Musings from Mars Banner Image
For Software Addicts: Yes!MaybeNah!
News Posts In Category <em>   FUD Propaganda</em>

News Posts In Category FUD Propaganda

September 1st, 2012

Apple v. Samsung: The True Story

Apple v. Samsung. Everyone who thinks Samsung got shafted and/or that the decision was wrong should read this excellent article. It's not an opinion piece, by the way: It's full of actual facts about various patent cases and about the Samsung decisionmaking that the jury was presented with. Clearly, Samsung made a conscious choice to copy the iPhone, and they succeeded. Wildly. Apple was right to take them to court to protect their intellectual property rights, and the jury was right to decide in their favor. If you're on the fence about the decision, this one will definitely tip you over to Apple's side.
    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
April 19th, 2009

Microsoft’s ‘Apple tax’ claims are ’stupid,’ counters analyst

Microsoft's 'Apple tax' claims are 'stupid,' counters analyst. Microsoft is still trying to convince the world that Macs are too expensive and not worth the price. This article makes a good argument why, even when Macs actually are more expensive, they are a significantly better value. Remember, price alone does not determine the value of a product. If it did, we'd all be buying no-name-brand TVs, home entertainment equipment, and other household appliances. There's a huge difference in using Mac OS X versus Windows, and that--along with the entire suite of Apple software that comes with it--is the key differentiator that Microsoft would like you to forget (or remain ignorant about).
    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
January 8th, 2009

Microsoft Still Spreading Apple FUD on Prices

Microsoft bangs 'Apple tax' drum once again

Anyone who thinks there is a "new" Microsoft, one that isn't primarily interested in cornering even more of its monopoly markets, should heed the bullcrap this Microsoft spokesperson dished out the day before MacWorld. A couple of quick points here...

  • Microsoft Office is outrageously priced considering the paltry amount Microsoft spends in its production. If it didn't hold a monopoly of the office productivity market, the price would be down near where Apple's iWork suite now is... $49!
  • Microsoft charges way more for its operating system than is warranted by costs. Again, it gets away with this because it holds a monopoly on business desktops. For the business edition of Vista, Amazon.com has a discounted price of $250 (regularly $300), whereas Mac OS X Leopard (which isn't crippled like the "home" versions of Vista) runs $110 for a single license or $145 for a 5-pack.
  • Microsoft also gets away with charging outrageous amounts for developers to play in their party. To get the bare minimum necessary for developing with Microsoft's tools, you have to shell out $2,500. For Apple? Zero, zilch. And that's for the entire enchilada, including the iPhone dev tools.

Now, who's actually charging a tax here? Seems very obvious to me.

    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
November 14th, 2008

iPhone Races Past Blackberry to No. 2 in SmartPhones

Apple edges out RIM to take No. 2 spot in smart phones Well, this must be a surprise to even the most ardent believes in Apple's new computing platform. Now, if you count folks like me, who use the iPod Touch, the OS X mobile operating system probably beats out Nokia's #1 slot. The fact that it has already surpassed Windows Mobile is also astonishing. Of course, Steve Ballmer says this is a temporary setback... one that will disappear by next year. As I recall, he said the same thing about the iPod a few years back, as well as iTunes, as well as ... anything Apple produces that competes with MS. Does that guy really believe his own FUD?
    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
September 23rd, 2008

Microsoft IT Shops Upset At Apple’s “Patch Process”

Apple's patch process a mess, say researchers - Computerworld

This is clearly a case of limited-brain humans thinking that something different is something bad. Also a bit of Microsoft-minded FUD here, with statements about Mac OS X's "aging code base" (huh?) and Microsoft being "way ahead" of Apple in its security-patching (huh?).

Why should a company like Apple, which has never had even a minor security incident affecting its users, follow the lead of a company like Microsoft, which defined the way to Not build a secure operating system?

    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
August 12th, 2008

Phishing and Safari (Part 2): A Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing

Consumer Reports urges Mac users to dump Safari, cites lack of phishing protection

And to think I used to like Consumer Reports!

They keep writing me to "come back" and resubscribe, but I've told them that won't happen until they become objective and truly knowledgeable about the Mac... at least as knowledgeable as they are about Windows PCs.

And now, it turns out they're recommending that Mac users "dump Safari," which just happens to be the best web browser on the Mac platform. Oh, and since this article also appears on ZDNet, while other industry journals gave it little play, I begin to conclude that ZDNet is a rats nest of Microsoft zealots.

So, here's the little note I left them today about their latest phishing/Safari scare tactic:

There is nothing in common between phishing and viruses, adware, spyware, or other malware. Phishing is just an old-fashioned scam dressed up in new HTML clothing. Consumers need to be educated about it, and no anti-phishing technology is going to save them. For one thing, most phishing schemes come to consumers through their email client, not their browsers.

Oh, and 6 or 7 years ago, why didn't Consumer Reports advise Windows users to ditch IE? That would have been the single best way for them to avoid Internet malware, but I never heard them do such a thing. The phishing problem pales in comparison to the security nightmares we experienced after IE6 was released (and before SP2), and which millions of Windows users continue to experience today. Active/X is the most dangerous technology out there as far as security is concerned, but is MS being pressured to remove it from IE?

