bendsley

Opinion: Despite Symantec's security warnings for Mac OS X, Macintosh users pay too much for protection they don't really need.

In a perfect world, people might pay for security software based on the number of attacks prevented and the severity of those threats. The bigger the threat, the harder the software works and the more it protects, the more you pay. Seems fair enough.

In the case of Mac OS X, if you paid for what you got, the price for security software would be zero. The price would thus equal the number of virus and malware threats that target Apple's Unix-based operating system.

So why do Mac users pay so much—often as much at $70 for anti-virus alone and as much as $150 for a security "suite." Using the same math, Windows anti-virus software would probably cost $1,000 a desktop, yet it's easy to find software for as little as $20 in the stores.

Mac OS X users pay significantly more for protection than Windows users, protection so far they have needed only in theory or "just in case" a big new threat appears. People are getting wise to this. So is it any wonder that Symantec, in the eternal search for the next dollar, is out with a report that seems to predict dire consequences for future Mac users? It's like a teacher once told me, "Sell the sizzle, not the steak. Especially when you don't have any steak."

I suppose it's to the anti-virus industry's credit that some bored anti-virus developer hasn't launched an OS X threat merely to justify his or her continued employment. Still, with no threats, it's not like the software really requires much dev time.

Indeed, a Morgan Stanley report out this week predicts Apple could nearly double its share of the worldwide PC sales this year, thanks to iPod users buying a Mac as well. Going from 3 percent to 5 percent will be dramatic for Apple, but hardly noticeable in the broad marketplace. Given OS X's small global installed base, even this projected doubling of sales may not be enough to attract too much unwanted attention.

"Contrary to popular belief," the Symantec Threat Report continues, "the Macintosh operating system has not always been a safe haven from malicious code. Out of the public eye for some time, it is now clear that the Mac OS is increasingly becoming a target for the malicious activity that is more commonly associated with Microsoft and various Unix-based operating systems."

Is it any surprise that Symantec would beat the drums of fear as loudly as possible? This is, after all, a company that has for years persuaded Mac users to pay $70 for software "necessary" to protect their computers against nonexistent threats.

This makes me wonder whether the real threat that concerns Symantec isn't from Mac OS X viruses and malware. Rather, it's customers noticing that they've paid a lot of money for Norton anti-virus software that they didn't really need.

How can Symantec keep those customers in line and writing checks? By scaring the living daylights out of them, that's how. They even invoke the "M" word as a warning of what could be in store!

It's prudent to protect yourself. But what you pay for the protection ought to have some relationship to the threat.

While the "value pricing" concept will never fly, there really should be some relationship between what we pay and the protection we get. Compared with what Windows users pay, $70 is more protection than any Mac requires. Yet that's what Symantec and some competitors charge.

Mac users deserve a break.

__________________
"You hear the one about the fella who died, went to the pearly gates? St. Peter let him in. Sees a guy in a suit making a closing argument. Says, "Who's that?" St. Peter says, "Oh, that's God. Thinks he's Denny Crane."