Apple stays on message
So Apple ships some iPods with malware. As George Ou points out here, Apple then displays "arrogance and insincerity" in blaming Microsoft. George is absolutely right, Apple's display was disgusting and offensive to those of us that would like companies to accept responsibility when they screw something up.
But what George is missing is that what Apple did is good marketing. Dare I say it, maybe even great marketing. Huh? Did I say good/great marketing? With the blogosphere in an uproar? With everyone questions the legitimacy of Apple's security posture? Absolutely, this is classic example of why Apple is by far the best marketing organization in technology.
Why? Because their target market is not us. We'll buy their stuff anyway because we KNOW it's more secure. We can get pissed off and blow off steam and call them names. But what are you going to do, buy a new XP machine in protest? Not likely. Or maybe you are a Windows bigot (yes, they exist) - you aren't going to buy a Mac anyway - so they aren't talking to you either.
One of the first keys to good marketing is to stay on message. Apple certainly does that. It's all about the "Windows virus" and how Microsoft's OS should be more "hardy" and resistant to malware - like a Mac. Consumers eat this stuff up. And I suspect quite a few (who love their iPods) will certainly consider buying a Mac when their current machine blows up. If they had a Mac, they wouldn't have this problem.
Of course, it's ridiculous given that Apple created the problem. But the mass market is not comprised of the sharpest tools in the shed.
Another key to good marketing is to speak to your target customer. Apple's customers just want things to work (like their iPod) and because this virus only compromised Windows machines, it's another opportunity to poke Microsoft in the eye. Like they did in the original no virus ad here. See, they always stay on message and they never miss an opportunity to make the competition look bad.
So as much as I'm with George in being disgusted by Apple's actions, sometimes the best marketing makes you want to puke. And this is one of those times.



While I applaud your recognition of Mac’s ridiculous marketing b/s, I disagree with your statement, “We'll buy their stuff anyway because we KNOW it's more secure.”
Mac OS X is Linux based… Personally, I would run Linux over a Windows server any day but I wouldn’t venture to say that it’s inherently “more secure”. Does anyone follow the internet storm center? (http://iscxml.sans.org/newssummary.xml)
I see new Linux vulnerabilities just about every day. What makes it more secure is my ability to turn absolutely everything off. I have a much longer rant about this topic:
http://ghost.binrock.net/response.php?fk_Thought_ID=51
I wouldn’t think that a site named “securityincite” would spread such false ideas.
I don't care how many vulnerabilities a Mac or Linux has. I'm worried about the number of exploits. And if you look at anything, Windows is more compromised PERIOD. Nothing is 100% secure. Nothing. But the Mac gives me more protection. And that's the end of the story.
The only problem with the theory of it being good marketing is that the audience for this page isn't really Apple fanatics... The iPod is a pretty mainstream product, enough so that a large proportion of of iPod users are also Windows users. This page might be the first contact with Apple computer some of these customers will have, and quite a few may be turned off by such statements.
And anyway, it will probably be closer to impossible for companies to target these messages to only certain groups of people without the others hearing of it as well, thanks in large part to the blogosphere, and instant media.
"Mac OS X is Linux based" <-- err kid, google could have helped you with this statement
BSD != Linux
Bah, are you really going to be that picky? I should clarify, though: By "Linux-based", I meant "Unix-like". Debian and Red Hat both run the actual Linux kernel but it's modified and they don't have the same default binaries installed. I wouldn't expect a Red Hat user to be able to jump right into Debian and be comfortable. But all three are very closely related. I know that `ps -e`, `kill -9`, and `echo $PATH` will all produce the same results in each.
I'm sorry for my generalization.
Bryan