Fear of Apple Corp Holding me Back

[capefrostie]

Hi.. I need some advice and I think this is the best place for me to get it, but before I ask explain my concerns I wanted to give you a little background on my situation...

I am a Sr. Network Security Engineer who is self-employed as a consultant for mostly corporate clients. I basically build and design networks that meet or exceed the three levels of government security required for my clients certification so that they can do business with the government.

Because of the special needs in this area I have a mixed network in my home office that includes PC's running each of the currently supported versions of Microsoft User and Server OS's, Sparc's running several different versions of SunOS and Solaris, a mixture of Linux, BSDI, VMS, and other Unix variants, a NeXT Mach Slab, an SGI Cube, and several Mac desktops running different versions of the OS. In addition to this I maintain a sampling of the various switches and network appliances that are more common to my clients, as well as firewall appliances and that sort of thing.

I use these systems to set up and test different scenarios and to verify security compliance for different configurations and this has worked well for me, but a new client is about to deploy a large number of modern Mac notebooks as replacement units for their staff, and this is a problem for me.

I do not have a Mac notebook, and I am not running the most current version of MacOS as there has not been a need for it so far. Mac's are just not that popular in corporate culture, for a variety of reasons and I am not making a statement about that one way or the other here so please do not flame me.

This boils down to the fact that having a Mac notebook to run certs against is probably a good idea for me, and under normal circumstances I would not hesitate to update my tools but the problem I have is the fraudulent television ads that I keep seeing on TV from Apple.

In the past before the need to purchase a new Mac was created I never paid any attention to these commercials, but as this is on my mind, when one comes on I actually watch it, and the content and claims in these commercials - I am talking about the ones that show a geek representing a PC and a slacker loser as a Mac - is factually and literally either exagerated or outright lies.

I was stunned by what I saw. Apple is using these TV spots to basically spread fake facts and propoganda about their product. Look, I understand why they would want to imply that a Mac is a more creative platform than a PC, that makes sense as it is a legacy notion. It is not true, but that is not the point really since it was true at one time in the 1990's... There is very little you cannot do on a PC that you can on a Mac these days, but still I prefer to use my Mac's if I am making video presentations or working on the artistic side of my web site, because Mac's are basically better at it than PC's from a purely performance POV.

The thing is, when a company grossly misrepresents its product positioning that makes me worried. For instance the commericals in which the PC Geek is shown in a hospital robe about to "undergo major surgery" in order to upgrade to a new OS, the Slacker Loser implies that a Mac wouldn't have to face such an event. That is a blatant lie and a misrepresentation of course - and it cuts in several directions.

Some Mac's are set systems - not just notebooks but some of the desktop models as well - so that if you needed to upgrade to a new OS and the Mac cannot handle the minimum requirements of the new OS, what you have is a boat anchor that cannot be upgraded and thus you are forced to replace the entire computer.

Other Mac's (desktops) are basically just PC's running MacOS and can be (have to be) upgraded the same as a PC if their specs do not meet the minimum required for the OS. So we would see the Slacker Loser in the same hospital gown getting the same CPU upgrade...

The other commercials in that series to some degree mimic this fraudulent and spurious line of promotion... For instance Apple claims you do not have to worry about getting a virus on a Mac - which is of course pure and unadultered crap. The current version of MacOS is just as vulnerable to race confition and other posix variant trojans and virii as any other PMT system. Add to that a second boot for Windows to the Mac and you are now vulnerable to the other spectrum of Virii that impact PC's.

I may be more aware of just what perils face a computer on a live network than others but the bottom line is this... Mac's are a lot more expensive than PC's. Purchasing a Mac is an investment that, let's face it, does not always pay off in the end if you make the mistake of buying a model that is not upgradable. The high sticker price on them may well be justified by the quality of the hardware, but when the maker uses fraudulent claims and outright lies to position the product in the market, I am forced to wonder if this is a company I want to do business with?

The Mac PC debate is an age-old argument and there is no shortage of fanboi's willing to fight that out - I am not about that here. The question I have and the issue I am facing is should I do business with a company that is so dishonest about its products?

I would appreciate you take on that...

C

[coconn06]

Though you are obviously well-informed and experienced, your post is pure flamebait. You obviously have no intention of changing your mind, only trying to show us Mac users the error of our ways, so to speak.

Apple isn't any less honest about it's products than any other company. These "lies" and "unadultered crap" of which you speak are nothing more than marketing campaigns; i.e. taking some of the features and competitive advantages and making light of them. Look around, you'll see the same thing everywhere. You are just biased.

Now please go away.

[elfin buddy]

I always thought of Apple's ads as tongue-in-cheek or satire, rather than blatant arrogance and lies. But that's just me.

If you are having trouble coming to terms with the lack of moral obligations of corporations whose sole purpose is to make money, then perhaps you shouldn't be dealing with any of them. Most marketing is evil as far as I'm concerned, but it's still something that every [successful] company needs at some point.

[richard4339]

I don't really consider these claims lies, I consider them marketting.

First off, on your point about PCs being able to do anything a Mac can do and vice versa, this is very true. This is true of most modern computers. Things just may have to be done a different way. I think the point of the ad in that case is to show that it can be EASIER to do creative things on a Mac...

Major surgery for a PC? Well, yeah, that is pretty much unavoidable. But you don't really make a point at all there against Macs from what I can tell. You do not have to upgrade a Mac to run a new version of OS X. It will either work on the system, or it won't. You don't have to worry about upgrading RAM, or getting a better video card, because it will either work or not. Once again, I think that is what Apple is getting at. Yes, if your computer is old it will have to be replaced. That way, you don't have to patch different parts together to get it working just a little bit longer.

If you want to get into lies of businesses, I'd honestly like you to point out one company that does not make the "libelous claims" that you claim Apple is making.

Anyway, as a poster above said, this is flamebait. So, I've said my two cents and am moving on.

[nbs2]

Now please go away.

Why? I am intrigued by this poster. Clearly we have a specimen that has never been seen before. From my observation, he appears to be a he, and is an American. Now, I have always posited that every American over the age of 2 has seen/heard/read at least one comedy or comedic event in his or her lifetime. But, it appears that this creature has not. Let us keep him and study him, so that we may learn what we we may become if we cease to enjoy that which we call humor.

Please mods! Can we keep him?

[AdeFowler]

Hi,

You seem wise enough to understand how marketing works. No one on here takes the ads seriously, in fact some aspects of the ads are cringe-worthy. Many of them just try to get some frustrating misconceptions over in a light-hearted way. Would I ever buy a product based on a TV ad? No and nor should you.

BTW, it's Apple inc.

[AutumnSkyline]

Hi.. I need some advice and I think this is the best place for me to get it, but before I ask explain my concerns I wanted to give you a little background on my situation...

I am a Sr. Network Security Engineer who is self-employed as a consultant for mostly corporate clients. I basically build and design networks that meet or exceed the three levels of government security required for my clients certification so that they can do business with the government.

Because of the special needs in this area I have a mixed network in my home office that includes PC's running each of the currently supported versions of Microsoft User and Server OS's, Sparc's running several different versions of SunOS and Solaris, a mixture of Linux, BSDI, VMS, and other Unix variants, a NeXT Mach Slab, an SGI Cube, and several Mac desktops running different versions of the OS. In addition to this I maintain a sampling of the various switches and network appliances that are more common to my clients, as well as firewall appliances and that sort of thing.

I use these systems to set up and test different scenarios and to verify security compliance for different configurations and this has worked well for me, but a new client is about to deploy a large number of modern Mac notebooks as replacement units for their staff, and this is a problem for me.

I do not have a Mac notebook, and I am not running the most current version of MacOS as there has not been a need for it so far. Mac's are just not that popular in corporate culture, for a variety of reasons and I am not making a statement about that one way or the other here so please do not flame me.

This boils down to the fact that having a Mac notebook to run certs against is probably a good idea for me, and under normal circumstances I would not hesitate to update my tools but the problem I have is the fraudulent television ads that I keep seeing on TV from Apple.

In the past before the need to purchase a new Mac was created I never paid any attention to these commercials, but as this is on my mind, when one comes on I actually watch it, and the content and claims in these commercials - I am talking about the ones that show a geek representing a PC and a slacker loser as a Mac - is factually and literally either exagerated or outright lies.

I was stunned by what I saw. Apple is using these TV spots to basically spread fake facts and propoganda about their product. Look, I understand why they would want to imply that a Mac is a more creative platform than a PC, that makes sense as it is a legacy notion. It is not true, but that is not the point really since it was true at one time in the 1990's... There is very little you cannot do on a PC that you can on a Mac these days, but still I prefer to use my Mac's if I am making video presentations or working on the artistic side of my web site, because Mac's are basically better at it than PC's from a purely performance POV.

That is exactly what the get a mac ads are saying, Hey, you can do creative stuff better on a mac...

