Symantec cries wolf with misplaced Mac OS X ‘security’ warning

“In a perfect would [sic], people might pay for security software based on the number of attacks prevented and the severity of those threats. The bigger the threat, the harder the software works and the more it protects, the more you pay. Seems fair enough,” David Coursey writes for eWeek. “In the case of Mac OS X, if you paid for what you got, the price for security software would be zero. The price would thus equal the number of virus and malware threats that target Apple’s Unix-based operating system.”

Coursey writes, “So why do Mac users pay so much—often as much at $70 for anti-virus alone and as much as $150 for a security ‘suite?’ Using the same math, Windows anti-virus software would probably cost $1,000 a desktop, yet it’s easy to find software for as little as $20 in the stores. Mac OS X users pay significantly more for protection than Windows users, protection so far they have needed only in theory or ‘just in case’ a big new threat appears. People are getting wise to this. So is it any wonder that Symantec, in the eternal search for the next dollar, is out with a report that seems to predict dire consequences for future Mac users? It’s like a teacher once told me, ‘Sell the sizzle, not the steak. Especially when you don’t have any steak.’

“Is it any surprise that Symantec would beat the drums of fear as loudly as possible? This is, after all, a company that has for years persuaded Mac users to pay $70 for software ‘necessary’ to protect their computers against nonexistent threats,” Coursey writes. “This makes me wonder whether the real threat that concerns Symantec isn’t from Mac OS X viruses and malware. Rather, it’s customers noticing that they’ve paid a lot of money for Norton anti-virus software that they didn’t really need.”

Full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Standing ovation for Mr. Coursey. If the world could magically dump Windows and instead run Apple’s Mac OS X, would Symantec be able to stay in business selling “security” software? And if Symantec thinks that we’re going to forget about their Mac OS X FUD report, they’re sadly mistaken.

Related MacDailyNews articles:
Symantec’s Mac OS X claims dismissed as nonsense, FUD – March 22, 2005
Symantec warns about Mac OS X security threat – March 21, 2005
68,736 Microsoft Windows viruses vs. zero for Apple Mac’s OS X – March 12, 2005
Mac OS X has no viruses; what’s wrong with Windows? – February 11, 2004

34 Comments

  1. To stay on topic for one (I promise I won’t make this a habit)… since Microsoft will be releasing a free virus checker for Windows, it seems that companies like Symantec need to scare up some sales in other places.

  2. Hey, most of the Right sided posts didn’t have name calling.

    And- the same can be said about the Lefters.

    And- I believe pretty much all of the Politicians in Washington supported going into Iraq.

    And- I wasn’t worried about Iraq, and weapons. I was focused on Iraq’s behavior, which was impeding the UN Inspector’s efforts, thumbing their noses at the UN’s enforcement of sanctions, and their past behavior of supporting WMD programs.

    So- America went in and did what the UN should have but didn’t have the wherewithal to do.

    And- now we find out that it was because France, Germany and Russia we busy undermining the UN’s efforts

    And- It turns out that there was corruption in the UN related to the Oil for Food program (Kofi Annon’s son was involved (these findings were published by a Bi-Partisan committee).

    So there you have it.
    (quickly types, apologies for spelling/grammar)

  3. Name calling means “I don’t have a valid point. I’m unable to formulate ideas. I’m losing this debate. So, now I’ll have to slap you down.” It’s much like child abuse.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.