Apple's 'Get a Mac' Commercials Discontinued?

[Truffy]

I agree with a lot of the sentiment here: important for their time, but that time has passed; getting a bit tired now; and I wonder whether this is another signal that Apple's moving away from 'traditional' computers to toys for gadget freaks and techo-dweebs. I do hope not!

 

[Nostromo]

I liked the ads, but it's a good move.

Stop doing it before people get fed up with it.

Also: the Vista bonus has expired. You can't really make fun of Windows 7. And that's what this series of ads was based on: the catastrophic failures of Vista.

 

[Wolfpup]

No, that's not true or else the iPhone would be attacked night and day the way Windows is. It's not market share, it's software architecture. Linux and OS X have a better foundation than Windows. It's harder to get something to be effective on the Mac side because it requires user permission to propagate. On the Windows side, they can just take over with the user never noticing.

That's completely false. You don't understand how either the OSes or the exploits work to be claiming things like that. Windows and OS X are both vulnerable to the exact same types of attacks, and both require your permission to do anything...provided the attack doesn't take advantage of a way around that. The situation is literally identical for both OSes.

One difference is Microsoft is actually fairly open about what's going on. FAR more so than Apple. It's less common with Microsoft that they sit on an exploit for six months or whatever before fixing it.

Examples please?

This wasn't in response to me, but just off the top of my head, the stability issues and exploits stand out. Probably a lot of others too.

It's funny how the haters keep clinging to this "Apple ads lie!" chestnut, yet if it were true you know Microsoft would have filed a lawsuit

You have WIIIIIDE leeway in what you can claim before you can be sued. That doesn't mean anything.

(and no one here ever seems to be able to provide any concrete examples).

Actually it's incredibly easy, and I and others already have.

Enjoy your Microsoft-induced delusion.

Dude...seriously? You need to calm down and actually look at the facts. Windows is every bit as stable, every bit as secure as OS X. The ONLY advantage OS X has is it's a much smaller target.

 

[kernkraft]

Finally!

Thanks God! They were so smug and annoying that it made owning Macs embarrassing.

Their lethal legacy is this stupid Mac - PC divide that is just wrong and immoral, if we consider how many PCs and Macs fail to live up to the stereotypes.

So thank you, but I'm not a PC and I'm not a Mac. I'm an actual human being. But I might have said that already...

 

[capvideo]

They should do a farewell ad with the two of them laying back on a couch playing Nintendo.

 

[DMann]

That's completely false. You don't understand how either the OSes or the exploits work to be claiming things like that. Windows and OS X are both vulnerable to the exact same types of attacks, and both require your permission to do anything...provided the attack doesn't take advantage of a way around that. The situation is literally identical for both OSes.

One difference is Microsoft is actually fairly open about what's going on. FAR more so than Apple. It's less common with Microsoft that they sit on an exploit for six months or whatever before fixing it.



This wasn't in response to me, but just off the top of my head, the stability issues and exploits stand out. Probably a lot of others too.



You have WIIIIIDE leeway in what you can claim before you can be sued. That doesn't mean anything.



Actually it's incredibly easy, and I and others already have.



Dude...seriously? You need to calm down and actually look at the facts. Windows is every bit as stable, every bit as secure as OS X. The ONLY advantage OS X has is it's a much smaller target.

Your claims that both OS X and Windows are vulnerable to the same kinds of attacks are, however, not true.

In fact, your claims would be downright false, while comparing the two OSs during the first six years of this decade.

For your perusal: The reality of Macs and Malware

"....On the Mac platform for example, there have been several attempts at “proof of concepts” to make a Virus. However, due to technical and/or security barriers, these “proof of concept” viruses have never been able to propagate “in the wild”. This of course renders them completely ineffective and thereby nullifies their existence as a security threat."

Security through obscurity


"The first reason listed, “small market share”, is by far the most common answer by people (qualified or otherwise) who comment on the topic. This answer is sometimes called “security through obscurity” and this response is especially popular with Windows users. Many Windows users would like to think that Macs are just as vulnerable as PCs. This reasoning continues by suggesting that the smaller user base makes Macs less viable targets.
While there is some truth to this line of thinking, it’s a bit short sighted. On one hand, it’s a fair argument to suggest that viruses are created with the intention of gaining monetary value or wreaking the most amount of havoc as possible. With this mind set, targeting the Mac user base (less than 10% of the overall PC population) would be of little value. However, it’s more likely that Macs would have fewer viruses if this were the case rather than no viruses at all. Other motivations for creating viruses have historically been just for bragging rights amongst the “hacker” population. Imagine the notoriety that would go with being first to create a legitimate Mac virus! Further evidence to debunk this claim would be the “classic” Mac OS (Mac OS 9.x and below) had up to 60 viruses (depending on the source) over the years. Clearly, the classic Mac OS was less of a target, but it was a target and there were viruses for that platform. Similarly, there have been virus attempts for Mac OS X, but they have been unsuccessful due to technical & security limitations built into core of the operating system. As such, it’s fair to suggest that Apple’s relatively low market share makes the Mac less of a target as compared to Windows PCs. However, those who suggest this is the only reason are simply mistaken as logic would dictate otherwise."

Stronger UNIX based file system and kernel


"Clearly, Apple’s stronger UNIX based file system and kernel have helped Mac OS X’s security reputation. If nothing else, the documented “virus attempts” would have been successful viruses were it not for this level of security. Arguably, this might be the only reason we haven’t seen a successful Mac OS X virus.....

Dude...seriously? You need to calm down and actually look at the facts. Windows is every bit as stable, every bit as secure as OS X. The ONLY advantage OS X has is it's a much smaller target.