The thing is, when a company grossly misrepresents its product positioning that makes me worried. For instance the commericals in which the PC Geek is shown in a hospital robe about to "undergo major surgery" in order to upgrade to a new OS, the Slacker Loser implies that a Mac wouldn't have to face such an event. That is a blatant lie and a misrepresentation of course - and it cuts in several directions.

Some Mac's are set systems - not just notebooks but some of the desktop models as well - so that if you needed to upgrade to a new OS and the Mac cannot handle the minimum requirements of the new OS, what you have is a boat anchor that cannot be upgraded and thus you are forced to replace the entire computer.

Not true. RAM is always an easily accessible and upgradeable part of the system, Apple makes sure of that. The only systems that wont be able to handle the new OS are the G3's, which are about nine years old, it is expected that many are to die way before that, yet some are running tiger!? Try running a nine year old computer on Vista, see how that goes.

Other Mac's (desktops) are basically just PC's running MacOS and can be (have to be) upgraded the same as a PC if their specs do not meet the minimum required for the OS. So we would see the Slacker Loser in the same hospital gown getting the same CPU upgrade...

Slacker loser...ha, that's funny. Anyways, 0% of the desktops apple sells need to be upgraded for them to meet the minimum requirements, especially the processor.

The other commercials in that series to some degree mimic this fraudulent and spurious line of promotion... For instance Apple claims you do not have to worry about getting a virus on a Mac - which is of course pure and unadultered crap. The current version of MacOS is just as vulnerable to race confition and other posix variant trojans and virii as any other PMT system. Add to that a second boot for Windows to the Mac and you are now vulnerable to the other spectrum of Virii that impact PC's.

First off, it is Virus, not "virii"(Which is used mostly by 1337 HAx0rs) Apple is saying you cannot get any of the viruses on the pc, on your Mac. Look at apple.com/getamac to see my point. And right now, there are no viruses for the Mac OS X. If you have a PC Partition and get a virus, it will affect that partition, not the whole disk.

I may be more aware of just what perils face a computer on a live network than others but the bottom line is this... Mac's are a lot more expensive than PC's. Purchasing a Mac is an investment that, let's face it, does not always pay off in the end if you make the mistake of buying a model that is not upgradable. The high sticker price on them may well be justified by the quality of the hardware, but when the maker uses fraudulent claims and outright lies to position the product in the market, I am forced to wonder if this is a company I want to do business with?

The Mac is not more expensive than the PC, configure a dell to a MBP and see which is more/less expensive, or if you can even get one for the same specifications. Try it with sony, and try the macbooks with the HP PC's. Let us know how that goes.

The Mac PC debate is an age-old argument and there is no shortage of fanboi's willing to fight that out - I am not about that here. The question I have and the issue I am facing is should I do business with a company that is so dishonest about its products?

US M@c F@nBois sure do <3 r macs like babees.... Evry1 shud h@v a mac cuz they r teh bestest....

I would appreciate you take on that...

Hope you enjoyed my post.

[capefrostie]

Though you are obviously well-informed and experienced, your post is pure flamebait. You obviously have no intention of changing your mind, only trying to show us Mac users the error of our ways, so to speak.

Apple isn't any less honest about it's products than any other company. These "lies" and "unadultered crap" of which you speak are nothing more than marketing campaigns; i.e. taking some of the features and competitive advantages and making light of them. Look around, you'll see the same thing everywhere. You are just biased.

Now please go away.

It is odd that you accuse me of what you just did.

I did not come to this forum to start a flame war. My post was not "flamebait" and unlike you I am not prejudging anyone.

The purpose of my post was to solicit replies from people willing to read it and address the substance. You are unwilling to do that it seems. Your take on my post is completely wrong. Either you did not read it completely or you do not understand what you read. Either way, your reply is a personal attack, whereas mine was not an attack at all.

As for what you say in your flame, here is my response:

There is nothing to indicate the "obvious" conclusions you make.

A lie is a lie. A claim that a company knows is not true is fraudulent.

A modern Mac is a PC with the Mac symbol on it. Stating categorically that it is not - and that is what those commercials do - is dishonest. The question I have for you is this - why are you so willing to excuse what amounts to intentional fraud by the Apple Corp?

As for me, the question I am really asking is - should I do business with Apple? I don't have to - I can run OSX on a generic laptop with very little fuss, and no complication. I can run OSX on a generic laptop but that would not be quite the same as running it on an Apple manufactured product - it is an option but not what I would consider a "first" option.

Part of my concern is this - if Apple will lie about the fundamental nature of its hardware, what else is it lying about? Can it be trusted? These are legitimate questions, even if YOU do not want them asked or answered friend.

C

[AutumnSkyline]

It is odd that you accuse me of what you just did.

I did not come to this forum to start a flame war. My post was not "flamebait" and unlike you I am not prejudging anyone.

The purpose of my post was to solicit replies from people willing to read it and address the substance. You are unwilling to do that it seems. Your take on my post is completely wrong. Either you did not read it completely or you do not understand what you read. Either way, your reply is a personal attack, whereas mine was not an attack at all.

As for what you say in your flame, here is my response:

There is nothing to indicate the "obvious" conclusions you make.

A lie is a lie. A claim that a company knows is not true is fraudulent.

A modern Mac is a PC with the Mac symbol on it. Stating categorically that it is not - and that is what those commercials do - is dishonest. The question I have for you is this - why are you so willing to excuse what amounts to intentional fraud by the Apple Corp?

As for me, the question I am really asking is - should I do business with Apple? I don't have to - I can run OSX on a generic laptop with very little fuss, and no complication. I can run OSX on a generic laptop but that would not be quite the same as running it on an Apple manufactured product - it is an option but not what I would consider a "first" option.

Part of my concern is this - if Apple will lie about the fundamental nature of its hardware, what else is it lying about? Can it be trusted? These are legitimate questions, even if YOU do not want them asked or answered friend.

C

It would be funny seeing you run OS X on a generic notebook, and get arrested, since it is kind of illegal, and it is a lengthy process.

Have fun with that!

If you don't trust apple, then don't buy from them, as simple as that. When you heavily use them, you will see that maybe a fraction of the claims they make are true.

[AdeFowler]

So you trust Microsoft? Sony? Did you trust Enron?

How can you run OSX on a 'generic laptop'?

[geese]

As for me, the question I am really asking is - should I do business with Apple? I don't have to - I can run OSX on a generic laptop with very little fuss, and no complication. I can run OSX on a generic laptop but that would not be quite the same as running it on an Apple manufactured product - it is an option but not what I would consider a "first" option.

Part of my concern is this - if Apple will lie about the fundamental nature of its hardware, what else is it lying about? Can it be trusted? These are legitimate questions, even if YOU do not want them asked or answered friend.

C

What a luxury to have a moral dillema such as this over something as relitively unimportant as computer companies.

If you dont want to deal with Apple, dont. No-one here *really* cares either way.

[capefrostie]

That is exactly what the get a mac ads are saying, Hey, you can do creative stuff better on a mac...


First off, it is Virus, not "virii"(Which is used mostly by 1337 HAx0rs) Apple is saying you cannot get any of the viruses on the pc, on your Mac. Look at apple.com/getamac to see my point. And right now, there are no viruses for the Mac OS X. If you have a PC Partition and get a virus, it will affect that partition, not the whole disk.


Hope you enjoyed my post.

Wow.

In the spirit of your reply, here is mine:

The word used for infectious code in computing environments is "Virus" - a word that originates from the Latin medical term that described toxic or poison. In modern terms the plural form "Viruses" is used however in the original Latin there was no plural form of the word. Virus was used to describe one or many though the medical community uses the plural "Viruses" today despite that fact.

The use of the word Virii as a plural when referencing computer viruses has variously been attributed to many different sources, and some dictionary authorities join you in attributing it to the hacker community - specifically as a result of "Leet Speak" however that is not where the word came from.

A scientist at MIT actually coined the phrase in one of the original proposal papers that established their academic participation in the CERT Project prior to its being created as a non-walled entity. I realize that this flies in the face of your expert opinion, and I apologize for being forced to correct you.

C

[notjustjay]

As for me, the question I am really asking is - should I do business with Apple? I don't have to - I can run OSX on a generic laptop with very little fuss, and no complication. I can run OSX on a generic laptop but that would not be quite the same as running it on an Apple manufactured product - it is an option but not what I would consider a "first" option.

Part of my concern is this - if Apple will lie about the fundamental nature of its hardware, what else is it lying about? Can it be trusted? These are legitimate questions, even if YOU do not want them asked or answered friend.


I just saw a commercial on TV for the Hyundai Santa Fe. They compared it to the Land Rover, and claim that it beats the Land Rover in 3 specific tests, but the Land Rover only wins over the number of cup holders it has. The message in the ad is that the Santa Fe is just as good an SUV as a Land Rover. This is a blatant LIE! It does not consider the MANY factors that make a Land Rover what it is, NOR does it ever consider the user's NEEDS. Presenting them all as equal (or, in fact, that the Hyundai is superior) based on three simple test is a gross misrepresentation and amounts to outright fraud. If Hyundai will lie about the fundamental nature of its cars, what else is it lying about?

