The Mickey Mouse by Apple!

Warning: This is probably a rant.

I hardly ever keep up with new things Apple spits out because I don't care. My network consists of all PC machines and servers, as do most companies. But when I do come across stuff that Apple puts out, I sometimes feel inclined to say something about it. Not so much because the technology sucks totally, but because I just don't like the Apple user attitude and I enjoy chopping them down to size. These mostly consist of people that still think there aren't any viruses for Mac OS X. Those that don't think any of their cats can't get mange or the rabies, sorry snow leopard, you can get AIDs.

What's the next Apple product to discuss? It is the "Magic Mouse." I've come to term it the Mickey Mouse, since the name "Magic Mouse" makes me think of Disneyland and Mickey. I so bet Mickey was a "Mac" and the mop was a "PC", you can tell because he's doing all the work and Mickey is prancing around acting like a moron, also he's on the Right.

I won't go into what the mouse is here because their website explains it all. However I will go into what it looks like for comic relief. It looks like a Maxi pad, or maybe an Always pad, I am not sure yet, it depends how much protection this mouse offers, but I doubt it doesn't offer much overnight protection.

Let us compare:

In the above images I was able to have the official Apple hand model demonstrate what the Maxi Pad would look like, of course we had to find an appropriate hand model to hold that big pad to make it look smaller to the public. Can you tell the difference? I couldn't either, not without labeling it, so I labeled it so you don't get confused either. I mean really, I'm married, what if I get sent to buy some pads (again ._. ) and I come back with a Magic Mouse and my wife gets mad at me? It will be all Apple's fault. That's enough of the non ergonomic design flaws I've pointed out, let's talk about the basic "intuitive" flaws now.

Apple states: "Now we’ve reached another milestone by bringing gestures to the desktop [...] that’s unlike anything ever before."

Lies! Let us introduce Apple to touch pads. What's really so different from touch pads? They too use "gestures" (a fancy way of saying, moving around your finger) and some even let you scroll left and right too. You can click by tapping or click by using the convenient buttons, look:

There's even detachable ones that you can still move around. Not to mention the Tablets that have nice pressure sensitive features and mice to use as well that require no batteries or power at all. All Apple is doing is reinventing the wheel, the touchscreen on the iPhone existed prior, the touch anything existed prior to Apple's latest trends. Even the color white existed before Apple.

Fail.

Macware for Mac Security!

It is interesting that more and more recently--well hold that thought, maybe now I am caring more about what is going on with Macs than before? Anyway, more "security" focus is being given to Macs, why? We know why, experts have been saying why for a long time.

"Macware for Mac Security"

"We hope Mac users across the globe enjoy the variety and value being offered in this bundle."

The Mac Security Bundle contains the following programs:
* Macware WebGhost5
* Intego VirusBarrier X5
* Micromat TechTool Pro 5
* Absolute Software Computrace LoJack5
* Intego ContentBarrier X5
* Intego NetBarrier X5
* Smith Micro Spring Cleaning
* JoeSoft Klix
* Intego Personal Antispam X5
* Intego FileGuard X5
* Intego Personal Backup X5
* MOApp MyWallet

I guess Justin Long on Mac vs PC commercials just gained a little more weight with "Bloatware." I just find it annoying how Apple just won't come out and state the obvious, "we're sorry people, our commercials and mass marketing campaign were very misleading."

Charlie Miller on Mac's Security

Here is a couple of more sources to further show my point's validity. Don't be fooled by their marketing, Mac OS is setting itself to get owned further as their share increases.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2941 Charlie Miller explains exploits in Mac OS

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/hack-windows-security-snow-leopard,8704.html Charlie Miller convinced

Interesting how this supports what I said in the previous post:

"they are indeed setting up to crash and burn when they jump into the lake with the Big Fish who have been swimming with sharks for over two decades."

The question we should ask is, why were these exploits so easy to use? It's a good question, because the answer reveals Apple's pretense and attitude toward security flawed in principle.

Apple's Security Pretense

Sure I may be on a roll here about Apple, I swear I don't hate their products, I hate their misdirection. Their products are "fun" as I recently described them to a fellow admin. But would I use them because Apple says they are more secure, immune to viruses, etc.? No.

Simply because there are far less cases on a Mac does not make it more secure. No more than me being a minority make me any less vulnerable to H1N1. When there is less of something, you are going to observe less things occur with that something. When there is more of something, well . . . you get the opposite. It's common sense, or so you would hope.

Quick example, there was a point in time in the last century when people very rarely ever heard of crimes as regularly as we do today. In most cases they had to observe it first-hand. Now, we observe it daily on the news and other media formats. However did it mean these crimes that were rarely heard of didn't occur? Of course not because they did occur. Granted, crime has gone up on a world-wide scale in general and the types of crimes have also increased into the technology realm, a "market" that did not exist a few hundred years ago on a binary level.