Unfortunately, I don't think we've heard the last of this... At least, until Apple goes ahead and joins the other browsers in adding "anti-phishing technology" to Safari. Like I noted above, it really makes a lot more sense to add this capability to users' mail clients, since phishing is just a form of junk mail in the end.

    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
August 12th, 2008

Phishing and Safari (Part 1): A Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing

ZDNet: iPhone vulnerable to phishing, spamming flaws

There has lately been a rash of articles about how "insecure" Safari is because it has no anti-phishing mechanism. Frankly, I think this is a bunch of hogwash. It's an attempt to show how lax Apple is about security, and, by implication, how great Microsoft is.

It's not that I don't think phishing is a serious problem... I do! It's just that phishing is not a security issue, which is how the anti-Apple, pro-Microsoft (and pro-Firefox) zealots are trying to portray it.

Here's the comment I left on ZDNet's site about this article, dated 7/23/08:

Phishing scams are very bad, but they are not the same as viruses or malware that gets installed on your operating system. Not even in the same category. They are simply a sophisticated con, and unfortunately there are a lot of naive, clueless web users who will click on any link they're offered. Then again, I know people who are so paranoid they won't click on any link in an email at all... even if it comes from a trusted source (like a friend). I'm not at all convinced that anti-phishing software will work any better than junk-mail filters have, though I understand the need to try.

All you guys who are so hot to jump on Apple need to at least know what you're talking about. Though the companies who make money on security vulnerabilities like to lump phishing in with "security" flaws, in my opinion they aren't. Why? Because they pose no threat to the integrity of your computer or to your network.

Later, in reply to a reader who thought I was kidding with this opinion, I wrote:

Of course it's bothersome... on the same plane as the scum who trick old ladies out of their social security checks by conning them into some phony investment.

Phishing is more insidious, but if you have an ounce of common sense, it's easily avoided.

Not so with viruses and spyware, which can invade your system without any action on your part... not even clicking on a link. If following a link loads a virus, that's not phishing, defined as [blockquote] the activity of defrauding an online account holder of financial information by posing as a legitimate company[/blockquote].

My point is, phishing is not so much a security liability as it is a privacy issue... Phishing amounts to identity theft.

I'm not arguing that phishing isn't a serious concern that needs to be addressed. But I'm saying it's not a security issues in that it doesn't install software on your system, invade your network, or propagate itself to others.

I am arguing that it's more like spam, which is likewise a serious problem that can lead individuals to dangerous websites or tempt them into bad decisions. Like spam, I'm doubtful that any software solution to eradicate phishing is possible.

In this light, the urgency to correct a phishing vulnerability is much lower than that to correct a security vulnerability, and the fact that such a vulnerability exists should not alarm users to the same degree.

Turns out this "phishing" scam isn't over with the iPhone or Safari. See more of my ranting in Part 2 of this topic.

    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
July 21st, 2008

A Desperate Microsoft Tries To Talk the iPhone To Death

Microsoft: Forget iPhone; we're still No. 2 in business

After having failed in its attempt to stop Apple's success with the iPod, Microsoft is trying the same failed strategy again with the iPhone> Talk the thing out of existence. After having failed in its attempt to stop Apple's success with the iPod, Microsoft is trying the same failed strategy again with the iPhone

Seriously, how long has Microsoft been making mobile devices (phones or Palm-killers)? And how long has Apple been making them? Is it any wonder that Microsoft has a lead in this market? Likewise, it's no surprise that there are fewer iPhone apps at this point... it's been less than a month since Apple opened the iPhone app store! I also wonder how easy it is to install apps on your Windows Mobile device compared with the iPhone.

Speaking of apps, I don't know where the Microsoft spokesman is getting his figures. If you visit Microsoft's "Certified Software" at Windows Mobile Catalog website, you'll be surprised how few there really are. I did a quick tally of the Windows Mobile software (the site also lists software Pocket PC), and there are only 41 applications available... all but 6 of which are non-business-related. (There are perhaps 50% more apps for the Pocket PC platform... which means maybe 60-70.)

Microsoft's spokesman Rockfeld is engaging in the typical Microsoft strategy (It's called "lying"), since in less than a month, Apple has more than 10 times as many "certified" apps available for its mobile phone than Microsoft does. This despite the fact that Windows Mobile has been on the market for about 3 years now. I'm sure some reader will say, "But there are tons of Windows Mobile apps that aren't in Microsoft's catalog." To which I'll reply, "Yes, but that means they aren't certified to run on the platform." If Microsoft thought those apps were worth adding to its mobile platforms, don't you think they'd do so?

I've been using a Samsung Q1Ultra with Windows XP on it today, and I never want to touch the thing again. Compared with the iPhone, its touch interface is unbelievably clumsy, and I never did figure out how to adjust its screen brightness so I could use it on battery power. The pen is also horrible... I don't know about Windows Mobile, but on this thing, clicking inside a control is not sufficient. You have to make sure the cursor is there as well. Given these tiny controls, I can't imagine how anyone who's used an iPhone would ever be happy using this.