Look, you're intelligent. You KNOW what message Apple is trying to convey with the surgery ad (for example), even if they are a bit exaggerated for humor or to prove a point. You are intentionally being obtuse by attempting to argue a very specific, literal point that the ad was not actually trying to make.

As for your question -- assuming you are even looking for advice -- make your own decisions about purchasing an Apple product based on your own research, or test-driving a Mac at an Apple store. You know what hardware and software you need and you know what's in the Apple box. You claim to see through Apple's "lies" anyway, so their "propaganda" shouldn't mean anything to you.

If you're truly outraged by the ethics of it all, then I hope you are also suitably upset about Hyundai, for claiming their cars are better than luxury vehicles, and for that matter any company that dares to use a little humor to portray their product as superior to the competition. I hope you're also up in arms about whichever political party you support, for daring to paint their opponent in a negative light using similar lies and misrepresentations.

Also, don't shop at Wal-mart.

[AutumnSkyline]

Wow.

In the spirit of your reply, here is mine:

The word used for infectious code in computing environments is "Virus" - a word that originates from the Latin medical term that described toxic or poison. In modern terms the plural form "Viruses" is used however in the original Latin there was no plural form of the word. Virus was used to describe one or many though the medical community uses the plural "Viruses" today despite that fact.

The use of the word Virii as a plural when referencing computer viruses has variously been attributed to many different sources, and some dictionary authorities join you in attributing it to the hacker community - specifically as a result of "Leet Speak" however that is not where the word came from.

A scientist at MIT actually coined the phrase in one of the original proposal papers that established their academic participation in the CERT Project prior to its being created as a non-walled entity. I realize that this flies in the face of your expert opinion, and I apologize for being forced to correct you.

C

I know where virus came from, my dictionary widget told me ;)
I didn't say that is where it came from, I said that is where the term is used, while the official term is in fact, "viruses" not "virii.

EDIT: Sorry, the first time I said, its virus not virii, I meant, its "viruses" not virii, my mistake.

[capefrostie]

It would be funny seeing you run OS X on a generic notebook, and get arrested, since it is kind of illegal, and it is a lengthy process.

Have fun with that!

If you don't trust apple, then don't buy from them, as simple as that. When you heavily use them, you will see that maybe a fraction of the claims they make are true.

You actually believe what you just said? That if you ran OSX on an X86 Notebook computer you would be arrested? We don't live in that country friend. Violating a EULA will not get you fingerprinted, mugshot, and thrown in jail. If a corporation discovers that you have violated their EULA for a product you own a license to, they have only a few administrative remedies to address that. Having you arrested is not one of them.

They can send you a letter revoking your license - which may or may not be enforceable depending upon which state you live in - in mine it would not be enforceable.

They can sue you in civil (not criminal) court. That however would be a decision that they make based upon their showing that real damage was done to their product, company, or reputation - believe it or not you really cannot just sue over anything these days - courts are so overloaded that most jurisdictions in the US have passed laws regarding what is considered non viable or trivial lawsuits.

If you genuinely believe that you live in a world where violating a EULA will get you thrown in jail, I feel bad for you. That sort of fear is something that we associate with the old Soviet Union, not America.

C

[AutumnSkyline]

You actually believe what you just said? That if you ran OSX on an X86 Notebook computer you would be arrested? We don't live in that country friend. Violating a EULA will not get you fingerprinted, mugshot, and thrown in jail. If a corporation discovers that you have violated their EULA for a product you own a license to, they have only a few administrative remedies to address that. Having you arrested is not one of them.

They can send you a letter revoking your license - which may or may not be enforceable depending upon which state you live in - in mine it would not be enforceable.

They can sue you in civil (not criminal) court. That however would be a decision that they make based upon their showing that real damage was done to their product, company, or reputation - believe it or not you really cannot just sue over anything these days - courts are so overloaded that most jurisdictions in the US have passed laws regarding what is considered non viable or trivial lawsuits.

If you genuinely believe that you live in a world where violating a EULA will get you thrown in jail, I feel bad for you. That sort of fear is something that we associate with the old Soviet Union, not America.

C

My bad, and don't feel sorry for me, um, I don't need/want your pity. I may have overstepped my bounds by saying that you would get arrested, maybe not, but the fact is, the act of putting OS X on a "generic" laptop is illegal and can get you in trouble.

[capefrostie]

I always thought of Apple's ads as tongue-in-cheek or satire, rather than blatant arrogance and lies. But that's just me.

If you are having trouble coming to terms with the lack of moral obligations of corporations whose sole purpose is to make money, then perhaps you shouldn't be dealing with any of them. Most marketing is evil as far as I'm concerned, but it's still something that every [successful] company needs at some point.

The problem with your POV is that you are not the average consumer, and you are not the target for those ads. Let's face it, most people are not very knowledgeable about computers and computer security. The average person viewing those ads does not see them as a joke, or parody, or exageration. They take at face value what is being said.

According to a recent Roper Poll people accept the claims made in ads unless the claims are clearly outrageous or impossible. For instance the poll states that consumers who viewed the Red Bull commercials do not believe that drinking a can of that product would actually save them from drowning, and people understand that staying in a Holiday Inn Express will not qualify them to do brain surgery, however those same consumers believed that a vegitable drink would increase their IQ because that claim was made in the ad for one and it seemed reasonable to them that it *could* do that.

The Mac commercials do not make outrageous claims. In fact they made false claims, there is a difference, and the average person, I am sad to say, cannot tell that what is being said is not true.

C

[synth3tik]

Also "Apple Corp" is misleading. I first though you were writing a tread about how the Beatles are not on iTunes. Wouldn't want Apple Corp. sueing for slander when you mean Apple Inc.

btw. I run my MBP at work because my PC is so old and crapping and is Win NT. I have no issues running with our Sun servers (BSD), or ASMs (Sun Solaris), SEMs (SGI IRIX), and any of our PCs. In fact I can not print to any network printer on the PC, but the Mac that is not set up to run at work has no issues with any of the printer. All I need is X11 and some shh'ing and I am set. Now granted we are nowhere near the 3 tier level of security that you are working with.

My SEMs that run IRIX have three PC units that run windows(for controlling aspects of the machine), I can even log into the SGI and access the PCs.

[capefrostie]

Hi,

You seem wise enough to understand how marketing works. No one on here takes the ads seriously, in fact some aspects of the ads are cringe-worthy. Many of them just try to get some frustrating misconceptions over in a light-hearted way. Would I ever buy a product based on a TV ad? No and nor should you.

BTW, it's Apple inc.

Marketing should be ethical. Using lies to sell a product is illegal. If Apple put up an ad that said PC's cause cancer and Mac's do not, that would be both unethical and illegal - which is why they do not do it. Putting ads up like the sort that Apple is using is still unethical because they know what they are saying is not true, but you are right, that is marketing, and they do not have to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth because nobody is going to hold them accountable for what they did lie about.

The thing that bothers me is this - why is Apple comparing its PC's to the Microsoft OS? That is what those ads are really about you know.. They are not comparing the Mac to the PC, they are comparing the Mac to Microsoft Windows - and there is so much wrong with Windows that I cannot understand why Apple would need to lie to make an effective commercial! If they just stuck with true issues they would be way ahead of the game and not cause people like me to wonder what else they are not telling the truth about.

For instance, out of the box a Mac is just a PC with a special chip in it that will allow it to run OSX. Understand, that is all that the chip is there for - it does not do ANTHING ELSE. It exists in that machine so that when a licenced copy of the OS boots up, a module in the BSDI code can check to verify that the chip is present, and thus continue booting.

If you remove that module, OSX will boot on pretty much any PC that has beefy enough stats.

OSX is not really a Mac OS anyway, it is a port of Berkeley's Posix Variant of Unix with a heavily modified X11R6 variant of the GUI. The only difference between it and say, BSD with X11 is that Apple's art department customized the interface and that their code department added emulators that spawn virtual machines so that the Mac can run legacy apps.

But that is not really the point.

If I was a fan of cola, and Coke ran an ad that basically said that drinking Pepsi from a can required me to undergo several additional steps before I could reliably consume the product, I would be forced to question Coke's ethics. Same thing here. What is Apple really afraid of here? Windows?

C

[filman408]

Fear of Apple Corp Holding me Back

You have fear of the Beatles holding you back? jk

[jono_3]

i bet you buy your gas from shell and chevron......

[suneohair]

Well. I installed Tiger on a G3 and it ran super. Vista can't run properly on most machines sold a year before its release.

Not to mention since everyone buys such low powered $399 computers, that makes it a little difficult, no?

If you want to buy a Mac, buy a Mac. I personally don't think the ads are lying but whatever.

