And there would be you and I7guy swallowing every single marketing article Apple spits out without even a single question as to its accuracy or intention. It's almost like people interpreting meaningless numbers like this is and has always been a thing.
Seeing as we’re talking about the EXACT same service, one that one company was able to continue and one that wasn’t, that’s pretty clearly business incompetence.
I’m sure Apple is why MySpace isn’t around anymore.
You sure like having Apple act as your software nanny, don't you?
Well, given the choice of Apple being the software nanny or the government…
You're not the only one who serviced Apple machines in the 90's, fella. And your claim is absolute bull.
A multi-billion dollar corporation that answers only to shareholders vs. a democratic institution that answers to voters?
I really doubt that there is a such thing as "false positives" when it comes to compiling the numbers for this kind of marketing publication.
Actually my point was the exact opposite. I pointed out that back when the Mac marketshare was less than today there were a lot of viruses on the Mac. John Norstad's Disinfectant and Gatekeeper support was from 1989 to 1998 and were created because there was a problem. Their very existence and the documentation that came with them shows that even when the Mac marketshare was small there was malware on the Mac.
Kind of proves my point doesn't it? If you think about it trojans and social engineering are far easier methods of delivery than your run of the mill virus.
"The pain was just beginning. On top of the lost profits, costs associated with the breach topped $200 million by mid-February 2014. These costs would rise significantly due to bank reimbursement demands, regulatory fines, and direct customer service costs. About 90 lawsuits were filed, leading to massive lawyer bills."
That is not the same thing - that was a data breach that cost them over $200M in the end including having to reimburse banks for the fraudulent charges.
Literally hundreds of fraudulent transactions w/ people trying to use stolen credit cards, SS numbers, etc, at several i-device launches. Those were just the ones caught at the merchant level.
Intentionally misinforming? No not at all but I do think Apple (as with any company really) will put numbers out to show them in the most positive light they can.
Oh please. How, pray tell, is a user supposed to know that a bonafide app from a respectable developer hasn't been infected with an upstream supply-chain attack unbeknownst to the dev? Apple may not catch them all but they're going to be a whole lot better at it than pretty much every end user (and as these kinds of attacks become more pervasive -- witness last week's CrateDepression -- probably better than developers themselves).
It wasn't the banks that $18.5 million went to: "Target will pay $18.5 million to 47 states and the District of Columbia as part of a settlement with state attorneys general over a huge security breach that compromised the data of millions of customers."
I never once said Apple was lying. I said that this was marketing material without any backup and should be taken with a grain of salt.