Microsoft is just desperate, since both RIM and Apple have better mobile devices than it does. This kind of Microsoft PR rubbish is simply not worth publishing, and Computerworld should exercise some judgment before merely passing baloney along to its readers.

    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
March 28th, 2008

Mac Hack Makes for Good Headlines, But…

Gone in 2 minutes: Mac gets hacked first in contest The fact remains that neither I nor any other Mac user has ever had our machine infected with a virus, a worm, or any of the numerous forms of malware that Windows users have suffered from since 2001, when Mac OS X was released. The single biggest risks users have faced online during this period are (a) running Windows XP, (b) running Internet Explorer, and (c) running Microsoft email software. Why? Microsoft has called it various things over the years, but I know it best as Active/X. Microsoft argued in the aborted antitrust trial that tying IE tightly to the OS was in the best interests of consumers. Right. It certainly has been good for IT security firms. Heck, this gave rise to an entire industry that would never have existed without Microsoft's highly vulnerable system, and it made consumers and businesses spend billions of dollars on antivirus/antimalware software to combat the problem. Plus it created a generation of people who are afraid to use the web to the fullest, and who are neurotically suspicious of hyperlinks in emails... even when they come from people they know and trust.

Even if you believe these things would have happened if Apple's OS held the monopoly (which is a demonstrably false opinion), the burden of computer security has fallen exclusively on Windows users over the last 7 years. Exclusively... not just 90-95% of the burden. I have never spent a dime on security software or subscriptions, nor have I spent a moment worrying about going online. I've never had my machine hijacked by malware, or had my browser go haywire because I visited the "wrong" website. I take sensible precautions about suspicious emails, and I don't download files from suspicious websites.

If someone has developed a true exploit for hacking Mac OS X, I'm sure it'll be quickly squashed by Apple. And one or two such exploits in 7 years is a far more intelligent risk than dealing with thousands of such exploits a year over that period, don't you think?

    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
October 29th, 2007

Computerworld Publishes “I Hate Macs” By Staffer/Blogger

I hate Macs - Computerworld Blogs

It’s been awhile since I read anything so asinine it got me riled up enough to write about it. I couldn’t believe the guy ranted on for a whole column without offering one shred of evidence or fact for his apparently deep-seated hatred of Apple, Steve Jobs, and all things Mac. This, my friends, is prejudice, pure and simple. How is “prejudice” defined?

PREJUDICE:
preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

Precisely. How such a rant ends up in a technology journal that wants to be taken seriously is beyond me. As a Martian, it’s just one more piece of evidence that you humans are not evolving as we’d hoped you would.

I wrote to Computerworld and to the author’s editor suggesting the writer be canned, and they defended him by saying they wanted to offer an “opposing view” about Apple. Huh? What opposing view? Aren’t “views” published by journalists in national magazines supposed to have some–I don’t know–factual weight behind them? Aren’t “journalists” like this supposed to be “experts” at the things they write about?

Yet how can someone be an expert yet have opinions “not based on reason or actual experience”? If you can stomach it, read the piece for yourself. Here’s a typical sample:

And I hate the products themselves. Overpriced, overhyped and underwhelming. Oh, I forgot, they have such “elegant” design. They just “feel right.” All the stubble-cheeked, pony-tailed, black-clad hipsters in the design department get it, but us dweeby drones doing the real work are just out of touch.

Gag me. I’ve always been a function-over-form guy. I don’t give a rat’s, uh, tail, if my computer is smooth and white and shiny. I just want to crank out the next project.

And don’t give me those phony cost comparisons that try to make the case that, all things considered, Macs are cheaper than PCs in the long run. Just look at the damn price tags. Spin it any way you want, Macs and the other iCrap cost more.

And innovation? My god, take the blinders off. I remember sitting right here several years ago when Apple came out with the great new feature on their iPods called “shuffle.” I couldn’t believe it. Before then, you couldn’t play your songs in random order? I had been doing that for years, literally. But then, I was into MP3s early on — my first music player was a Rio PMP300, one of the very first on the market. I didn’t have to wait for Apple to tell me they were cool. It took them a few years to catch on. Gee, where was the bleeding-edge innovation there?

iTunes 1.1 Had Shuffle Mode, Of Course!

This guy is so pathetic. Even on my non-professional website here, I fact-check like you wouldn’t believe. It’s one reason why it takes me so long to write an article. I happen to have a working copy of every version of iTunes back to 1.1 for Mac OS X, which came out in 2001. Guess what? It’s got shuffle mode. Of course it’s got shuffle! Only someone trying to find something to criticize would claim that Apple ever considered “shuffle mode” to be its innovative idea. Good grief. He’s probably confusing Apple’s marketing for the iPod Shuffle with the “shuffle” concept. In fact, nearly all of his opinions seem to be in reaction to advertising rather than to careful study of the actual products in question.

