8 ms·

Didn't Apple used to claim that Macs didn't get viruses? I can't remember. (This would be at least several years ago, when Mac malware was still fully theoretic

• craigmccaskill 15y ago
  I was going to post the exact same thing, but spent the last five minutes searching site:apple.com virus for a direct quote. Seems they've changed their lingo as I definitely remember (around the time of the whole mac vs pc campaign) a definite statement about not getting viruses at all.
  • rudyfink 15y ago
    Maybe this ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQb_Q8WRL_g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQb_Q8WRL_g ) (MAC v. PC advertisement on viruses) is what you were thinking of?
• philaquilina 15y ago
  Whoa, no kidding. The majority of people are not going to stop on those two letters and consciously differentiate "virus" from "PC virus."
  • pazimzadeh 15y ago
    "A Mac isn’t susceptible to the thousands of viruses plaguing Windows-based computers." Pretty clear.
    • mindrag 15y ago
      It's not at all clear. It's deliberately ambiguous. If they wanted it to be clear they would have said "Macs are only susceptible to a fraction of the number of viruses plaguing Windows-based computers."
    • akent 15y ago
      Clear? One possible interpretation of just that statement alone could easily give the impression that viruses in general are therefore not an issue for Macs.
    • nextparadigms 15y ago
      No, it's not clear. It implies that the Mac can't get any viruses.
      • rbarooah 15y ago
        No. If they didn't qualify it with "PC" it would have that implication. By qualifying it, they make it unambiguous.
        • el_presidente 15y ago
          They're implying that only PCs have viruses.
          • rbarooah 15y ago
            No, they are stating that Macs are not susceptible to PC viruses, which is true. They are implying that viruses are a severe problem on PCs that Mac users do not face. This was undoubtedly true when they were running those adverts.
            • esolyt 15y ago
              Yes. They are stating that Macs are not susceptible to PC viruses. Yes, this is true. However this is not worth stating, so most people would infer that Macs cannot get any viruses from that sentence.
              • rbarooah 15y ago
                It may not be worth stating to people round here who are essentially experts in the field, but to the vast majority of everyday PC users it's not at all obvious and very much worth stating.
                • el_presidente 15y ago
                  According to the paragraph that follows: A Mac isn't susceptible to the thousands of viruses plaguing Windows-based computers. That's thanks to built-in defenses in Mac OS X that keep you safe, without any work on your part. They're saying PCs get viruses and Macs don't because of the way it's designed. Not that PCs get PC viruses and Macs get Mac viruses. They are also implying that it's the sole reason for the lack of viruses, when it's mainly the lack of users. That would explain why it's not susceptible to every other type of software available on Windows.
    • bnr 15y ago
      Next sentence: "That’s thanks to built-in defenses in Mac OS X that keep you safe, without any work on your part." I guess they should be "thanking" the general incompatibility with Windows binaries.
    • esolyt 15y ago
      There are two possible ways to interpret this: 1. "A Mac is susceptible to viruses. But it is not susceptible to viruses plaguing Windows-based computers." 2. "A Mac isn’t susceptible to viruses, whereas a Windows-based computer is susceptible to thousands of viruses." The fact that you still get viruses, but they just don't happen to be the same viruses, isn't worth stating. So as a customer, it is very unlikely that I would infer the former (Meaning 1) from the statement. Yet it is what is meant. I would personally call this misleading (and dangerously close to lying).
    • deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
• vacri 15y ago
  Given that macs are PCs, being personal computers, it's not true that macs don't get PC viruses.
  • deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  • ealloc 15y ago
    I believe "PC" has historically meant (or often been used to imply) "IBM PC compatible" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC_compatible http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC_compatible) which Apple/Mac was not, until they switched to x86.
    • vacri 15y ago
      The problem is that viruses don't relate to the architecture - otherwise linux and *bsd (on the x86 platform) would have also been windows-like with their malware. I know I'm playing semantic games here, but so is Apple with this slogan :)
      • rbarooah 15y ago
        In the context of Apple's "Mac vs PC" campaign, does anyone seriously have doubt about what they mean by a PC?
        • vacri 15y ago
          I know I'm playing semantic games here, but so is Apple with this slogan :)
          • rbarooah 15y ago
            Not really - in context it's perfectly clear what they meant.
  • rmc 15y ago
    In the general public's eyes Macs are computers, so yes they are PCs. In the Appleland, "PC" is synonomous with "Microsoft Windows", and hence Apple Macs aren't PCs. I had a long time Apple user ask me if I had a Mac or PC. I was using Ubuntu Linux at the time, so I said PC :P
• lawnchair_larry 15y ago
  For even the most generous interpretations of "several", Mac viruses were not merely theoretical several years ago.