. The rest of the article focused on other errors and general mistakes made in the article.

Additionally, the first reports of the break in did not provide all the details. It appeared initially to require local interaction to cause a situation that could create a vulnerability.

In any case, it was an artificial exploit: one that only existed in academia. Windows has many live exploits that are actively under attack by money motivated spammers. To equate this event -- now patched -- with the crisis situation on Windows that has been in place for a decade now... well it's simply absurd.

To suggest that my criticism of the reporting was just Thurrott style spin is also a stretch.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/

The real solution to butt-worms is having people not demanding food all the time. If people weren't hungry, we wouldn't need a food industry, and we could spend all that frivilously wasted money on podiums for pontificating analysts.

That would also rid of world of the foodborne butt-worms problem. Actually it would trade off butt-worms of one sort for another, but you can't have it all.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/

IDG, the parent of MacWorld, PC World, ComputerWorld, InfoWorld and about 100 other variants and localized versions, has long published poorly written trash to serve its advertisers, not its readers.

For example: InfoWorld Publishes False Report on Mac Security

I got so tired of IDG, ZDnet, CNET and more CNET that I started writing myth deconstructions and realized that many of these writers not only know nothing about their subject matter, but also use a lot of words without any grasp of their meaning. My favorites are "proprietary" and "anecdotal."

What has really impressed me is that the power and reputation associated with IT trade magazines is really undeserved. There is so little information, they are so poorly written, and so full of gratuitious ignorance that it has been a bit of an eye-opener on the media in general. I once naievely thought that one needed qualifications in order to write. That is not the case.

This PC World isue simply offers more proof that IDG and other magazines have no credibility and just publish enough fluff to hold together their ad space.

IDG, the parent of MacWorld, PC World, ComputerWorld, InfoWorld and about 100 other variants and localized versions, has long published poorly written trash to serve its advertisers, not its readers.

For example: InfoWorld Publishes False Report on Mac Security

I got so tired of IDG, ZDnet, CNET and more CNET that I started writing myth deconstructions and realized that many of these writers not only know nothing about their subject matter, but also use a lot of words without any grasp of their meaning. My favorites are "proprietary" and "anecdotal."

What has really impressed me is that the power and reputation associated with IT trade magazines is really undeserved. There is so little information, they are so poorly written, and so full of gratuitious ignorance that it has been a bit of an eye-opener on the media in general. I once naievely thought that one needed qualifications in order to write. That is not the case.

This PC World isue simply offers more proof that IDG and other magazines have no credibility and just publish enough fluff to hold together their ad space.

IDG, the parent of MacWorld, PC World, ComputerWorld, InfoWorld and about 100 other variants and localized versions, has long published poorly written trash to serve its advertisers, not its readers.

For example: InfoWorld Publishes False Report on Mac Security

I got so tired of IDG, ZDnet, CNET and more CNET that I started writing myth deconstructions and realized that many of these writers not only know nothing about their subject matter, but also use a lot of words without any grasp of their meaning. My favorites are "proprietary" and "anecdotal."

What has really impressed me is that the power and reputation associated with IT trade magazines is really undeserved. There is so little information, they are so poorly written, and so full of gratuitious ignorance that it has been a bit of an eye-opener on the media in general. I once naievely thought that one needed qualifications in order to write. That is not the case.

This PC World isue simply offers more proof that IDG and other magazines have no credibility and just publish enough fluff to hold together their ad space.

IDG, the parent of MacWorld, PC World, ComputerWorld, InfoWorld and about 100 other variants and localized versions, has long published poorly written trash to serve its advertisers, not its readers.

For example: InfoWorld Publishes False Report on Mac Security

I got so tired of IDG, ZDnet, CNET and more CNET that I started writing myth deconstructions and realized that many of these writers not only know nothing about their subject matter, but also use a lot of words without any grasp of their meaning. My favorites are "proprietary" and "anecdotal."

What has really impressed me is that the power and reputation associated with IT trade magazines is really undeserved. There is so little information, they are so poorly written, and so full of gratuitious ignorance that it has been a bit of an eye-opener on the media in general. I once naievely thought that one needed qualifications in order to write. That is not the case.

This PC World isue simply offers more proof that IDG and other magazines have no credibility and just publish enough fluff to hold together their ad space.

Greenpeace only attacked Apple because they figured it would be the easiest way to raise money. Greenpeace isn't an environmental group, its a fund raising corporation that uses staffers to attack targets that will gain the most donations.

Check out Greenpeace's own claims and what environmental experts say, and there's little room for any controversy. Greenpeace is only after money. They do nothing for the environment, they take credit for work done by other groups, and they attack targets with little regard for facts, truth, or creating any sort of improvement. As long as they get donations, they've done what they intended to accomplish.

A longer version of the story is at: Top Myths of 2006: Greenpeace Toxic Apple Panic

Why shouldn't M$ market to dead people? Just look at all the nice things dead people have done for M$. Believe it or not, they have updated things for Zune with less success than they had convincing GWB not to dismantle them. For all the services rendered, dead people will be rewarded with one non refundable, non transferable, surplus Zune. Jokes about "squirting" Uncle Fester here are beneath even my low standards of humor.