But enough of this… It was just so wrong I had to point it out. And I do hope Computerworld puts him back in the mailroom where he clearly belongs.

    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
July 22nd, 2007

Microsoft Junkies Spreading “Apple Messed Up The iPhone” FUD

Windows Mobile needs fixing, fast | InfoWorld | Column | 2007-07-18 | By Oliver Rist

I was so incensed by this posting at InfoWorld, which builds on an earlier one by respected InfoWorld Test Center lead Tom Yager, that I dashed off the following email to InfoWorld, canceling my print subscription and putting a stop to all of their RSS feeds. From what I can see through my 18-year-old son's eyes (we got him an iPhone as a high school graduation present), Apple has hit a bulls-eye with this gadget. Playing with it myself for a few minutes, this cellphone, Palm Pilot, and Blackberry resister suddenly understood the appeal of such devices. You really have to try the iPhone interface to appreciate how amazing and revolutionary it is. Clearly, this Oliver Rist creep is more interested in pushing Microsoft technology than in assessing the relative merits of whatever technologies exist. It's reminiscent of the way guys like this tried to talk the iPod into a hole 6 years ago, and given their dramatic failure at that attempt, this anti-iPhone talk would be sad if it weren't so creepy.

I've sadly watched InfoWorld go slowly downhill in the last year, as its IT coverage moved more and more mainstream and less honest. By "mainstream," I mean coverage that pays homage to where its advertising dollars come from rather than to integrity ("honest journalism") and the needs of its readership.

After having been mostly a fan of Tom Yager in recent years, I was appalled at the sensational slant of his article on the iPhone, "iPhone: The $1,975 iPod." That article was of course widely quoted and utilized by others at InfoWorld who it seems are determined to talk the device down. Apple has made clear that it isn't a business device (heck, it doesn't even offer business accounts!)... it's a consumer device. And a good many of Yager's "cons" are based on unreasonable assumptions of performance that neither Apple nor any other "smartphone" provider aim for.

All that has done is made idiots who think everything IT should be for business first and people later mad. Today I got this garbage in my inbox:

WHAT GIVES WINDOWS MOBILE EDGE OVER IPHONE

Columnist's corner: Even though Apple messed up the iPhone, Oliver Rist writes, "much of the device's problems aren't technical, but just bad business." Not so for Windows Mobile, which is plagued by troubled technology, including ActiveSync issues, Wi-Fi woes, application incompatibility, and worse, its very own Blue Screen of Death. "Microsoft has all the advantages that count in this space right now," Rist adds in Windows Mobile needs fixing fast. "The company really has the chance to win one based on functionality and capability rather than just marketing." The news beat: Sources say that a beta of Vista SP1 is... ...

More of this blog:

The InfoWorld writer who wrote this also calls consumer who buy Apple products "iSheep," saying they're the type who "need an Apple logo tattooed on as many of their belongings as possible." This is a guy who probably never understood the appeal of the iPod, either. Heaven forbid that he'd see the virtue of a Mac. And he's determined to do Microsoft's bidding by spreading FUD about the iPhone while it's still in its infancy. This is honest journalism? He bases his lead premise that "Apple messed up the iPhone" on Tom Yager's own piece of crap.

I don't know if Yager chose his article's headline or not... oddly, it doesn't seem like his style to me. Because it's the headline that made me not want to read the rest of whatever garbage he was peddling in that article. My teenager has an iPhone (high school graduation gift), and I figure I'll form my own impression of it by hands-on use [Update: I've now done this... see intro]. I really don't know how anyone can form a valid impression of a device like the iPhone in the few days Yager had before spouting off. Yes, I was disappointed with the arrangement with AT&T, too, and the requirement to buy a plan will keep me from buying an iPhone--at least in the short-term. But I seriously doubt that this requirement defeats the obvious genius of the device itself, as the headline asserts. After all, in my opinion the whole cellular industry is built on greed... nothing comes for free in that market, that I can tell. Yet I'm sure the FCC required Apple to establish a relationship with one of the existing carriers if they wanted to offer such services in the iPhone.

Not only does Yager's headline make the deal sound outlandishly expensive, it also gives AT&T equal billing with Apple as the device's creator in the subtitle. I've never owned a cellular phone... I still don't see how it could possibly be worth spending so much a month in order to be constantly available... but my wife and son are heavy users. My wife's plan is paid for by her employer, or she wouldn't have one either. But we pay a monthly fee for my son's plan... which was a Cigna plan at about $30 a month. The plan had no data or SMTP and very limited call options. That would be $720 for 2 years. His phone has no web connectivity, no bluetooth, no video, no email, and no music options.

With the iPhone, he not only gets an incredibly cool device with a revolutionary interface, but he also gets web, bluetooth, video, music, email, and potentially much more over time. With a 2-year plan, this will cost $1,440, and he'll be getting unlimited data services, some limited text messaging, video email, and all the wireless capabilities as well. I mean, to me, this sounds like a great deal to anyone who can afford it, and you can't measure the value of actually being able to use the device for those functions rather than fiddling with unworkable wands or teeny thumbpads.

