What? you murmur?

I hadn't noticed anything amiss until a few months ago when an article appeared on their 'tech' section with the editor appalled that Stephen Fry had, in one of his broadsheet columns, leveled such an accusation at them. Which came as a bit of a shock to me as a) I usually skim the tech pages of the beeb news site and b) have incredible respect for Stephen Fry. I know that he is an Apple fan, but has been level headed on most issues (he claimed at launch that knowing Apple as he did, the iPhone v3 would probably live up to the hype but not until at least then) and so to speak out against his beloved (his words) Auntie was quite surprising. Frankly I was stunned.

So I went into 'wait, watch and make my own mind up' mode.

I tend to skim The Register as it is heartily disrespectful to all comers - Apple, MS, HP, Linux, et al. Someone needs to keep them on their toes after all. And sure enough, there was an overlap of stories on both sites. Except, it was just the Apple stories overlapping usually. So I did some more watching.

Today just blew it wide open though. The Apple/anti-virus thing is just lame. Just because there is a minor post in the support section, the beeb are blowing this into a 'Mac users now need anti-virus' panic. Shocking! Posts like that on support forums are usually about arse-covering. If it was a serious threat then any reputable company would issue a press release - even Apple.

When you look at some of the stories that the Beeb _could_ be covering - and arguably should in the case of things like Phorm - then is just absurd. Journalism? Gutter press I'd say!

Anyone noticed this nastiness creeping in? Or is it just me and the QiMaster?

--------------------
Veni, Vidi, Aesculi
(I came, I saw, I conkered)

It's not just you Dave - it's been there for a long time. Or rather, a great deal of ignorance about Macs has been there a long time, mixed with a certain amount of... not so much pro-Microsoft (although occasionally it blatantly is) as "anti-pro-Apple" talk, if you see what I mean. The tech writers and contributors to things like Click have regularly just repeated myths parrot-fashion and take frequent digs at what some of them see as "smug Mac users". Knocking down the fanboy worship in favour of more evidence-based and contextual reporting is a Good Thing - but the glee displayed in celebrating any potential Mac virus or OS X security breach "story" is as unprofessional as it is juvenile and ignorant - even more so when it's just another false alarm. The fact that Microsoft are a big online advertiser for the Beeb (and didn't they help develop the iPlayer? Which of course launched as Windows-only) just underlines it a little more...

Just ignore their ignorance/bias and stay a lot better informed than them. But if you want some genuinely funny Apple piss-taking with class, leave it to The Simpsons

Quote Dave B:

---

Today just blew it wide open though. The Apple/anti-virus thing is just lame. Just because there is a minor post in the support section, the beeb are blowing this into a 'Mac users now need anti-virus' panic. Shocking! Posts like that on support forums are usually about arse-covering. If it was a serious threat then any reputable company would issue a press release - even Apple.

When you look at some of the stories that the Beeb _could_ be covering - and arguably should in the case of things like Phorm - then is just absurd. Journalism? Gutter press I'd say!

---

I think the BBC just bit on this story like every other media entity in the world. Too bad they did. They've joined the rest of the sheep.

It's hard to determine the cause for the media frenzy. Yes, Apple issued an "advisory." But, they've issued the same advisory at least once before-I think about a year or two ago-and not a peep from the news organizations was heard. Maybe it's something smart to do periodically to avoid lawsuits or lower expectations for the time when such things come to be.

Maybe it was a slow news day, or perhaps some organization of software and/or hardware manufacturers got the media to bite on this one. But this response certainly was not unique to the BBC.

Given that BBC's iPlayer works on Mac and no other broadcaster's TV on demand via web service does, on balance I'd have to say the BBC are ahead. They're also using Apple Macs as props in various dramas including Spooks. I somehow doubt MI5 uses OSX! I'll check with my handler next time I see him ... whoops .... ARGH! Help .... me ....

--------------------
Original artwork and unique devices inspired by vintage technology http://www.thisisobsolete.com

IT is desperate "report anything bad" journalism, based on very biased sponsorship.

The iplayer or "I can't think of anything original -player" is just another copycat software, trying to capture some of that Apple cache´.

The day M/S do something original, is the day I shall buy something from them.

Quote jellyjim:

---

Given that BBC's iPlayer works on Mac and no other broadcaster's TV on demand via web service does, on balance I'd have to say the BBC are ahead.

---

Too true. I use the iPlayer regularly on my iBook and its very good.

ken

--------------------
I'm All Ears.

Quote jellyjim:

---

Given that BBC's iPlayer works on Mac and no other broadcaster's TV on demand via web service does, on balance I'd have to say the BBC are ahead. They're also using Apple Macs as props in various dramas including Spooks. I somehow doubt MI5 uses OSX! I'll check with my handler next time I see him ... whoops .... ARGH! Help .... me ....

---

That's only because they were dragged kicking and screaming into this as the download iPlayer isn't available for the Mac. (Nor is it likely to be, the download iPlayer relies on content 'expiring' after a time limit, Apple's Fairplay DRM doesn't have this feature).

Spooks is an independent production (Kudos) not BBC.

This err... bias is probably to make up for the pro Apple bias in the iPhone / iPod coverage. When Apple announced the 1st iPod to play video they hired 2 BBC TV Centre studios for the European press launch. It was heavily covered on BBC bulletins for the next day including a 7-8 minute (!) segment on BBC Breakfast.

