said by BuriedCaesar :

There you go again with a vague "market share" reference... so I'll say my piece again.

"Market share" is a specious phrase, easily thrown around without context or meaning, as you so deftly have demonstrated. In what context are you using "market share"? Do you mean actual, in-use machines? Machines that logged on to the internet today, or last week, or last month? Numbers of PCs sold over time? During a specific period in time? How about PCs in use that are tracked when they visit some company's website so they can make a buck selling that data to news outlets that then report that, erroneously, as "fact"?

And there are lots of ways to determine a statistical margin of error, but then that depends on the data set you're using (and usually a definition of the referencing term, such as your favorite phrase "market share").

This seems to me to be just a clever attempt to dismiss and deflect attention from what was presented by this second effort to refute the original, flawed "contest." Did you perhaps not RTFA?

And you say the Mac is a "rare platform"? Interesting notion. How did the original story garner such immediate attention if "nobody cares"? Why is this follow-up even being reported here, then? I suspect there are several millions of Mac users out there who would disagree with you about how "rare" this platform really is.

Clearly there are some high emotions tied up in this whole thing - I'm sure other comments in this thread will bear that out. And we both know this won't be going away any time soon. Soon enough there will be another attempt to show that Macs are just as vulnerable as their previously hapless PC cousins, or not - whether you care about it, or not.

said by Shamayim :

I bet there are plenty who would like to be first for the bragging rights. It just ain't happening though

said by barnett25 :

Now if we were talking about viruses I would probably agree with you.

said by kamm :

Market share is market share, numers are numbers, despite all these funny mambo jumbo from Macalots to perplex it.

Mac's worldwide market share roughly the statistical error margin range, that's a fact, see »www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/10/···30.shtml

Around 210 million PC were sold in 2005 - compare it to Apple's 'uhh-sooooo-hiiiiigh' 4 million untis overall.
Dell alone sells 10x more than Apple...
And finally, because Macalots love to brag about Apple's growth: Gateway had higher increase in sales than Apple...
Check all the numbers here: »macdailynews.com/index.php/weblo···ts/8291/

PS: to avoid idiotic posts about credibility, I've picked two pro-Mac sites. ;)

said by kamm :

FYI: being "first" have been passed already in many category. The trick is anytime something happens, Macalots will change the course to downplay its importance or even discredit the news - see last week's events.

said by kamm :

...Macalots...

said by itguy05 :

quote:

---

Around 210 million PC were sold in 2005 - compare it to Apple's 'uhh-sooooo-hiiiiigh' 4 million untis overall.

---

But it's up 33% from last year, that's a good thing as long as it keeps growing.

quote:

---

Dell alone sells 10x more than Apple...

---

GM sells more than Toyota. Doesn't mean it's a better product. Dell = junk of the PC world.

quote:

---

And finally, because Macalots love to brag about Apple's growth: Gateway had higher increase in sales than Apple...

---

By 1 percent. Mainly due to them getting into retail again.

said by barnett25 :

And if anything happens, people like you will change the course to overplay its importance - see last week's event.
Last week's test was obviously worthless, as anyone with any knowledge of security will tell you. Why is it that some people hate a computer platform so much that they jump on any opportunity to try to mock and discredit it, even at the cost of supporting and backing erroneous claims?

said by BuriedCaesar :

Thanks for providing a basis for your argument - it's still pretty slim-pickins, though, since you've narrowed your numbers to a single year of actual sales. Yes, from that perspective, the difference is clear, but there's no "statistical margin of error" here - you're using the term incorrectly, and it's misleading.

Apple sold that many units. Other companies sold more. Where's the error? Are you saying it's possible those sales didn't occur? Apparently you care about this more than I expected - thanks for trying.

said by itguy05 :

quote:

---

And, as usually, all of these have nothing to do with the subject, namely that Apple's market share so small that no hacker actually gives a shit about it.

---

If they were smart, they would target these sysems. Why? Because they could go on for a while unnoticed, skimming credit card, banking, and other personal info. I'd rather go after that market where I could sit and collect data virtually unnoticed. Sure, I can only go to 3-10% of computers, but I can be unnoticed in that 3-10%.....

The premise of Entrapment (Sean Connery and Catherine Zeta Jones) was perfect - skim small sums of money over a long period of time. Nobody is going to notice a few cents missing from each transaction. But over time you get a boatload of money....

Same thing applies to this - sit waiting in the shadows and collect the dough....