As far as stability is concerned, having worked extensively with both platforms, and after tens of thousands of dollars a year lost due to downtime, I would have to disagree.

 

[Wolfpup]

Your claims that both OS X and Windows are vulnerable to the same kinds of attacks are, however, not true.

Yes they are. Listen to something like SecurityNow, or any other legitimate source of security info if you actually want to know more.

If you followed security news, you'd know that OS X suffers from the EXACT same types of attacks, and in fact sometimes literally the exact same attack (other than the payload would have to be different). In fact one Java exploit that affected both Windows, Linux, and OS X was patched within days on Windows and Linux, while Apple left it open for over 6 months, and didn't bother fixing it until last summer. Was it ever actually used on OS X? I don't know, but there's absolutely no reason it couldn't have been.

While Apple doesn't document what they're doing well at all compared to Microsoft, every point update (and the security updates) are fixing exactly the same types of issues that would give an attacker control of the system.

<<<Stronger UNIX based file system and kernel
>>>

OS X doesn't use a Unix file system, the file system is totally irrelevant, and Unix is no more invulnerable to attacks than NT is. Now DOS/Windows 9x was more vulnerable, but that's a moot point as at the same time Apple was selling a similarly vulnerable OS.

At any rate, you need to to quit looking for 'sources' that validate what you want to believe. When someone tells you something like, as you quote:

"Clearly, Apple’s stronger UNIX based file system and kernel have helped Mac OS X’s security reputation.

You need to realize that person doesn't know what they're talking about, or does, but has an agenda.

Again, I would highly recommend something like Steve Gibson's SecurityNow, if you'd actually like to understand the architecture of a modern OS and how exploits are used.

 

[bertman]

Leaked: Final "Get A Mac" Commercial Script

There IS one more commercial. This was leaked today from a source at Apple's ad agency:


[PC with back to camera, hunched over a laptop. Enter Mac.]

Mac: Hey, PC. [PC startled, spins around] What have you got there?

PC: Oh, Mac, uh, nothing, uh...

Mac: Is that a [looking with amazement] new MacBook Pro?

PC: Oh, its... [PC tries to block Mac's view, but it's obviously too late.]

Mac: PC. Have you... [Mac blinks, gaze rises to meet PC's eyes]
switched? [Continues gazing at PC.]

PC: [softly] Y... yes.

[Mac and PC continue their eye lock as tears well up in their eyes.
Tightening their facial muscles, they step towards each other in a
deep embrace, each allowing small sobs to escape.]

Mac: [Just above a whisper] Welcome.

PC: [Sobbing with emotion] It feels so GOOD!

Mac: Welcome, friend. [Continue to gently rock back and forth in the embrace.]

[Apple Logo.]


- Credit: Laugh-A-Lot.com May be re-posted with this credit, thanks.

 

[Trek2100]

Let's start the "I'm an iPad, I'm a netbook" series with Roma Downey (Touched by an Angel) as an iPad and Clint Eastwood as a netbook.

 

[Nostromo]

Thanks God! They were so smug and annoying that it made owning Macs embarrassing.

Their lethal legacy is this stupid Mac - PC divide that is just wrong and immoral, if we consider how many PCs and Macs fail to live up to the stereotypes.

So thank you, but I'm not a PC and I'm not a Mac. I'm an actual human being. But I might have said that already...

As most Apple products are no longer computers, I'm curious what the next campaign will be.

 

[DMann]

As most Apple products are no longer computers, I'm curious what the next campaign will be.

"SmartPads for the Rest of the Rest of Us."

 

[cwwilson]

One of the few ads I actually didn't mind watching but it's every dog has its day.

It seems these days Apple really are only concerned with iPhone/iPod touch/iPad and have all but abandoned the Mac commercials. Before the "Get a Mac" ads, the last one for a Mac I remember seeing was the Power Mac G5 where the guys gets on the computer and is blown out of his house lol.

Perhaps we will see some new Macbook Pro ads when the new ones are launched but I'm not expecting them.

 

[DMann]

Yes they are. Listen to something like SecurityNow, or any other legitimate source of security info if you actually want to know more.

Legitimate source of security info?

Without an Agenda?

You need to realize that person doesn't know what they're talking about, or does, but has an agenda.

How is it that you can accuse Steve Seidel, a Technology Education Professor, of having an agenda, while recommending Steve Gibson's at SecurityNow, who would be much more likely to have an agenda related to security software?

If you followed security news, you'd know that OS X suffers from the EXACT same types of attacks, and in fact sometimes literally the exact same attack (other than the payload would have to be different).

OS X suffers from the exact same types of attacks?

Your fantasies have deluded you now.

Unix is no more invulnerable to attacks than NT is.

Would you, then, care to explain the swiss-cheese security debacle, known as Windows XP?

Nine years, and OS X is without one single, solitary virus 'in the wild.'

Would you also care to explain that, knowing that there were thousands of viruses in the wild for OS 9, all the while it had a comparable market share?

You need to realize that person doesn't know what they're talking about, or does, but has an agenda.

While you're making such accusations, would you care to specify the agenda Steve Seidel is allegedly carrying out?

Again, I would highly recommend something like Steve Gibson's SecurityNow, if you'd actually like to understand the architecture of a modern OS and how exploits are used.

Again, I would suspect a director of a 'Security' Site for having an agenda before anyone else.

I've grown tired of churning security software 24/7, and quite frankly, could care less why OS X is more secure - the fact is, by comparison, it is.

I've slept better ever since moving to OS X completely, thank you.