[suneohair]

If I was a fan of cola, and Coke ran an ad that basically said that drinking Pepsi from a can required me to undergo several additional steps before I could reliably consume the product, I would be forced to question Coke's ethics. Same thing here. What is Apple really afraid of here? Windows?

C

Unless it was true right? What I find funny is that you haven't really said what they are lying about. You mentioned the Vista thing... but you didn't elaborate. You didn't explain how it is a lie.

Yes the ads are about Mac vs Windows. But lets see, most computers in the world run Windows. People know Windows, people think they need Windows. Showing them that Windows isn't the only thing out there is not illegal. And poking at its weaknesses aren't either.

Mac OS runs Office. That rules out a huge concern for a lot of people. Anyhow, please point out the lies. Thanks.

[TheAnswer]

Funny how the OP talks about the importance of ethics when so far in this thread he's made libelous statements about Apple Corp, suggested he would violate the OS X EULA and violated the forum TOS. Stones, meet Glass house. Glass house, Stones.

[aristobrat]

I am a Sr. Network Security Engineer who is self-employed as a consultant for mostly corporate clients. I basically build and design networks that meet or exceed the three levels of government security required for my clients certification so that they can do business with the government.
If you really consult for "corporations", they're not going to blink twice about you using a Mac, regardless of whatever marketing Apple's doing at the time.

The rather large retail corporation I work for has regular internal and external network audits done by third-parties like yourself, and it's almost the norm to see them come in with PowerBooks or MacBook Pros, for the very reason you outlined in one of your previous posts.

[gnasher729]

What the hell has Apple Corps to do with this?

And why are you posting on MacRumors about Apple Corps? The Beatles are mostly off-topic here. :confused:

(I really, really hope that MacRumors readers would know the difference between Apple Inc formerly Apple Computer, and Apple Corps). :D

[netdog]

its "viruses" not virii, my mistake.

It's "it's", not "its". :D

[gnasher729]

Funny how the OP talks about the importance of ethics when so far in this thread he's made libelous statements about Apple Corp, suggested he would violate the OS X EULA and violated the forum TOS. Stones, meet Glass house. Glass house, Stones.

No, Apple Corps is not the Stones. Apple Corps is the Beatles :D

[capefrostie]

My bad, and don't feel sorry for me, um, I don't need/want your pity. I may have overstepped my bounds by saying that you would get arrested, maybe not, but the fact is, the act of putting OS X on a "generic" laptop is illegal and can get you in trouble.

One more time for the record:

Putting OSX on a generic X86 laptop is NOT (I repeat NOT) illegal!

It is a violation of the EULA. The EULA by the way is written by lawyers working for the company whose product it is meant to cover. More importantly the EULA is NOT proposed by a committee in Congress, does NOT get forwarded to the Senate and voted on, and is NOT then presented to the President of the United States of America for his signature and thus then enshrined as a law in the US Criminal Code.

Violating a EULA is not NOT NOT a CRIME. It is NOT a violation of the law. It is NOT illegal.

Are we clear on that?

C

[Stratification]

Do you need to upgrade a PC from 3-4 years ago to run Vista, quite possibly. Will a 3-4 year old Mac need to be upgraded to run Leopard, probably not. Are there any Mac viruses in the wild? no. Which lies are you really worried about? And worrying about a corporations exaggerated advertising on ethical grounds while considering violating the EULA to run their OS on a "generic laptop" seems a little odd to me.

[shipdestroyer]

Putting OS X on a generic laptop isn't illegal. Pirating OS X is. OP would have to buy a copy of OS X to stay legal, which, in turn, would support Apple--something he obviously has qualms about.

OP hasn't refuted the fact that OS X will run on 8+ year old hardware, whereas Vista won't. (This is the misinformation the evil, evil commercial was spreading.)

Flamebait post from a guy who thinks way, way too highly of himself.

[notjustjay]

Violating a EULA is not NOT NOT a CRIME. It is NOT a violation of the law. It is NOT illegal.

Are we clear on that?

C

So what's software piracy all about, if not violating a EULA term that says "Thou shalt not copy this software"? If it's not illegal, why is it illegal?

[gnasher729]

The other commercials in that series to some degree mimic this fraudulent and spurious line of promotion... For instance Apple claims you do not have to worry about getting a virus on a Mac - which is of course pure and unadultered crap. The current version of MacOS is just as vulnerable to race confition and other posix variant trojans and virii as any other PMT system. Add to that a second boot for Windows to the Mac and you are now vulnerable to the other spectrum of Virii that impact PC's.

Number of infected Macs running MacOS X in the last years: Zero.
Does that answer the question?

By the way, there were complaints about these advertisements in the UK, and it was ruled that Apple is allowed to continue with these advertisements because they are actually true. :D

By the way, I take usage of the fake plural "Virii" to mean that I won't need to take the poster serious in any way. And if you quote anyone from MIT using the word, I can tell you that my latin teacher would have slapped him silly.

[capefrostie]

Wrong. There is no Intel version of OS X out there, aside from the ones that come with a Mac. So unless you are putting it on a generic PPC notebook. You are out of luck really.

There are actually better projects out there, which I am sure you know about right? Where you can do it much better. Not to mention these folks work on drivers, etc to make sure your generic hardware actually works. It definetely isn't as easy the way you are doing it since it is not possible to take the PPC build and slap it on an Intel/AMD notebook.

I am sure you knew this though.

There are several disto's in snapshot format that you can either download or purchase - or borrow - that was all I was saying. There are a few different ways that the installation can be accomplished - I just used that one to illustrate how simple the process really is. It seems that there is this belief that getting OSX to run on a generic X86 notebook is some monumental challenge - and it is not.

But thanks for your reply

C

[gnasher729]

One more time for the record:

Putting OSX on a generic X86 laptop is NOT (I repeat NOT) illegal!

Violating a EULA is not NOT NOT a CRIME. It is NOT a violation of the law. It is NOT illegal.

Please explain to us step by step how exactly you would put MacOS X on a generic laptop, and we'll tell you exactly at which time you are committing copyright infringement, which is not a crime, but can make you liable to some rather significant penalties if you are caught.

There are several disto's in snapshot format that you can either download or purchase - or borrow - that was all I was saying. There are a few different ways that the installation can be accomplished - I just used that one to illustrate how simple the process really is. It seems that there is this belief that getting OSX to run on a generic X86 notebook is some monumental challenge - and it is not.

Question answered: You are talking about installing a pirated copy of MacOS X. And when you talk about "disto's (sic) [...] that you can [...] purchase'', then we are indeed in criminal territory. Distributing copyrighted materials without permission of the copyright holder for profit is criminal.

Considering your demonstrated lack of ethics, I wouldn't let you anywhere near any network where I work.

[Rower_CPU]

MacRumors Forum Rules
Things Not to Do, #3
Warez/Serials/Keys. Do not post software serial numbers or keys or refer people to specific websites or software whose purpose is to break or bypass software licensing methods, distribute cracks, or obtain or use commercial software or media in violation of its license and/or for copyright violation. Do not ask for or give such help.

[netdog]

Violating a EULA is not NOT NOT a CRIME. It is NOT a violation of the law.

Are we clear on that?
C

And your first sentence contains a double negative, rendering your second sentence contradictory. :p

[capefrostie]

Putting OS X on a generic laptop isn't illegal. Pirating OS X is. OP would have to buy a copy of OS X to stay legal, which, in turn, would support Apple--something he obviously has qualms about.

OP hasn't refuted the fact that OS X will run on 8+ year old hardware, whereas Vista won't. (This is the misinformation the evil, evil commercial was spreading.)

Flamebait post from a guy who thinks way, way too highly of himself.

I can run BSD on a 386 too. I bet if I was willing to tolerate the really slow graphics I could use a stripped down version of X11 on that same 386. That really does not prove anything.

As for Vista running on an older machine, nope. It doesn't even run on some of the new machines, but then again it was not written to. It really is just lipstick on a pig, just like the last few "new" versions of MSW that were, like Vista, simply the NT kernel repackaged in a new GUI.

For the record, I am no Windows fan. But comparing OSX to Windows would be like comparing Linux to Windows. One is a pre-emptive multi-tasking Unix varient with robust memory management and a large suite of community created apps and the other is a resource pig that is limited to 64MB of RAM no matter how much you actually put in the system and that has a memory leak in its stack that is so notorious nobody ever brings it up anymore because it wouldn't be beating a dead horse, it would be stomping on the bleached and desicated bones of the dead horse.

The thing that I find interesting is the urgency some of the people here feel to force me into the Windows camp. That and the convenient way that they selectively pick from what I say in order to manufacture a position to disagree with me on issues that I never raised while portraying their reply as being on-target.

The real question here is should I do business with a company that lies in its advertising. That is a finite question with no interpretive process required for an answer to be obtained. IOW what is your opinion?

C

[elfin buddy]

The problem with your POV is that you are not the average consumer, and you are not the target for those ads. Let's face it, most people are not very knowledgeable about computers and computer security. The average person viewing those ads does not see them as a joke, or parody, or exageration. They take at face value what is being said.