But this is the pretense that Apple is playing and has been playing for quite some time now. "We are immune to the viruses that PCs become infected with," or "OSX is far more secure than Windows--it's UNIX based!" and so forth. How long will Apple be able to use that as a crutch though? And is it true? Again, yes and no. Yes they are less affected by the common security problems plaguing Windows and perhaps Linux operating systems, but is it because they are less secure? Well according to the following report, it doesn't seem that is the case. Marketshare.hitslink.com shows the shares each OS has for the past two years, since November 2007. Statowl.com shows another pie chart with similar results. I think it is a bit easy to understand why Macs may seem "more secure" don't you agree? They don't have much market!

Why is this small point of any use to us though? I'll tell you. The question begs to be asked, how many average Mac users have spyware software installed, updated and running? How many perform the checks on a regular basis? How many actually have any anti-virus software installed, updated and running regularly? It would be a tough call to guess on these questions. But if I had to place my money on a bet to see which user has either of these things installed meeting the above conditions, either a Mac or PC user--you bet your lucky stars I'd put my money on the PC user. See here lies the future problem of Mac. As they continue to gather a following of "Hi I'm a Mac!" consumers, they are possibly also setting them up for a future of failure due to being unprepared. After all, why do Mac users need to be fearful of being on the internet when they are "immune" to all the problems a PC has? After all, wasn't it Apple that says, "so you can do anything — without worrying about losing everything"?

So while Apple's Macs begin to no doubt gain market share increases and a bunch of loyal customers, they are indeed setting up to crash and burn when they jump into the lake with the Big Fish who have been swimming with sharks for over two decades. Mac users in general are still green when it comes to having to worry about security, hackers, spyware and viruses.


Proof of this is here in this article at SecurityFocus: http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/864 All of a sudden Apple "encourages" their users to look into using virus software, and you know why. The interesting thing is how they removed the article as mentioned elsewhere at SecurityFocus as well: http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/866

Of course there are plenty of people that will dismiss the "Market share theory" and call it a myth or speculative ideas. One forum on Apple's website had a poster say, 'this myth cannot be proven until Macs have 96% of the market share to compare to Windows.' It may sound reasonable, but it still does not negate the equally reasonable suggestion that Mac is in knee deep prospects of plenty of security problems of their own in the future. Consider the latest article as further evidence of these things being the case and the exact reason security experts and PC users have been saying what they have been saying:

http://news.techworld.com/security/3202856/russian-hackers-target-macs/

It seems all that is needed is some incentive, and Macs finds itself in the same boat as Windows, except with a lot less experience and awareness among their users. In the distant future, to me it seems the "security" pretense that Apple currently uses as a crutch will soon catch up to them. If you are a Mac user, take the expert's advice, do not ignore security just because Apple makes you feel warm & fuzzy for now. Good luck.

Apple's Mac FAQ & Marketing

"Macs don't have problems like PCs do."

Now most of us know how such a statement is based on uninformative Mac commercials and large scale marketing tactics on the part of Apple. Literally brain washing the average consumer that Macs a) "don't get viruses" b) "More secure" "Immune to Spyware" c) "It just effin works."

Most computer savvy folks though will understand these commercials for what they really are, just commercials, marketing tactics--not commercials being informative of their product. So you would guess Apple's website would at least have good  information to not mislead the consumer. Well let's look at a few of the "FAQs" at the Apple website.


"Is Mac safe from PC viruses?"

One does not need much thinking power to realize this question has been legally and strategically devised to include the specific form of viruses, "PC viruses." But Apple takes it further, under the question it says:

"Yes, a Mac is 100 percent safe from viruses designed to attack PCs."

Can anyone say "DUH"? It's like saying, "Is a PC safe from Mac viruses?" And then replying with, "Yes, a PC is 100% safe from viruses designed to attack Macs." One can only correctly assume the nice play of words done here, by using legally protecting sentence structures and the positive sounding "100 percent" catches the consumer off guard and buys into the whole BS that Apple is trying to sell you. Yes I am talking to you. It's okay, it happens. Under the same question Apple goes on and haphazardly "explains" (it's really legally protecting themselves) how all computers on the internet are not immune to viruses or spyware, but that it is based on a "UNIX foundation with security in mind." So if it is UNIX that is at its foundation, why is that relevant to the gist of their point? If anything, saying it is based on UNIX foundation, it makes it all the more so plain to see how vulnerable it can be to many of the same exploits and viruses. After all, in theory, hacking Mac is hacking (an already often exploited UNIX) right? It gets worse, Apple goes on to further add to this apparent disclaimer saying how it has built-in software that "alerts" you when you are downloading applications and how Apple makes "free security updates" for their users. Wow, how revolutionary, don't all Operating Systems do that? My Windows does, and I'm sure that guy's Linux distro over there does too.

The FAQ goes on.


"Will my PC devices (cameras, printers, hard drives) work with a Mac?"

 Mac says an emphatic Yes! But wait, that is not all:

"Mac is smart enough to know what to do when you plug in your digital camera. . ."

What does it do that makes it so smart you might ask? Apple provides the answer, "it opens iPhoto to import your pictures." Can I get a face palm anyone?


