New Mac Ads

these ads may be a bit more controversial then PC ads but at least they are funnier and are a more enteraning advertsiment.

 

The point is, there is more to the different in the security models of Mac OS X/Linux/UNIX and Windows than the simple "Security through Obscurity" argument (which is a canard). The fact is the UNIX security model is old, proven and strong. You don't get a 100,000-1 (wild estimate) Windows:EVerything Else virus ratio just by having the larger part of the market.

 

While I agree this could be a good thing, I don't think it should be taken as seriously as it is.

For example, Mac OS 9 had a lower user percentage but it had many viruses.

 

"The suit" sorta looks like John Hodgman to me...

Probably isn't though.

 

Can someone please upload it to YouTube?

My network is horrible with embedded quicktimes.

 

It is.

 

They already did. Take a look back a page or two.

 

i didn't.

the idea is faulty logic. also, if more share meant more attacks, apache would be the most attacked web server. but MS's IIS is. it is that simple. bad software gets hit, even with just a few copies running, secure stuff will also get attacked, yes, but far far less.

 

Uh-oh... we crashed that guy's .Mac address.

Scooby-Doo, where are you?

 

Goodbye Bandwidth! The commercials were OK, I believe they could have done better...

 

If anyone actually has the videos, I have bandwidth provided for by Google. Quote me and I'll give you my IM. I have the virus one up on my website at:

johnson.das.googlepages.com

 

Yeah, like the boot beep virus. Wow so scary.

 

I feel like I'm back in the 90s

 

These ads are embarrassing.

My $.02.

 

Same here.

Along with the crappiness of the ad, why don't they just put "apple.com" instead of "Mac?" "Apple.com" would give Apple a lot more hits... People would probably see the ad and say "Okay, it's a Mac!" They might not relate it to Apple.

 

More importantly, according to MacWorld, it could not spread on the Internet at ALL even when it WAS out there! It could only spread itself on a LAN, and only in rare circumstances.

So those who few people who got it downloaded it manually--NOT by the viruses ability to spread itself... which is what makes a virus a virus.

Of course, articles appearing today on CNN and Yahoo and everywhere conveniently fail to mention this.

Just like they fail to mention that this is NOT a second similar "attack," it's the SAME story from weeks ago now being raised again, with no mention of it being the same event! (You do have to wonder about that timing.)

And yet the "many" you refer to was nothing like Windows faces, even per installed base at the time. It was a drop in the bucket, especially if you look at INTERNET viruses, rather than old classic Mac floppy viruses

 

Bump...I would also like an answer to this. Some hip phrase all the kids are using? I have no idea.

 

I'll donate 25gb of mine:

http://www.rednek.net/media/new-apple-ad.mov (virus one)
http://www.rednek.net/media/new-apple-ad(wsj).mov (wall street journal one)

 

If PCs have a 95% market share and Macs 5%, then if you're going with the more numbers = more viruses obviously macs should have at least 5% of the viruses. But that's not the case. It's no secret that Mac users gloat about no viruses and I'd assume that the hacker crowd would want to shut us up too. Which is probably why oompa/a was written. Two bad 2 systems catching it doesn't make it viable.

 

Fair enough -- it's clear that the virus-free sheen is getting a bit tarnished, what with the recent (although totally misleading) AP story about Mac viruses.

It just reminds me of the burger business: BK's flame broiling system is actually much safer than McD's frying, because the broiler fixes the cooking time whereas the frying is timed by a greasy kid. So BK's burgers are much less likely to give you food poisoning -- but it's not a 0% chance. So they don't really advertise it. It's just not good business to say "You're less likely to get sick from our food -- but no guarantees!"

It's true that today there's little chance of "turning consumers off to computing" in general (like you could with fast food).

But I'm still skeptical.

 

The news is about giving to you what the audience wants to hear and timing it in such a way that it hits the audience the hardest. When the audience is "hit," they're more likely to continue using that station or site for their news. Today's audience wants to hear about something that was thought of as a pristinely clean, well-defended fortress of an OS getting something so terrible as a virus. The whole notion of something we previously thought of as 100% safe as not so much hits us much harder than "well, it was a bad thing, but not really a virus because..." The good thing a consumer should do is, when they hear something that shocks them, put more research into it. Like the Oomp/A thing, if you put a little extra non-news-stations research into it, you get a better understanding.

 

Mac is also aqua(ish) and sexy.

Whereas PC is ordinary, suit and tie, routinized love making.

 

Hey guys sorry but I'm at my limit. I've helped you so far now the people with youtube and google need to pick up the slack. I got the videos for you but nothing more I can do, except buy more bandwidth, which I don't really feel like doing.

Sorry.

-Brian

 

Justin Long (Mac) is also a lot friendlier and seems like a nicer guy, while John Hodgman (PC) seems a bit cold, and, well, annoying.

So businessman, boring, old, not in good health = PC
Casual, friendly, helpful, in good health = Mac