So at the most, Yager and other idiotic price critics who just don't get it could argue that the iPhone is $500 over 2 years. Given what it offers in terms of functionality and ease of use, I really doubt that your average consumer, who doesn't have Microsoft or its XMinions whispering in their ear, is going to think that's very expensive. After all, given what my son has said, he plans to replace his current 60GB iPod with this 8GB iPhone. I was surprised he could make do with such a small capacity, but he seems to think the device's other virtues make it well worthwhile.

And this is just the first model iPhone... remember what the previous such idiots said about the first iPod's price? Sheesh.

I wanted you to know that I'm canceling my RSS feeds and will not be renewing my print subscription.

Regards,
Leland Scott

    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
May 5th, 2007

Daring Fireball: Microsoft Still Relying on Nasty FUD Rather Than Actual Competition

Daring Fireball: The iPhone's Funny Price iPhone promo imageNow that they've lost round one in the mp3 player wars, Microsoft is using the exact same FUD strategy that failed it in fighting Apple in the upcoming "smart phone" wars. It's doing this while simultaneously continuing to fight with nothing but pure FUD in the "home theater" wars. Meanwhile, Apple has released the Apple TV unit, an actual product in the home theater wars that's providing customers with some real value over existing solutions, and the iPhone is a brand new category unlike anything else on the market. This is one thing Microsoft still doesn't understand--or wants to make sure you're confused about--the iPhone is only a phone in name. To consumers like me, who actually don't give a hoot about its telephone creds, the iPhone is first and foremost, a huge-screen iPod. Close behind, it's a wifi internet device for browsing the web, checking email, weather, etc. while traveling. And finally, it's the first step in the development of an actual new Newton, a tiny computer that will ultimately replace things like the Treo. Unlike those other smart phones, you don't even have to get phone service to use the iPhone... nor do you need to subscribe to a data service, if you already treat the web as your data source. Ballmer would like you to think it's not a competitor for the touchpad PCs they've been trying to sell, but it ultimately is. And as John Gruber points out in this recent editorial on Microsoft's latest nastiness, Microsoft itself has nowhere near the market share in the smart phone market that it does on desktops. He quotes Wikipedia's stats that measure Windows Mobile at having only a 6-percent share of the smart phone market, behind 17 percent for Linux and 72 percent for Symbian. Yet Ballmer has the necessary evil to try to say Apple would be wasting its time going after that market, because they could never get more than 2-3 percent of it. As long as Microsoft lets a guy like Ballmer speak for the company, I will continue to have absolutely nothing to do with it, and I hope others feel the same way. This is no way to conduct business in a modern, adult society. It's the playground tactic of a middle-schooler, which apparently is the state of development at which Ballmer stopped.
    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
March 3rd, 2007

Spread The Word: Al Gore Used Keynote For “Inconvenient Truth”… NOT PP

CNet says Oscar-winning "An Inconvenient Truth" made in Powerpoint. Can you say FACT CHECK! Les Posen gives the facts to a bunch of dimwitted reporters who probably never heard of Keynote... They reported that Al Gore used PowerPoint in making his Oscar-winning documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," without even bothering to check the facts. Probably made the PC-prejudiced assumption that since they use PowerPoint, everyone does. Ah, the casual abuses of the majority.
    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
February 3rd, 2007

Bill Gates Still Telling Hitler-Style Big Lies

Daring Fireball: Lies, Damned Lies, and Bill Gates title textIf anybody is confused about whether this guy is honest or not, or thinks he might have turned over a new leaf since his wife is giving lots of money to charity, get a load of what he told Newsweek in a Vista-promo interview:
Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine.

As John Gruber at Daring Fireball points out, "Gates’s claim about Mac OS X security is simply false. Flabbergastingly false." And that's just the latest example. This guy will say anything to win. Is that OK nowadays? Is "unscrupulous" an OK personality trait in today's world? Let's remember what "unscrupulous" means: "having or showing no moral principles; not honest or fair." In my book, that's a bad thing, which is why I continue to boycott Microsoft products and encourage others to do the same.

Just like Hit--you know who--ler, Bill Gates and his buddy Steve Ballmer are masters of telling the Big Lie to get their way. Heck, it's worked for them in the past, so now they're convinced no one will ever call them on it. Just like the Newsweek interviewer, who let the statement roll right on by without question! As Hitler discovered, people will believe Big Lies before they believe small ones. Too bad humanity has advanced so little since that experience that people are still willing to be misled like this.