"Is Mac Reliable?"

 Apples doesn't really answer the question on that one, rather it makes use of the ad hominem argument in a form of a genetic fallacy (as in most cases). It starts off with, "When you buy a PC. . ." and explains how the hardware may be manufactured from a different company than the software and Mac isn't this way, (this is also a half-truth). It ends the side-stepping with:

"Occasionally an application might quit, but it won’t affect the rest of your system. And Mac OS X resists most viruses, so you can do anything — without worrying about losing everything."

Of course let us call it "quit" and not "crash" or "freeze" as you have just described the process a PC would do with an unresponsive application. However, most Windows PCs do not completely crash your Operating System because of one failed application. In fact, it does the same exact thing Apple is claiming Mac does, it will quit the faulty application and not affect the rest of your system. The last sentence is laughable, no counter argument needed.


"Why should I spend more money on a Mac?"

Good question! In my personal opinion, the only reason you should have to pay more is because it is pretty. I admit, most products from Apple, come out their orifice looking like a gem. But that's just the outside casing only, seriously, if you've seen one hard drive, you've seen them all. I think the word we are looking for here is, aesthetics. But I don't believe you are paying more for the reasons that Apple claims in their FAQ:

"When you compare the cost of a PC and factor in the additional software, memory, and other extras you have to buy to go along with it, the difference in price between a Mac and PC isn’t as great."

False. It is a huge damn difference in price even after I choose supposed "extras" on a new PC. But then again, we are comparing Apple & oranges, (I'm not sure if I intended pun.) Here is what I mean, the hardware is not comparable to begin with! I took some time to investigate their claim and surfed around their website and looked at what products they have available. The only one that didn't look like a flattened toaster (sorry Macmini) and provided scalability and somewhat of a workstation looking case was the Mac Pro. The specs on these beasts are amazing to say the least! We're talking about Quad Xeon cores, tons of memory (6GB+), tons of storage and so on. Well no wonder it is so damn expensive! It has nothing to do with what Apple claims at all. You are getting Workstation-Class power in these machines, power power power. However Apple is not telling the consumer that they don't need all this power. Seriously, a guy at home that checks his email, surfs the internet on Safari, downloads pictures, porn, burns CD/DVDs, watches movies, listens to music and uses Microsoft Office for Mac all on the same computer and even at the same time does not need all the hardware the Mac Pro sells you, period.

Back to the claim that Apple made though about the price difference not being that great after you supposedly add much of the features the Mac has already. I put this claim to the test. I opened up a Dell Workstation page (which I think was a somewhat comparable computer to the Mac Pro) and I opened up the Mac Pro configuration page as well. I based the Dell workstation off the default Mac Pro "8 Core" configuration. By the time I was finished, I saved almost $1,000.00 with the Dell workstation for the same specifications if not better. The Dell workstation has a bigger hard drive, it has a better nVidia video card, 64-bit OS. Additionally, if I wanted to match the Mac Pro price, I could easily include Microsoft Office 2007 Professional, a RAID controller, a second HDD and possibly a second LCD monitor and still be at the same price range as the default configuration of the Mac Pro.

I don't want to drag this particular point on, but we also need to talk about the software. Further under the same question Apple states that the price is also due to the already built-in software that lets you do so much. What applications? It doesn't say, but if it is implying the applications that are often advertised to lure people, those aren't free. They are in fact, add-ons, the very thing Apple attacked the PCs for. So really you aren't getting crap other than an overly powerful computer that you probably don't need as an average consumer.


This brings me to my last point on this portion of the FAQ. There is no variety of desktops or workstations to choose from at Apple. It does allow you to "customize" the configuration as do other PC manufacturers do, however based only off their one model (Mac Pro), where as with PC manufacturers you have a wide selection of PCs to choose from. I already hear Mac lovers saying, "Apple doesn't need to make a bunch of computers, because the Mac Pro can do it all!" Well that's a yes and no statement and equally a catch-22. Let me briefly explain.

You can have a computer that can "do it all" and be stuck with a huge price for something you will be utilizing about very little of. Or you can have a PC that can do what you need for a fraction of the price while you utilize most of its resources. If you later decide you need more power, you can upgrade. Need more memory? No problem, it's cheap nowadays. Need more storage? No problem, hard drives are cheap too, and so are external portable hard drives. Yes they are cheap, not expensive like Mac wants you to believe. The point is, it is an unnecessary waste to have such an extremely powerful computer--it's overkill for most consumers. And remember, CPUs and RAM perform dynamic volatile functions, they don't "fill up." They are used on how much work you are actually doing at any given time.

So why are you paying more? Because someone has to pay Justin Long to act witty and cool in their mass scale marketing. Someone has to pay the design department for their cool looking cases and colorful gadgets. Someone has to pay their adapter department to invent new proprietary connections and cables. Finally, someone is going to pay that much for a Mac. 

Stay tuned for my next post, it will be much shorter, I promise.