According to a recent Roper Poll people accept the claims made in ads unless the claims are clearly outrageous or impossible. For instance the poll states that consumers who viewed the Red Bull commercials do not believe that drinking a can of that product would actually save them from drowning, and people understand that staying in a Holiday Inn Express will not qualify them to do brain surgery, however those same consumers believed that a vegitable drink would increase their IQ because that claim was made in the ad for one and it seemed reasonable to them that it *could* do that.

The Mac commercials do not make outrageous claims. In fact they made false claims, there is a difference, and the average person, I am sad to say, cannot tell that what is being said is not true.

C

See, the problem with your POV is that you still haven't reconciled with the fact that virtually all marketing is based on exaggeration, which leads to "false" claims. Why do you choose to single out Apple? That's really all I was getting at with my first reply.

Also, thanks for the cordial response. I imagine it's difficult to keep your head on straight when flaming back and forth between about a dozen other posters. Maybe we should all just calm down and have some dip, eh?

[psycoswimmer]

capefrostie, I think that you should go buy a generic laptop and put OS X on it. Apple is a completely untrustworthy and horrible company that no one should buy from. You obviously see that in a clear light. So please, ditch Apple, don't waste your time on that god-awful lying company, and buy a generic laptop.

Kthxbye.

[suneohair]

There are several disto's in snapshot format that you can either download or purchase - or borrow - that was all I was saying. There are a few different ways that the installation can be accomplished - I just used that one to illustrate how simple the process really is. It seems that there is this belief that getting OSX to run on a generic X86 notebook is some monumental challenge - and it is not.

But thanks for your reply

C

Oh I know I was gonna do it. It is not easy for most people though. Not easy enough for a general consumer to not buy a Mac and try it themselves. Which surprisingly enough is who the ads are targeted at. Commoners if you will.

Also, you have yet to point out these "false" claims. Which is a pretty big puzzle piece in your argument. Please, tell where you feel they are false. I don't think this should go any further without that data.

If you want to have a discussion, by all means we can do that. But be clear and offer up everything instead of being extremely ambiguous.

[capefrostie]

So what's software piracy all about, if not violating a EULA term that says "Thou shalt not copy this software"? If it's not illegal, why is it illegal?

We are not talking about software piracy. Nobody is saying that we should copy and sell software. Nobody is saying we should make money off of someone else's software.

Software piracy and violating a EULA are not the same thing.

Someone said that you cannot purchase OSX without buying a Mac - that is not true, I have a box sitting on my bookshelf unopened with a copy of the OS and a license for it.

But that is not the point of this thread is it?

The point of this thread is that Apple makes PC's that it installs a chip in and a variation of BSD called OSX in and then sells them to people using ads in which it suggests that its computers are not PC's and that essentially its "Not-PC" PC is better than a PC running Windows. Which I should ad is sort of funny considering that Apple changed over to the X86 platform so that it could allow its users to run Windows on their "Not-PC" PC Macs...

C

[Denali9]

Funny thread and let me drop my two cents being an IT Manager and having just switched recently.

The ads:
It's marketing, they exagerate the thruth but that is it. You read too much into it. If you keep doing that, there is a load of products you will never be buying.
But let me elaborate on your take:
For instance Apple claims you do not have to worry about getting a virus on a Mac - which is of course pure and unadultered crap.
It is true in a sense that for more than 200,000 virus for Windows, there is only 7 for Mac, so in a sense you do not have to worry. Will that change with Apple grabbing a larger share of the market and more attention, likely yes and this add may stopped being shown but for now it does hold some truth.
why is Apple comparing its PC's to the Microsoft OS?
They are comparing a platform (a PC and OS X) to the free for all PC world and Microsoft OS. Micrsoft is stuck with having to support a multitude of variance in the PC world and hence has to keep tons of legacy code that is difficult to maintain and optimize. Also Microsoft cannot validate their upgrade to the OS against all variance of hardware, there is too many, Apple can and hence the hospital ward hold some truth.

Why should you buy a mac?
Base on the description of your job and what you do, you could benefit from a mac. With a laptop, you could easily install Vista, XP Pro, Unbuntu (or any other flavor of Unix) and MAC OS X on one laptop and using Parallel or VMWARE switch OS on the fly to test a different aspect.

Is a MAC more expensive?
Not anymore, compare feature for feature and a mac is within the same price range. You want a 500$ laptop, well forget it, they don't do it.

Running OS X on generic PC
Yes, you could but it is a pain in the *&% to maintain and patch. It ain't as easy as you describe... Every new patch from Apple as the potential to break the build and force you in starting again and if you have an unpatch version you are basically unaligned with your client.

If you honestly beleives they use fraudulent claims and outright lies, I suggest you report them, there is law in the US against such pratices and they should be stopped. Why has nobody done it, not even Microsoft? Maybe there is more truth to it than you see.

[capefrostie]

Please explain to us step by step how exactly you would put MacOS X on a generic laptop, and we'll tell you exactly at which time you are committing copyright infringement, which is not a crime, but can make you liable to some rather significant penalties if you are caught.



Question answered: You are talking about installing a pirated copy of MacOS X. And when you talk about "disto's (sic) [...] that you can [...] purchase'', then we are indeed in criminal territory. Distributing copyrighted materials without permission of the copyright holder for profit is criminal.

Considering your demonstrated lack of ethics, I wouldn't let you anywhere near any network where I work.

As long as you hold a license for that software it doesn't matter where you get it to install it. Asked and answered.

C

[suneohair]

We are not talking about software piracy. Nobody is saying that we should copy and sell software. Nobody is saying we should make money off of someone else's software.

Software piracy and violating a EULA are not the same thing.

Someone said that you cannot purchase OSX without buying a Mac - that is not true, I have a box sitting on my bookshelf unopened with a copy of the OS and a license for it.

But that is not the point of this thread is it?

The point of this thread is that Apple makes PC's that it installs a chip in and a variation of BSD called OSX in and then sells them to people using ads in which it suggests that its computers are not PC's and that essentially its "Not-PC" PC is better than a PC running Windows. Which I should ad is sort of funny considering that Apple changed over to the X86 platform so that it could allow its users to run Windows on their "Not-PC" PC Macs...

C

Sorry, try again. They switched because IBM couldn't keep up with x86. Windows was a fruit of that switch and a new marketing point to draw more switchers.

And again, you still haven't explained how the claims in the ads are false.

[Blue Velvet]

The question I have and the issue I am facing is should I do business with a company that is so dishonest about its products?


Which is why someone mentioned oil companies... anyway, to demand that a company's marketing should be ethical begs the question: whose ethics?

And ethics are also not law... organise a class-action suit if you feel that strongly about Apple's advertising. Take it up with whichever advertising watchdogs, regulators and ombudsmen will listen to you.

Mountain and molehill are words that spring to mind, because of course, Microsoft have displayed pristinely pure ethical marketing and technology strategies since inception.

You may understand technology, but your grasp of marketing fundamentals seems slim and yet the importance of its methods and means is being absurdly over-rated.

That's my take on that.

[OllyW]

The advertisements are not lies, well not here in Britain anyway. :cool:


UK’s Advertising Standards Authority clears Apple UK’s ‘Get a Mac’ ads
Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 09:29 AM EDT

Ads from Apple’s UK "Get a Mac" campaign starring comedians David Mitchell and Robert Webb from comedy show Peep Show has been cleared by the Advertising Standards Association (ASA).

The advertising watchdog received complaints over three of the campaign's ads:

a) The national press ad, regional press ad and poster showed the comedians Mitchell and Webb, each holding up a sign. Mitchell's sign stated "I was made for the office. To do the serious stuff you have to do, like spreadsheets and timesheets and pie charts. With me, viruses and crashing can be a way of life, but eventually you'll just get used to it. I think computers are meant for work, and fun is just a waste of time. I'm a PC." Webb held up a sign that stated "I was made for the home. To do the fun things you want to do, like photos and movies and music. I run Mac OS X so you don't have to worry about the viruses and spyware that PCs do. And I come with iLife so I can do amazing stuff right out of the box. I think computers should be human and intuitive so, well, that's what I am. I'm a Mac." Text at the bottom of the ad stated "There's more than one choice when it comes to a computer. Watch Mitchell and Webb as PC and Mac on ..."

b. "Virus" which showed Mitchell and Webb. Webb said "Hello, I'm a Mac"; Mitchell said "And I'm a PC". Mitchell started to sneeze and said " ... I think I've got that virus that's going round. You'd better stay back, this one's a humdinger"; Webb responded "It's OK, I'll be fine". Mitchell replied "Don't be a hero. Last year there were 114,000 known viruses for PCs"; Webb replied "PCs, not Macs". Mitchell said "I think I'm going to crash now" and fell to the ground.

c. "Restarting" which showed Mitchell and Webb. Webb said "Hello, I'm a Mac"; Mitchell said "And I'm a PC". Mitchell was then shown to freeze mid-sentence and, after a long pause, said " ... Sorry, had to restart, you know how it is"; Webb replied "Not really"; Mitchell said "Oh what, Macs don't have to" and then froze again before eventually finishing the sentence.