    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
November 17th, 2006

Ballmer: Linux Users Owe Microsoft Millions

Macworld: News: Ballmer: Linux users owe Microsoft Unbelievable. Microsoft is rotten to the core, and that rotten core is Steve Ballmer. Microsoft will always be rotten as long as Ballmer is in charge.
    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
November 17th, 2006

Universal Music Group CEO Calls Non-Zune Owners “Thieves”

Josh Smith: Universal Music Group CEO Says iPod Owners Are Theives Hmmm... Here's a guy who clearly is looking for a boycott. If you're interested in registering your protest, this website has some starters for figuring out which artists and motion pictures are handled by Universal. What an idiot! He wants everybody to buy Zunes because Microsoft is giving Universal (and some of the other studios) a cut off the top. Ah! So that makes everyone who doesn't use a Zune a thief, right? I get it. Now, Mr. Doug Morris, CEO of Universal Group, get this: You just lost yourself a few million customers. I hope the Zune revenue makes up for it.
    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
September 30th, 2006

Slashdot: Apple Accused of “Upsampling” Low-Res Videos for iTunes

Slashdot | Apple iTunes Upsampling Higher Resolution Videos? Amazing how quickly these trolls are willing toi suspend disbelief and buy the "evil Apple" story du jour. Apparently, this phony story started on Digg, as many of them do. Engadget picked it up, and then Slashdot. All without anybody bothering to verify whether Apple was indeed the culprit in the case. Turns out Apple relies on the video providers---as it should---to deliver videos for the iTunes store. Can you imagine if it were otherwise? Why would any movie company rely on Apple to provide the video that's delivered to consumers? Come on, what a piece of crap this is. Should Apple care, or set some standards? Well, it depends on how bad the "upsampling" actually is. Does the video look decent on an iPod or TV? Whatever, it's still less than the DVD, and much more convenient besides. Also legal. With iTunes videos, you're paying for convenience. If you don't like the quality, don't buy any more. But just remember... this is a brand new service. I recall buying a CD of the Layla LP when CD's were new... it was horrible. Obviously made from inferior tapes. Yet it was not a bootleg... it was an official release. I'm sure Apple's service will improve with time... and so will the quality of the videos Apple sells through that service.
    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
September 25th, 2006

InfoWorld’s Editor Backs Yager’s Estimate of Apple’s Enterprise-worthiness

Steve Fox, InfoWorld: Apple avoids the "e" word I have to say this editorial surprised me... Fox's use of the phrase "smug superiority" to describe Apple users is one of the things that presses my buttons about Windows guys. But then he goes on to back up Tom Yager's recent article in MacWorld and InfoWorld addressing the top 10 concerns of enterprises about Apple. Of course, there's a negative "twist" to this, which is probably true---Apple doesn't appear to really want the Enterprise market, at least, not now. In what is undoubtedly a smarter strategy, Apple is trying to get a foothold in small-to-medium-sized businesses now. If that works, I'm pretty certain their ambitions will change. If it doesn't, they haven't risked nearly as much or lost as much face.
    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
September 24th, 2006

John Gruber on Apple’s New AirPort Security Update

Daring Fireball: The AirPort Security Update and the Supposed MacBook Wi-Fi Hack I've been wondering about this, and I'm sure I'll enjoy reading Gruber's take on it.
    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
September 24th, 2006

Slashdot: Microsoft’s Masterpiece of FUD?

Slashdot | Microsoft's Masterpiece of FUD? Microsoft's boys are at it again, turning their sites on Linux this time with a "study" about how horrible it will be for Europe if they interfere with the rightful launch of Windows Vista. Be afraid, Europeans, be very afraid. Just remember who you need to be afraid of.
    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
September 24th, 2006

Laughing at Negative Prognostication About Apple

David Pogue: When Apple Hit Bottom From his New York Times blog, Pogue takes us to memory lane and revisits all the silly---and often downright malicious---forecasts about Apple's demises in various markets. All of which have proven wrong, of course. Can you say Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt? This kind of forecasting is the cream of the crop of anti-Apple FUD from the past.
    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
September 24th, 2006

Tom Yager in MacWorld: An Apple for the enterprise?

Macworld: Opinion: An Apple for the enterprise? Tom Yager steps out of his comfy InfoWorld role to offer this risky editorial in MacWorld. Of course, I completely agree with him... but the guy has gotten scorched lately with his support for the Mac platform. Scorched from both sides... Linux and Windows. I really hope some people pay attention this time... he's one of the few mainstream IT guys who gets it. Breaking through the wall of fear, suspicion, and loathing regarding Apple in enterprise IT is certainly proving tougher than I'd realized. Yager tackles many of the myths that PC guys simply don't want to see dispelled, including some I've been tackling in this blog:
  1. Macs are so expensive
  2. A PC is a PC; who cares who makes it?
  3. It's a proprietary platform
  4. Why invest in OSX when Vista is going to wipe it off the map?
  5. I can't manage a network of mixed platforms
  6. OS X Server is unproven in critical, high-availability, and large-scale deployments. It's an enterprise wannabe
  7. Apple controls the availability of systems, parts, upgrades, and service
  8. Apple's got a smoke-and-mirrors hack that makes Macs run Windows
  9. Apple's product line is tiny. All other Intel OEMs focus on choice.

Tom, thank you for tackling these myths so publicly. It's time more people in positions of IT influence did the same.

    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
September 7th, 2006

Is Apple Being Unfairly Targeted on Environmental Issues?

