Originally Posted by focher
The next time someone drives a Volvo into a brick wall and dies, you will be that moron on the Volvo Insider forum blaming Volvo because they market their cars as safer than others. Your argument being mostly thatthe marketiing claim leads some people to believe that safer equates with invincibility.
If Volvo said "Our cars will protect you from all kinds of crashes. You wreck in one of our cars, you will be safe, and you will live, even if you intentionally drive your car into a wall." then yes, I would be that moron. However, Volvo does not state that. Apple, in their ads, in the way they state things claiming to be so secure, has said that. Yes, they have the "No computer is fully safe 100%", and "Does not catch Windows Viruses." both of these things are true. But its the fact they keep portraying that you can't be harmed on a Mac, that is the issue here. In court, Apple would definitely win as their verbiage is "right" enough, but in the eyes of a general consumer, its confusing enough to lull them into a false sense of security.
Bottom line: People downloaded the software, it caused havoc on their computer, even though its their fault, Mac OS X is not as secure as advertised. If it were, then this attack wouldn't be an issue, and I would be genuinely impressed.