The complaints were organised into four main issues:

1. Nine of the 14 complainants, who believed a virus attacked software and operating systems, not hardware, and a PC could use a variety of software and operating systems, some of which contracted similar low numbers of viruses as Mac OS X, challenged whether the ads misleadingly implied all PCs, regardless of the software or operating system they used, were vulnerable to crashing, would contract a number of viruses and would frequently need to be restarted.

ASA Assessment: Not upheld. "We considered that the ads referred to PCs that ran Microsoft Windows. We noted the articles sent by Apple stated that the majority of home computers worldwide used Microsoft Windows but also understood that other operating systems were available for PCs. We considered, however, that the ads target audience, home computer users, were unlikely to be aware of the other operating systems available for PCs and would understand the term "PC" in the ads to mean a PC that ran on Microsoft Windows. We considered that those people, who were aware of other PC operating systems, would also understand that viruses attacked software and operating systems, not hardware, and would therefore understand that the ad referred to PCs that ran Microsoft Windows rather than another platform, for example, Linux. We concluded that, because people who saw them would understand they referred to PCs that ran on Microsoft Windows and any operational difficulties that might be associated with them, the ads did not misleadingly imply all PCs, regardless of software or system, were vulnerable to crashing and viruses."

On this point, we investigated the ads under CAP Code clauses 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 19.1 (Other comparisons) but did not find them in breach.

2. Eight of the 14 complainants challenged whether the claim "I run Mac OS X so you don't have to worry about the viruses and spyware that PCs do" in ad (a) was misleading and irresponsible, because it implied Mac computers could not be infected by viruses and therefore did not require virus protection.

ASA Assessment: Not upheld. "We considered that the claim ... you don't have to worry about the viruses and spyware that PCs do" in ad (a) would be understood by readers to mean that viruses, which infected PCs, were not the same as those that could infect Macs, and also that Macs were less likely to be infected by viruses than PCs: the claim did not imply Macs would never be infected by viruses and did not require virus protection. We understood that the type of viruses that infected PCs with Microsoft Windows, could not infect Macs that did not run Microsoft Windows. We also understood that Macs, which did not operate on Microsoft Windows, were less likely to be infected by viruses than PCs. We concluded therefore that the claim was not irresponsible or likely to mislead.

On this point, we investigated ad (a) under CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Responsible advertising) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach."

3. Three of the 14 complainants challenged whether ad (c) misleadingly implied Mac computers would never crash or need to be restarted.

ASA Assessment: Not upheld. "We considered that the ad implied, in comparison to PCs that used Microsoft Windows, Macs rarely crashed; it did not imply that Macs never crashed. We understood that Macs that did not run Microsoft Windows contracted fewer viruses than PCs that ran Microsoft Windows and as a result they were less likely to crash or need restarting. We considered that, because Macs that did not run Microsoft Windows were less likely to crash than PCs that ran Microsoft Windows, the ad was unlikely to mislead.

On this point, we investigated ad (c) under CAP Code clause 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach."

4. One of the 14 complainants challenged whether ad (b) was misleading and irresponsible, because it implied Mac computers could not be infected by viruses and therefore did not require virus protection.

ASA Assessment: Not upheld. "We noted Apples assertion that the ad was intended to convey that Macs were not susceptible to the same 114,000 viruses they believed PCs were susceptible to. We noted Webb replied "PCs, not Macs" to Mitchells claim "Don't be a hero. Last year there were 114,000 known viruses for PCs" and "It's OK, I'll be fine" to Mitchells claim " ... I think I've got that virus that's going round. You'd better stay back, this one's a humdinger". We considered that people would understand that to mean viruses that infected Windows based PCs would not infect Macs and that Macs were less likely to be infected by viruses than those PCs; not that Macs would never be infected by viruses and did not require virus protection. We understood that the viruses that infected Microsoft Windows based PCs would not infect Macs that did not run Microsoft Windows, and those Macs were less likely to be infected by viruses than those PCs. We concluded therefore that the ad was not irresponsible or likely to mislead.

On this point, we investigated ad (b) under CAP Code clauses 2.2 (Responsible advertising) and 7.1 (Truthfulness) but did not find it in breach."

The ASA has deemed that no further action is necessary.

[netdog]

As long as you hold a license for that software it doesn't matter where you get it to install it. Asked and answered.

C

Glad to know then that stealing a license doesn't render it invalid, at least in the good ol' USA! :p

[capefrostie]

See, the problem with your POV is that you still haven't reconciled with the fact that virtually all marketing is based on exaggeration, which leads to "false" claims. Why do you choose to single out Apple? That's really all I was getting at with my first reply.

Also, thanks for the cordial response. I imagine it's difficult to keep your head on straight when flaming back and forth between about a dozen other posters. Maybe we should all just calm down and have some dip, eh?

You are welcome, but so far I have not been flamming.

Marketing uses exageration as a method for comparison and contrast, I understand that. But using untruth and calling it exaggeration strikes me as being spurious at best and intentionally dishonest at worse. I cannot believe that the people who approve that campaign at Apple are no aware of that. Nor can I believe that THEY believe the campaign is truthful and honest.

I believe that there is a difference between exagerating and lies. Illustration and untruth. Contrast and fraud. Is a Mac a PC? Answer me that, ok?

C

[localoid]

You create a thread you name: "Fear of Apple Corp Holding me Back" and then say:


... This boils down to the fact that having a Mac notebook to run certs against is probably a good idea for me, and under normal circumstances I would not hesitate to update my tools but the problem I have is the fraudulent television ads that I keep seeing on TV from Apple. ...

You sound really conflicted. The only thing keeping you from buying a Mac is your "moral dilemma" that you yourself have created. The only thing "holding you back" are the voices in your head.

[netdog]

BTW, Frostie, nice to see that you didn't come to start a flame war. Must be a mere coincidence that your are responding like a fire-breathing troll.

As they say in Canada, "Hit the road, eh?"

Of course, if that isn't clear enough, as they say in America, "Thanks for playing!"

[shipdestroyer]

The thing that I find interesting is the urgency some of the people here feel to force me into the Windows camp. That and the convenient way that they selectively pick from what I say in order to manufacture a position to disagree with me on issues that I never raised while portraying their reply as being on-target.

You forced yourself into it when you denounced the PC-getting-surgery commercial as guile. Yes, PC != Windows, but the commercial specifically targets Vista.

Like I said earlier: troll.

[capefrostie]

capefrostie, I think that you should go buy a generic laptop and put OS X on it. Apple is a completely untrustworthy and horrible company that no one should buy from. You obviously see that in a clear light. So please, ditch Apple, don't waste your time on that god-awful lying company, and buy a generic laptop.

Kthxbye.

I appreciate your advice but that is really not what this thread is about. What the thread is about is whether or not to trust Apple because of the lies they use for their advertising.

So you know, putting OSX on an X86 notebook would not solve my problem. Doing that would not give me useful data on the interaction of a Mac Notebook in the network environment for a number of reasons, many of which wouldn't come up until someone some day in the future found a way to exploit them. I cannot just find an easy or convenient solution and call it done, I have to operate inside certain ethical confines.

C

[yellow]

I would appreciate you take on that...

Frankly, a lot of your arguments are seemingly based on outdated notions from the late 90s.

While the ads are naturally stretched a bit, your claim that they are out and out lies is spurious at best.

I can still run the current OS (Tiger) on a Mac from 1999 with no upgrade from it's original hardware. Will it be fast? Hell no. But it can be done easily. Naturally, if you buy 5 year old hardware and want to slap the latest OS on it and find that you can't, should you be steamed at Apple? I think not. But the 4 major releases of OS X since it's inception have been pretty good at continuing support for older hardware.

As for viruses, well a Windows virus on your Windows partition/VM will only effect Windows. Mac OS X is completely unaffected. And despite Mac OS X being the defacto OS from Apple since 2001, there's still no real, spreadable, wild viruses/trojans. Statistically speaking, they are within their rights to stretch the truth and say that there's no viruses for the Mac.

And finally, since I'm in a pedantic mood...

Apple Corp is a music company.
Apple Inc, is a computer/software/digital accessories company.

I find it interesting that you identify the Mac character as a "slacker loser". It seems you have some preconceived bias.

EDIT: As far as I'm concerned, the ONLY outright lie that advertising has put forth so far is:
The notion that error messages aren't cryptic on a Mac. That's complete b*llsh*t.

If "Error -49" isn't cryptic, I don't know what is. ;)

[drake]

Re: Marketing.

I don't find most marketing "evil", I find it comical. Maybe I'm just not as vulnerable to it (or too diluted to see my vulnerability).