More Secrets: The Scandal of Green Computing In another pointed commentary with a number of disturbing facts on this issue, RoughlyDrafted's Dan Eran makes the case that it is.  He specifically calls out Greenpeace and the California organization Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC) for unfairly fingering Apple, when in fact the company has been doing a much better job of adhering to environmental laws than companies like Dell and HP, which Greenpeace and SVTC rate more highly.  He points out that though Apple was late to the free recycling game, that's partly because (a) the number of Apple computers being trashed was tiny compared with those of Windows PCs, and (b) that's because Apples typically last much longer and are retained and recycled by their owners rather than being trashed unceremoniously.  Further, he claims that the iPod is far more environmentally friendly than previous such products and is being unfairly picked on, partly because of Apple's refusal to "buy" support from the critical groups by making requested contributions.  All in all, an unsettling but illuminating article.
    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
August 30th, 2006

SecureWorks admits to falsifying MacBook wireless hack - The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

TUAW: SecureWorks admits to falsifying MacBook wireless hack This news came out while I was at the beach... but I wanted to be sure to capture it in my bookmarks. Great summary by TUAW blogger David Chartier. For even more detailed coverage of this anti-Apple episode, see John Gruber's 8/21 article on the subject.
    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
August 3rd, 2006

Cracked MacBook: Gleeful PC Zealots Once Again Try To Put Mac OS X Down

MacSlash: Gone In 60 Seconds The story about the MacBook that was compromised has been making the rounds the last day or so, supposedly pointing out a security flaw in Apple's Airport (wi-fi) implementation. On closer inspection, the flaw originated with a 3rd party wi-fi add-on, and had nothing to do with Apple or Mac OS X. I'm only documenting this incident for future reference.
    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
July 23rd, 2006

Microsoft Confirms “iPod Killer” Plans

July 23rd, 2006

Apple Market Share Myths Exposed!

RoughlyDrafted: Market Share Myth: Nailed! This is part 2 of Daniel Eran's analysis of the origins, causes, and erroneous assumptions behind the myth of the incredibly low Apple Mac market share. Eran also looks at how market share numbers are fooled with in talking about the iPod and its market share.
    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
July 23rd, 2006

The Apple Market Share Myth

RoughlyDrafted Takes On The Apple Market Share Myth I'm delighted to see Daniel Eran of RoughlyDrafted take on this myth, which is so insidious. Like many statistics, market share numbers can be conjured in many different ways to try to make your point. Unscrupulous Apple FUDders invariably pick the lowest possible variant of market share to make their point that Apple is worthless and Mac users insignificant. But it just ain't so...
    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
July 10th, 2006

Needham & Co. Analyst Thinks Corporate IT Will Continue To Ignore Macs

From Macworld: Analysts Say Windows on Macs will not open corporate doors I certainly agree that Boot Camp won't cause corporate IT departments to suddenly start buying Macs. Did anyone ever suggest such a thing? In fact, as the Macworld article notes, Apple has been promoting Parallels as the "run Windows on your Mac" choice rather than Boot Camp. No, I think other things will eventually sway IT... for example, if home users start to buy Macs, they'll start to put pressure on their companies to let them use their Mac notebooks. Once that starts to happen, IT will be forced to deal with the issue.
    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
June 26th, 2006

Anyone Who Thinks Microsoft Has “Changed” Should Read This FUD

Server Pipeline: FUD Never Changes I'm glad Don St. John at ServerPipeline highlighted this one... Apparently, Microsoft's chief platform strategist Bill Hilf said recently that "most open-source code is terribly inferior to commercial software code." If you're anywhere near the right side on Microsoft vs. Open Source, you probably feel your blood start to boil about now. Mine, too. Microsoft is just as shady, shifty, and dishonest today as they ever were, and openly self-serving, false statements like this are evidence. Read St. John's article if you need to argue the point.
    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
June 17th, 2006

The ‘Mac OS X Closed by Pirates’ Myth

Roughly Drafted: The 'Mac OS X Closed by Pirates' Myth Here's a counterattack to the rash of articles last week accusing Apple of abandoning open source in the course of converting to Intel chips.
    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
June 10th, 2006

Video Shows John Dvorak Explaining How He Lies To Get Hits

MacDailyNews Video: Dvorak admits to baiting Mac users for hits Folks, don't let your kids grow up thinking this is a valid avenue to success, please. Just because someone is successful in America doesn't make them good or right, yet that's clearly part of our culture. If you want proof that success is not a sign of "doing something right", this is it. So the next time you are tempted to say about Bill Gates and Microsoft, for example, "Well, they captured 95% of the world's PC desktops, so they must be doing something right," bite your tongue. And for heavens sake, just ignore John Dvorak from now on.
    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
May 26th, 2006

Thorough Analysis of Five Mac Myths Related to Security

Mac360: Macs And Viruses. Fact vs. FUD. From Mac360, this is a two-part article addressing five myths the authors identify that have become common regarding the Mac and Windows Viruses:
  1. Macs are just as vulnerable to Viruses, Worms, and Trojans as Windows computers.
  2. Macs using Intel Processors are more vulnerable now because they use the same processors found in generic PCs.
  3. Mac vulnerabilities have increased 228% since 2003, but Windows vulnerabilities have increased a much smaller amount. That means the Mac is MORE vulnerable than Windows!
  4. Now that Macs are getting more popular, aren’t virus writers going to start attacking the Mac more?
  5. Mac users now have to purchase and run Anti-virus software, install firewalls and scan their computers for spyware the same as Windows users.
Good list of myths! I haven't read their analysis yet, but they're off to a great start!
    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
May 17th, 2006

