This week, join the Macalope as he looks at stunning tales that true, but ultimately fail from oversimplification. (Don’t you hate it when that happens?) First, PCWorld wants to dispel the myth that the App Store has exclusive apps. What got started? Was it all the exclusive apps? Then ZDNet is just looking out for the best interests of the supposed majority of Mac users, who are simple country folk that have never been to the big city. Finally, is the white iPhone thicker? Yes… but no.
PCWorld’s Daniel Ionescu wants you to know that .
Even if his story goes on to show that some, in fact, are.
The Macalope’s not cracking wise when he says that good titles are hard. It shouldn’t, however, be that hard to come up with titles that are at least .
But, iPhone users, did you know that the Android market has “the same selection of popular apps”? Uh… well, except for games? But who plays games on their phone? What is this, the Get out of here, crazy phone-game-playing future lady with your silver jumpsuit, beehive hairdo, and conical brassiere!
Oh, and Netflix? Not on Android. Sorry. But you get the Blockbuster movie app which is, like, totally almost the same, except it doesn’t do streaming. But Blockbuster really needs your help more than Netflix, so you’ll get the warm feeling of propping up a collapsing company. It’s like petting a dinosaur!
As Editorial Director Jason Snell (who wears very nice shirts) , Ionescu’s whole argument ignores which platform gets marquee apps first (hint: it’s iOS) and the fact that a lot of “the same” apps are just .
If you’re addicted to Angry Birds, the only big no-no for you would be the BlackBerry platform (the game is arriving on Windows Phone 7 in May).
Awesome! Waiting six months for games just increases the anticipation!
Apple’s App Store and the Android Market may always be top dogs in terms of app variety. But as the cliché goes, it’s all about quality, not quantity—and that’s true for both apps and hardware.
Yes, , Daniel! It about quality! And the quality of iOS apps is just better.
And so’s the quantity.
What was your point again?
After , the horny one is going to take exception to of this week as he discusses the dangers of the Weyland-Yutani BOT Mac crimeware:
See, Apple is facing a problem. A large proportion of users believe that Mac is invulnerable to malware and that security software is unnecessary, despite Apple making it clear that it supports neither view.
“A large proportion”? Really? What do you base that on, comment threads?
Ed Bott also invokes our old friend Artie:
Only a tiny percentage of Macs run antivirus software, and Mac users have been conditioned to believe they’re immune from Internet threats.
You sure hear a lot about the peaceful, dull, and stupid sheep who use Macs, but to the best of the Macalope’s knowledge no one has polled Mac users to see what exactly their beliefs about the platform’s security. The Macalope’s anecdotal experience has been that most Mac users know the score: Malware makers target Windows. It’s possible the reason that they know this is that a lot of them used to use Windows.
If Mac users are so convinced that OS X is invulnerable then the Weyland-Yutani BOT will be an abject failure, because it’s disguised as virus-detection software—which Mac users don’t think they need. Right? Can’t have it both ways, guys.
Kingsley-Hughes suggests Apple use some of that mountain of cash its sitting on to buy a Mac security software maker. The Macalope’s not sure why they’d do that when Snow Leopard , even if it is somewhat rudimentary. Adrian can be forgiven for not knowing it was there because, frankly, the Macalope had forgotten about it until his editor (and the author of the linked piece) reminded him about it. The reason the Macalope can be excused for forgetting Snow Leopard has such software is because he’s never seen it triggered. Which is largely because he can practically count the number of Mac viruses on one hoof.
This isn’t to say further investment in security isn’t a good idea, just that there’s no need to go outside. Apple could just focus on improving the underlying OS X technologies (like implementing full ASLR) and enhancing the existing malware scanning.
No, a better and more likely bet is simply to improve on the underlying OS X technologies (a work in progress) and, on the side, quietly develop homegrown virus-scanning software that they can pull out of their back pocket. The Macalope wouldn’t be surprised if someone at Apple is already working on that.
Are there out there? At this point it’s more of a mangy coyote knocking over garbage cans. If this is the fabled Year of Mac Malware, it’s sure off to a slow and late start.
But you know what they say about an ounce of prevention.
Another week, another Apple
OK, technically Thickergate broke last week with the help of , but sometimes you have to let a story gel before it becomes clear that there’s more to it than meets the i-Phone.
(Did you know that Costco sells horrible puns by the pallet?)
A thicker phone?! Who wants that?! IS APPLE DOOMED? AGAIN?
Cue the unlikely entry of as Apple’s white knight!
Whoa, whoa, hang on there a second, Apple-blog-that-reduced-its-name-to-an-unpronounceable-partial-acronym and venerated-dentist’s-waiting-room-magazine-from-the-1980s. See, all either of you can really say is that the white iPhones are thicker or not thicker than the black iPhones you measured. Did you measure of the white iPhones and of the black iPhones? No, you did not. (Steve Jobs gave that job to the guy who left his iPhone 4 at the bar.)
But, lo! Gaze now in wonder upon of the black iPhone that was thicker than… Actually, it’s Schrödinger’s iPhone, because each one is both thicker thinner than the other at the same time and if even of you nerds complains in the comments about the accuracy of this analogy then the Macalope will have Chris Breen ban you for .
It’s certainly possible that, as a whole, the white iPhones skew a little thicker than their black forebears, but when we’re down to measuring we might well wonder where our lives went terribly wrong.