Even gave up shampoo and shaving cream because I recognized it was all marketing hype, and likely, bad for me as well. And no, I don't look like a Rastafarian. Buy generic over brand name. Don't own a TV so I don't see many commercials anymore, but I do enjoy the Mac ads because they take a poke at the Mac/PC stereotypes (which have very little basis in fact). :D

[capefrostie]

Oh I know I was gonna do it. It is not easy for most people though. Not easy enough for a general consumer to not buy a Mac and try it themselves. Which surprisingly enough is who the ads are targeted at. Commoners if you will.

Also, you have yet to point out these "false" claims. Which is a pretty big puzzle piece in your argument. Please, tell where you feel they are false. I don't think this should go any further without that data.

If you want to have a discussion, by all means we can do that. But be clear and offer up everything instead of being extremely ambiguous.

Hmm... I re-read my original post and the following ones and I see where I explained what I was refering to, so I am at a loss as to how you can say that I did not point them out...

But since you have asked, I will restate it...

Apple presents their Slacker as being superior to the Geek in many different ways, including the fact that the poor Geek has to undergo major surgery to use a new OS. One could argue that atleast the Geek CAN be upgraded to use a new OS, but that is not the point. So can a Mac. Because a Mac is just a PC too.

The problem here is that the Geek is not names "Windows" he is named "PC" when the actualy basis for the campaign is Windows. The Mac is a PC as well, so there is some question there too, but what really bothers me is that Apple is blatantly misrepresenting the issues.

Another one of the ads states (not suggests) that if you want to make a web site or a movie, or do music, well, you need a Mac because Mister PC admits he cannot do those things. Now do you believe that is truth?

The ads are fundamentally flawed because they use slight of hand to compare the Mac computer to Windows OS by presenting Windows as the PC. It is a seriously flawed approach because it uses compromised ethics. If Apple is willing to be so dishonestly smooth in its public ads, what else are they doing and not telling you?

C

[ChrisA]

If you don't like Apple and their products and their Ads. Just tell your new Mac loving client to find another consultant and don't take the job.

On the other hand, I think mot people who are stuck using a Windows PC only continue to use it for one of the folowing reasons
(1) Fear of having to learn something new
(2) They simply lack the money to buy anything better
(3) They are required to use it as a condition of employment
(5) They are hard core gamers

I think (1) and (2) explain about 80% of the world's computer users.

Having an Apple notebook pretty much means you don't fit into any of the above categories.

[elfin buddy]

You are welcome, but so far I have not been flamming.

Marketing uses exageration as a method for comparison and contrast, I understand that. But using untruth and calling it exaggeration strikes me as being spurious at best and intentionally dishonest at worse. I cannot believe that the people who approve that campaign at Apple are no aware of that. Nor can I believe that THEY believe the campaign is truthful and honest.

I believe that there is a difference between exagerating and lies. Illustration and untruth. Contrast and fraud. Is a Mac a PC? Answer me that, ok?

C

You are absolutely correct. There are indeed differences between exaggeration and lies, illustration and untruth, contrast and fraud. However, you have yet to show us precisely how this applies to Apple's commercials. Please do :)

Edit: In the time it took me to write this, you have pointed out a few things, but still nothing that I see qualifying as an outright lie. Very much open to personal interpretation.

Whether or not a Mac is a PC all depends on context and what you use as your definition of PC. Yes, a Mac is a personal computer. No, a Mac is not a PC in the sense of a generic box running MS Windows. No, the ads don't specifically state that Windows PCs are the intended target, but I think that should be pretty clear to anyone as technically qualified as yourself.


Yay for post #500! Six years in the making!

[yellow]

Another one of the ads states (not suggests) that if you want to make a web site or a movie, or do music, well, you need a Mac because Mister PC admits he cannot do those things. Now do you believe that is truth?

Was Microsoft's Butterfly ads any different?
It implied that getting to the "internet" was only possible with Microsoft Windows.
Did you have a cow over that one? I did.


Yay for post #500! Six years in the making!


Congrats, buddy!

[capefrostie]

Glad to know then that stealing a license doesn't render it invalid, at least in the good ol' USA! :p

A perfect example of intentionally mis-reading a line, bravo!

I have a copy of the OS with a license I paid for. I did not steal the license. As a license holder, it does not matter where I get the software from to install it because I can produce a valid license for that software.

If I were say to not want to open the box, I could use the media from another box or from a friend to install it. That would not make my copy invalid because I own a license to use that product.

But you knew what I meant.

C

[suneohair]

Hmm... I re-read my original post and the following ones and I see where I explained what I was refering to, so I am at a loss as to how you can say that I did not point them out...

But since you have asked, I will restate it...

Apple presents their Slacker as being superior to the Geek in many different ways, including the fact that the poor Geek has to undergo major surgery to use a new OS. One could argue that atleast the Geek CAN be upgraded to use a new OS, but that is not the point. So can a Mac. Because a Mac is just a PC too.

The problem here is that the Geek is not names "Windows" he is named "PC" when the actualy basis for the campaign is Windows. The Mac is a PC as well, so there is some question there too, but what really bothers me is that Apple is blatantly misrepresenting the issues.

Another one of the ads states (not suggests) that if you want to make a web site or a movie, or do music, well, you need a Mac because Mister PC admits he cannot do those things. Now do you believe that is truth?

The ads are fundamentally flawed because they use slight of hand to compare the Mac computer to Windows OS by presenting Windows as the PC. It is a seriously flawed approach because it uses compromised ethics. If Apple is willing to be so dishonestly smooth in its public ads, what else are they doing and not telling you?

C

Ok. The point of the Vista one is that you have to get new hardware in order to run Vista effectively. It has nothing to do with the ability to be upgraded. Of course both can do that, but Mac OS can scale back much further than Windows.

The ads are about PCs. Which just happen to be mostly Windows. PC today is taken to mean "Windows Computer." You don't see peopel buying Linux machines. Sure Dell is offering up Ubuntu now, but really. If you want to slice it up this way, whatever. But you are reaching on this one.

The PC can do it as easy as the Mac. Simple as that. There is no suite for Windows that allows one to quickly do what iLife can. Office 2007 is pushing that way, but I don't think it is there. I'm not exactly sure of the specific ad you are referring to, but I don't recall them saying "You can't so this on a PC." I could be wrong though. Please let me know which one it is so I can review it.

I don't follow you ending argument. Windows is PC. Argue all you want, but that is how it is. The Mac has "PC parts" but no one calls it a PC. It is a Mac. Just like most people call Windows computers PCs. There is no ethical breach here as Apple is using the terms people use everyday. Windows is their competition and that runs on "PCs" and for all intents and purposes Windows is PC.

[localoid]

... If Apple is willing to be so dishonestly smooth in its public ads, what else are they doing and not telling you?


Seriously, I think it's time to talk to your doctor about increasing/changing your meds if you're starting to worry about "what else they're doing and not telling you."

[gamac]

Troll: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

[ChrisA]

Hmm... I re-read my original post and the following ones and I see where I explained what I was refering to, so I am at a loss as to how you can say that I did not point them out...

But since you have asked, I will restate it...

Apple presents their Slacker as being superior to the Geek in many different ways, including the fact that the poor Geek has to undergo major surgery to use a new OS. One could argue that atleast the Geek CAN be upgraded to use a new OS, but that is not the point. So can a Mac. Because a Mac is just a PC too.

The problem here is that the Geek is not names "Windows" he is named "PC" when the actualy basis for the campaign is Windows. The Mac is a PC as well, so there is some question there too, but what really bothers me is that Apple is blatantly misrepresenting the issues.

Another one of the ads states (not suggests) that if you want to make a web site or a movie, or do music, well, you need a Mac because Mister PC admits he cannot do those things. Now do you believe that is truth?

The ads are fundamentally flawed because they use slight of hand to compare the Mac computer to Windows OS by presenting Windows as the PC. It is a seriously flawed approach because it uses compromised ethics. If Apple is willing to be so dishonestly smooth in its public ads, what else are they doing and not telling you?

C

Apple is trying to communicate. So they use words the target audience can understand. As much as we all know the word "PC" means a "Personal Computer" wich could even be a Sun SPARC (Yes I have a few SPARCs at home) but the average "Joe Consummer" really does not even know what and "operating system" is or does and can't tell yu were the OS ends and the hardware begins. It all just "PC". The is also the "rule" in advertizing to _never_ say the name of a competitor as it is always counter productive. So you need a stand in name. "PC" gets Apple's point across.

As for the point that you can't make a movie or web site or a photo book in a Windows PC well of course one can but I'd bet 95% of the target audience absolutely could not do those things using their current PC. Could those same people do so with a Mac? I doubt it but Apple does have a right to claim that their product works better

All ads are misleadiing. Look at all the health products that claim you can loose weight if only you spend some money first. That's silly. You loose weight by spending LESS money on food

[suneohair]

What is up with the influx of trolls? I wonder if this is the same guy who started the Gateway thread.