Good Move, Google! Google Calls Microsoft a Convicted Monopolist

Google goes after Microsoft Woah! Somehow I didn't think any company was actually brave enough to try a direct, honest tactic like this with Microsoft. Yet here we have a story about Sergey Brin, Google's co-founder, bad-mouthing the other software giant at a recent company event. Among other tasty rhetorical hors d'oeuvres served that day was this one:
We certainly see a history with that particular company, Microsoft, behaving anti-competitively, being a convicted monopoly

The San Francisco Chronicle also reports that Brin "then talked about Google taking preemptive action against any future abuse by Microsoft, including lobbying the Justice Department."

Way to go, Google! Now, stop pandering to Internet Explorer in all of your software projects, and my faith will really be renewed.

    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
May 17th, 2006

More on Microsoft’s “Big Lies”: A Tale of Two Press Releases

Consortiuminfo.org - A Tale of Two Press Releases: Big Lies and Objective Journalism This is a sequel to the author's first article on this subject. This second article is even more detailed in chronicling the lies Microsoft has been spreading around the web in order to win mindshare against open source software.
    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
May 17th, 2006

Microsoft At It Again: On the Art (?) of Disinformation–Telling the Big Lie

Consortiuminfo.org - On the Art (?) of Disinformation: telling the Big Lie Here's a guy who sounds as fed up by Microsoft's continual disinformation tactics as I am. He's making the same argument I have made to family and friends for awhile now... namely, that Microsoft really is using the propaganda tactics made famous in a little book from the 1920's called Mein Kampf. The "big lie" became a famous propaganda technique through its use by the Nazis in World War II. As Hitler explained in Mein Kampf,
in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.

I have felt for a long time now that Microsoft has, either consciously or unconsciously, adopted the Big Lie tactic as standard operating procedure in its business competition, and distressingly it seems to have paid off for them. Many Microsoft fans are fans merely by virtue of Microsoft's success rather than because of the value of Microsoft's contribution to computing, and they, like Hitler's masses, simply will not believe anyone who tells them that the company has lied about anything important.

This article pertains to Microsoft's latest series of Big Lies about the open source "movement," which the company rightly recognizes to be a major threat to its dominance. Microsoft is a company that will not hesitate to lie about anything in order to win a battle, and it seems that the bigger the lie, the better. This is nothing new, of course. Microsoft told so many lies just during its antitrust trial that it would be an interesting project to document them.

Perhaps if enough people like this blogger from Consortiuminfo.org take the time to call Microsoft on its lies, some Microsoft fans will start to think twice about their blind allegiance to the company and begin recognizing lies when they occur.

    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
May 6th, 2006

Dave Winer Has Been Bad Again, and Les Posen’s Hunting Him Down!

Les Posen: Dave Winer says Apple owns my ass with its siloing of data. No, Dave, cut out the FUD and get some lessons in clear thinking. Good grief... in Dave Winer we appear to have another Rob Enderle or Paul Thurrott in the making... in reverse! What's with this guy? If he really feels this way, why not jump ship already? The sad and irritating thing is the amount of FUD he is spreading with his nasty, anti-Apple attitude.
    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
May 3rd, 2006

MacDailyNews: A Banner Day for Anti-Apple FUD

MacDailyNews reports yet another FUD report from an Apple Hater This one is truly remarkable in its gall. I'm not even going to read the source article to avoid giving the creep hits. The author, writing for TVPredictions.com, cites no evidence other than his opinion for a variety of silly negative statements about Apple's very successful video iPod. (Which isn't really the "video iPod," you understand.)
    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
May 3rd, 2006

Dvorak Sees Eight Bad Signs for His Former Favorite Company

Eight signs Microsoft is dead in the water - MarketWatch More moaning and malaise from a former Microsoft cheerleader.
    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
May 3rd, 2006

Backpedaling on the “Mac Virus Outbreak” Non-Story

MacDailyNews: Unix expert: Mac OS X much more secure than Windows; recent Mac OS X security stories are media hype One of the bad journalists who started this week's anti-Mac ruckus is back, apparently trying to make amends. At his side is a respected Unix security expert who verifies that the outcry the journalist has been hearing from Mac users is justified. Macs are not susceptible to viruses, and Windows is. Macs are better protected by design, not by market share, and Windows are attacked often because it's easy to do so, not because there are so many of them. Makes sense. Of course, as the MacDailyNews editor asks the journalist in question, Stan Beer, "Why the truth now?... Get it right the first time, before you publish it."
    
  • del.icio.us
  • Google
  • Slashdot
  • Technorati
  • blogmarks
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
Just Say No To Flash