The article is criticizing Apple for (reportedly) informing its AppleCare technicians to point users to antivirus products rather than helping them to remove the virus over the phone. The article backs off from that criticism and then moves the goal posts to a criticism of Apple for giving its users a false sense of security.<p>From what I've seen over the years, it's the Apple evangelists, more than Apple itself, that have been lulling other Mac users into a false sense of security. I also think that Apple's strategy with AppleCare is probably wise; a technician generally shouldn't attempt to do a malware cleanup over the phone, even if you're pretty sure that the version of the bug you last saw was easy to remove.<p>I think it's also worth pointing out that it took Microsoft a very, very long time to finally release a solid antimalware product. Given Apple's dedication to user experience, I have no doubt that, if this continues to be a problem, Apple will deal with it swiftly.<p>...I like to imagine that Jobs will call up some old friends of his and ask them to "break that asshole's fingers".
The author actually states that he has no problem with the advice Apple is giving users here, but feels that Apple has lulled users into a false sense of security. Also, it looks like Gruber accused someone of crying wolf with regards to OSX Malware, and that annoyed a few people.
Sensationalistic headline.
In addition to that, take what Ed Bott is saying with a boulder of salt. After all Bott makes his living covering Microsoft.
Slightly off topic but considering the volume of fake-anti-malware programs, I wonder what proportion of porn is distributed not with any intention of titillation but as pure threat - "here, this proves your is infected, pay-up".<p>By that token, I wonder if at point, malware "companies" might actually pay have new "threat-porno" produced. "No, it doesn't need look good but make it really offensive and scary"