[TheAnswer]

Another one of the ads states (not suggests) that if you want to make a web site or a movie, or do music, well, you need a Mac because Mister PC admits he cannot do those things. Now do you believe that is truth?

Which ad is this again?...I've seen ads where PC said he prefers business stuff, that he hates fun, that he tried doing those things and he cried himself to sleep mode. But I must have missed the one where he said "I can't make a website or a movie or music". So which ad is that again (http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/)?

[capefrostie]

You create a thread you name: "Fear of Apple Corp Holding me Back" and then say:




You sound really conflicted. The only thing keeping you from buying a Mac is your "moral dilemma" that you yourself have created. The only thing "holding you back" are the voices in your head.

That is absolutely correct. You understood precisely what I was saying. Thank you.

What concerns me most I guess is not that Apple thinks we as consumers are so ignorant and unaware that they can misrepresent aspects of their product without worry that we might notice, but that they are willing to do it at all.

I understand my obligations as a consumer. I suspect that most people do not. For instance I am aware that by purchasing a product or being a customer of a business I am tacitly approving or and supporting their tactics no matter what they are. If I shop at Walmart I am supporting Walmart's right to lie to towns and misrepresent the impact that their store will have if they build one - and that is why I do not shop at Walmart.

Procter and Gamble test on animals. I am against animal testing. In a world of sophisticated computers and chemistry a lot of what they test for on animals could be done through simulation and in the lab using chemistry - but it is cheaper to do it on bunnies so they do it on bunnies. For that reason I do not purchase their products.

There are a number of companies I will not do business with. This is a personal choice, and one that I understand will not really make all that much of a difference to those companies. But at least *I* know that *I* have made a good moral choice and that I am not supporting them.

I am not sure what else I can do. Apple created this line of ads that no matter how you look at it are, at the best, heavy exaggeration. I have already illustrated what it could be viewed as at the worse.

Before I do business with them I need to understand why they did that. I do not lie to my customers. I do not tell my clients that they have problems that they do not have, and I *never* make up potential problems just to beef up a contract. I treat them with honesty and I expect that from them. So far none have failed to return the consideration I have shown them and none of violated that basic trust. If one did, that would be the end of my relationship with them.

Perhaps it is a decision that I need to make, but desiring other opinions on a subject is not a bad thing. I have read what other people have said. After discounting the people who obviously see this as an attack on Apple, and after ignoring the sarcastic replies that just want to argue, I am left with a general consensus that the ads are not intended to be malicious in their falsity. Does that make a difference to me?

I suppose it does.

It still bothers me that Apple would choose the path that it did, and the half-truths that they use are also naggingly annoying, but that is not going to stop me from purchasing the notebook.

C

[AutumnSkyline]

It's "it's", not "its". :D

:P Why thank you, I wasn't paying attention.

[capefrostie]

If you don't like Apple and their products and their Ads. Just tell your new Mac loving client to find another consultant and don't take the job.

On the other hand, I think mot people who are stuck using a Windows PC only continue to use it for one of the folowing reasons
(1) Fear of having to learn something new
(2) They simply lack the money to buy anything better
(3) They are required to use it as a condition of employment
(5) They are hard core gamers

I think (1) and (2) explain about 80% of the world's computer users.

Having an Apple notebook pretty much means you don't fit into any of the above categories.

It's not about like or dislike - I don't know Apple, we have never been introduced in a formal way. Apple may be a fine guy, but he sure plays fast and loose with the way he represents himself.

Beyond that, why do I have to hate?

C

[suneohair]

It's not about like or dislike - I don't know Apple, we have never been introduced in a formal way. Apple may be a fine guy, but he sure plays fast and loose with the way he represents himself.

Beyond that, why do I have to hate?

C

404 hate not found

[capefrostie]

Ok. The point of the Vista one is that you have to get new hardware in order to run Vista effectively. It has nothing to do with the ability to be upgraded. Of course both can do that, but Mac OS can scale back much further than Windows.

The ads are about PCs. Which just happen to be mostly Windows. PC today is taken to mean "Windows Computer." You don't see peopel buying Linux machines. Sure Dell is offering up Ubuntu now, but really. If you want to slice it up this way, whatever. But you are reaching on this one.

The PC can do it as easy as the Mac. Simple as that. There is no suite for Windows that allows one to quickly do what iLife can. Office 2007 is pushing that way, but I don't think it is there. I'm not exactly sure of the specific ad you are referring to, but I don't recall them saying "You can't so this on a PC." I could be wrong though. Please let me know which one it is so I can review it.

I don't follow you ending argument. Windows is PC. Argue all you want, but that is how it is. The Mac has "PC parts" but no one calls it a PC. It is a Mac. Just like most people call Windows computers PCs. There is no ethical breach here as Apple is using the terms people use everyday. Windows is their competition and that runs on "PCs" and for all intents and purposes Windows is PC.

OK you *can* represent it that way I suppose but even that does not bare out a hundred percent true - life is too subjective and you cannot count on what you think you know with any real confidence. Here is an example:

I have a brand new HP Notebook that has a sticker on it that says it is Vista Ready - but that will not allow anything OTHER than Vista Home be installed on it. Try to install any other version and it freezes up and crashes. So, is it Vista Ready? HP thinks to, becuase it WILL allow you to install Vista Home.

We can split hairs all day, we can redefine what is this and what is that. So I am asking you simply this:

If you take a Mac with NOTHING installed to its hard drive, and a PC with NOTHING installed to its hard drive, are they both PC's?

C

[Blue Velvet]

I have a brand new HP Notebook


So HP's ethics didn't bother you at all then?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/19/AR2006091901632.html

The Hewlett-Packard Co. spying effort that has sparked criminal investigations was wide-ranging and included physical surveillance, photographs and spyware sent via e-mail, and it also targeted wives and other relatives of HP board members and reporters, according to a consultant's report prepared for the company.

[jklps]

If you don't like Apple and their products and their Ads. Just tell your new Mac loving client to find another consultant and don't take the job.

This is all that matters - with choosing which type of computer to support/buy, or of choosing whom you interact in your personal life..

Why people find this so hard to figure out, I'll never know why.

[TheAnswer]

If you take a Mac with NOTHING installed to its hard drive, and a PC with NOTHING installed to its hard drive, are they both PC's?

C

PC:

Past Commander - nope
personal computer - checks definition - yup
Police Constable - not last time I checked
politically correct - depends on your point of view, I guess
Post Commander - negatory
Prince Consort - I don't think it's HRH Mac, so no
Privy Council - nope

BTW, I think "Mac" even states he's a PC in the Touché ad.

[capefrostie]

So HP's ethics didn't bother you at all then?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/19/AR2006091901632.html

Well considering you chose as your forum name the name of an alcoholic beverage that was in its era along with the Singapore Sling the prefered daterape beverage I have to wonder who is asking that question?

There, see, other people can take unrelated facts and use them as reasons to call you into question too.

C

[WannaGoMac]

it is really easy. Don't do business with them and get a nice Linux or Windows computer.

Phew, sort of a pointless thread here. You're looking for people to help solve your personal moral crisis about a computer purchase???

LOL, uh not sure which is worse, that you have so much time on your hands to ask for psychological counseling about a COMPUTER PURCHASE, or that I read about 50% of this thread. :eek: Yep, I am definitely the worse one.

[MagicUK]

Ok I didn't even finish reading the original post but with 4 pages of responses I can certainly say "like fish in a barrell"

[WannaGoMac]

Ok I didn't even finish reading the original post but with 3 pages of responses I can certainly say "like fish in a barrell"

Please lock this thread :)

[rdowns]

What the thread is about is whether or not to trust Apple because of the lies they use for their advertising.



And what did you expect to gain by posting this pedantic crap on a Mac forum. People here trust Apple (probably moreso than other fan boys) and by and large, don't view the ads as lies. In fact, IMO, the ads target the average PC user and are pretty much spot on.

I do owe you a bigh thank you. THis was a very enjoyable read over lunch and WAY MORE INTERESTING than all the inane iPhone threads.

Oh yeah, I drank a Dr. Pepper for lunch and I am not a pepper. Damn liars.

[Blue Velvet]

Well considering you chose as your forum name the name of an alcoholic beverage that was in its era along with the Singapore Sling the prefered daterape beverage I have to wonder who is asking that question?



Er. What? You are just trolling... It's the name of a film, a still of which is featured in my avatar, and which also has nothing to do with the subject of this thread at all.

Nice avoidance of the issue there. Way to avoid the question by turning it on me.

You went out and bought an HP laptop without the slightest regard for the company's ethics, completely unaware that your ridiculous and inconsistent stated stance has now laid you open to all sorts of accusations of hypocrisy.

This is not a word I use very often at all, but you are so pwned. ;)

[AutumnSkyline]

Please lock this thread :)

I second this.

[jsw]

This can go nowhere good.

Apple markets its products. Other companies market their products. It's part of this thing we call capitalism. If you don't like the product, don't buy it, but this smells of outside influence.