I appreciate your comments and I'm sure you know a lot more about underlying security mechanisms than I do. That said, the proof is in the pudding - I've never seen a Mac hijacked by malware, and almost every PC I've seen at some point or another has been.

The market share argument is total bullocks. For a security expert you seem somewhat ignorant of the "not-a-zero-sum-game" principle, by which there is (throughout broader society) no demonstrated correlation between the preponderance (market share) of targets and the quantity of attempts to attack them. Hence, despite the fact that the wealthy only represent a small fraction of human society (I dunno, like 5%? Smaller than Apple's computer share, to be sure), they are still targeted *more* often by thieves than the huddled masses, etc: Why? Because even though there are far more average people (with or without in-home-security) to attack, the wealthy present a compelling opportunity. Why only try to steal from one when you could steal from both? You can apply this argument almost anything; go wild. Remember also that malware has been written and circulated for nuclear plant controller system software (I forget the details, but I think the total install base for this particular package is like 5 or 6 units - but still represented a "compelling opportunity" for someone).

Further, by virtue of the fact that Mac's aren't loaded with 3rd party security software, that their users don't expect malware, that there is NOTHING else in Mac malware space, and that the demographic of Mac users is financially "elite" - if I were a hacker, I can tell you which niche platform I'd have my eye on. It's pretty obvious. Not worth the effort? Really? Says you.

Just like car thieves never target BMWs or Mercedes because of their paltry market-share. Right.

He may or may not be an asshole. What is indisputable is that whether you agree or disagree with the state of technology in America (and the world, it's a sector we dominate), Steve Jobs started Apple in a garage, and this is the company that introduced most of the world to computing as we know it. Respect is due.

This is a good point, and also speaks to the fact that Apple is really quite unique in many ways.

Personally, I think Apple is currently valued properly. I think Jobs is remarkable, and I'll be very sorry to see him leave Apple (and here's hoping that it's on his own terms, years from now) because it will have a huge impact on the character of the company. As far as the stock goes, it will take a hit, probably not more than a few percentage points, but it will also be poised to resume rapid growth as long as the company continues to produce, certainly for the forseeable future.

I also think Apple's market opportunities in the next few years are literally unprecedented in business terms. There will be competition, but Apple products are undenyling uniquely compelling to a lot of people, it's very possible that in five years the majority of people on this earth could be carrying around iPhones in their pockets, all funneled by Apple's content offerings, locked into their content models. Many look at this cynically, personally I don't, but no company has achieved that kind of placement to date. They have an eco-system, and people go wild for it. Exxon is currently the largest publicly held company; I don't know what margins are on barrels of oil, but consider your relationship to your smart phone versus that to your local Mobil station. Sure, we use lots of oil, but it very people fall in love with the "magic" of a brown viscous sludge

Apple is huge already, and eventually they'll loose it - but it could be 5 years, 10, years, it could be 20. In tech companies have so far risen and fallen very quickly, but as the market matures, things will stabilize a bit, the landscape will change. If Apple is already almost as big as Exxon in 2011, consider the implications of having invested in Exxon (Standard Oil) company at the onset of the industrial age - and having held that stock through today. Apple is poised for massive growth.

And what about pretty-much every gaming platform under the sun? The internet is free. The iphone executable platform isn't -- just like XBox, Wii, PS3.... et al. Not to mention this article is total bullsh*t... anyone who has ever pondered the notion of "journalism" would rightfully question what was said between the elipses...

If it is good marketing, so what of it? How is "we think" a manipulation of words? Do you not think that the design and development departments at Apple don't in fact agree with this statement - the collective "we" being Apple? How is this misrepresentative?

One way to say it is to say "assume consumers are stupid and like shiny things.". Equally true however, would be the observation that throughout human history, people have appreciated objects that reflect certain aesthetic principles (design), are thoughtful, and reflect a high degree of precision in their conception and execution. The world's great thinkers, artists, and engineers are not simply, in my opionin, stupid consumers who like shiny things.

Their marketing machine is unrivaled, as is the steady stream of products they introduce. I'm happy to conceded that they aren't all things to all people, but no other company consistently delivers products that are as cohesive or compelling. If you disagree, name that company...

Pooh-pooh. Apple is totally frank about the fact that its products run in a closed eco-system. Google, on the other hand, waxes day-and-night about how "open" and "not evil" they are - and yet their entire profit (and its a biggie) is made, um, how? In ways that they'd never in a million years talk about. Google controls the entire world's information flow. Information is power. Google is not a democracy, it is not transparent, it is not accountable... and the really spooky thing, is that the nature of their products lend a scenario in which you don't even know what you're missing.

Both Apple and Google use "open" when and where it suits them - and not a smidgen further.

They both harbor incredibly protected secrets and "closed" information loops.

The only difference is that Apple makes no bones about it. Google makes an ad campaign of waxing poetic about "open", despite the fact it is just as closed as Apple when it comes to *the products that actually make it money*. Techies and others lap it up.

You know, say what you will about Apple and control. We all know there is ONE company that controls the world's information flow, and it ain't Apple. Nor is it a democracy, or transparent, or accountable to..... anyone.

It's only my opinion, but Wu is incredibly naive -- and all you have to do is look at the words of Eric Schmidt to know that Google sees the web of the future as a closed, authenticated platform - hardly the opentopia described be Google's many devout.

"I've talked to many students who realize that art can be part of computing; that creativity can be part of computing; that they can merge their interests in art and science." It's so obvious - but so under appreciated. I've always been skilled with computers, and fought the urge to be a geek, rather lending my efforts to more traditional creative pursuits in the fine arts all through college. One of the most critical realizations of my life was coming to understand the truth in this quote- computers are the paramount creative medium of our time. Interface designers, animators, software engineers are vastly unappreciated - not completely unappreciated, but vastly under appreciated. Society perceives many geeks as nothing more than modern-day plumbers (and I'm not insulting the plumbers of the world), and often celebrates "contemporary" aritsts as rock-stars. Not too diminish traditional arts, but moving pixels is every bit as difficult as pigment, and deserves every bit as much respect and admiration. The state of modern computers (and I use the term loosley), are an incredible testament to human creativity. *We* took ones and zeros and aligned them to be things that are not only beautiful in form and function, but allow us to realize enhanced creative expression across almost every other medium we know. Wow.

You are absolutely right about "it just works" - a lot of the IT tools just don't work, not at all. Entire buttons sit in the interface and literally do nothing when you click them. It's kind of astounding compared to their client OS. I do however run a few workgroups using pretty much just apple stuff, and in general things run very smoothly... it's the only way i could have the time to manage a handful of them! That said, most of the stuff that would be difficult to fix in os x is more or less the same as what would be difficult to fix on a linux box, just because many of the underlying services are exactly the same, with the occasional odd-ball apple selected install directory or something. But if you can run a linux server, you can run an os x server in your sleep. I have to echo the general sentiment here though and say I don't think dramatic shifts inherently present a lot of fallout. Even if you're moving to a superior system, moving sucks. MHO it's generally not worth it. If people are used to something, let them keep it. Sometimes you can introduce new solutions if there is a need, of course...

This is not something I've ever tried , but in principle, here's a simple solution: Set up one of your computers iTunes with its library stored on your SMB share. I've never run iTunes from an SMB share, but it works dandy from an AFP/NFS share, so I imagine it would work. An AppleTV can pull a stream from any iTunes on its network, so you should be then be able to connect your AppleTV to the SMB-backed iTunes and access your videos/media.

Yeah so basically Google is the new Apple and the internet is the new iOS. http://isaacschmidt.com/?p=131