BTW The journalist by-lined on the Apple/anti-virus story uses a Macbook Pro, how I know this I couldn't possibly tell you.

Quote steveman:

---

BTW The journalist by-lined on the Apple/anti-virus story uses a Macbook Pro, how I know this I couldn't possibly tell you.

---

And does he use anti-viral software? I know you couldn't possibly know, but tell us anyway

New ideas in old management decisions—now there's a virus!

--------------------
PA stuff on FB

Quote jellyjim:

---

They're also using Apple Macs as props in various dramas including Spooks. I somehow doubt MI5 uses OSX!

---

HaHa! Glad to see I'm not the only one to be bothered by this

Quote jellyjim:

---

They're also using Apple Macs as props in various dramas including Spooks. I somehow doubt MI5 uses OSX!

---

The US military said they were going over to Macs because they were more difficult to hack in to, maybe our security services are doing the same.

--------------------
No longer a forum member.

As someone who only uses Macs/OSX and thinks they are far and away the better computers I have to say I find the Mac cult too much. Even on this forum suggest Macs are less than faultless and your head is bitten off and you are called incompetent. A Mac is a computer, not your girlfriend/boyfriend etc. - there is no need to be sensitive because in a world of 5.5 billion people one or two may write an article suggesting that just maybe, in their opinion, that just possibly Macs may not be faultless beyond faultless.

It is this fundamentalist Mac cult thing that means I refuse to buy an iPod, I use my mobile and may get a Creative Zen for aircraft.

--------------------
No longer a forum member.

Quote Jeraldo:

---

Quote steveman:

---

BTW The journalist by-lined on the Apple/anti-virus story uses a Macbook Pro, how I know this I couldn't possibly tell you.

---

And does he use anti-viral software? I know you couldn't possibly know, but tell us anyway

---

If told told you I'd have to kill you...

well the bbc apparently just bought every last 23" cinema screen in the Uk (about 90 of them), so they cant be that anti-mac, lol

i had 2 on order last week, went to finalise and pay:

"Sorry, the bbc bought them all 2 days ago"

--------------------
You might think that... but I couldn't possibly comment.

Quote steveman:

---

That's only because they were dragged kicking and screaming into this as the download iPlayer isn't available for the Mac. (Nor is it likely to be, the download iPlayer relies on content 'expiring' after a time limit, Apple's Fairplay DRM doesn't have this feature).

---

iPlayer is the online video player, downloads are separate to it and use Microsoft's DRM to time limit the content on Windows.

Apple's DRM does have this feature and has to have it for movie rentals - the problem is Apple won't license. So the BBC need to find another DRM or do a deal with Apple to make the content available through iTunes. They promised a solution this year but they have gone very quiet on the subject recently.

Must admit I haven't noticed any bias against Apple at the BBC in general, though I've read a number of blogs they host which crossed the line. Any suggestion of conspiracy and bias is just stupid, the BBC is the most open and un-biased news provider in the world. No hidden agenda and a mandate to be fair, open and honest.

Theory 1: Clearly all of the hundreds of BBC employees, every which one of has a personal and virilant hatred towards Apple (Only matched by their love of Microsoft) got together and have decided to enact this conspiracy to undermine Apple in the best way imaginable - report on stories that are slightly critical of Apple.

Theory 2: Every single BBC staffer is a Microsoft shareholder and thus have a personal bias against Apple which affects their editorial descisions.

Which do you think is the most likely?

--------------------
http://www.jeremycorbett.co.uk

The correct answer being, of course, that the idea that an organisation the size of the BBC could havr an institutional bias on such a trivial field as operating system preference is completely absurd.

--------------------
http://www.jeremycorbett.co.uk

Quote Ian Stewart:

---

As someone who only uses Macs/OSX and thinks they are far and away the better computers I have to say I find the Mac cult too much. Even on this forum suggest Macs are less than faultless and your head is bitten off and you are called incompetent. A Mac is a computer, not your girlfriend/boyfriend etc. - there is no need to be sensitive because in a world of 5.5 billion people one or two may write an article suggesting that just maybe, in their opinion, that just possibly Macs may not be faultless beyond faultless.

---

total concurrence. i'm not inclined to worship any company when at the end of the day they're all trying to make money. i, too, prefer macs but when money is an issue i frequently opt for a wintel (or lintel) solution.

as for the virus/mac issue, not to be confrontational, but anyone who maintains the mac os is immune doesn't know what they're talking about. i've worked in operating system design on and off for 25 years. the simple fact o/t matter is that the ONLY way to secure a computer is to not connect it to anything, and even this doesn't work if you load tainted s/w. as long ago as the early 80s computer science researchers devised very secure operating systems for special purpose machines for the military. these os's are practically unusable as the level of internal security required that users were constantly validating identities, granting permissions, etc.

for all those apple-heads out there who are offended by this post, before you flame me do yourselves a favor: find a copy of the book 'accidental empires' and read the chapter on steve jobs. seldom has a person so idolized by millions had bigger feet of clay. in silicon valley jobs is known far and wide as the second most detestable billionaire in town, w/only oracle's larry ellison deemed a bigger twat. apple's just a company folks, it's not a creed.

cheers,

d

--------------------
"Patsy had the drug tolerance of Keith Richards and the moral rectitude of Brian Jones." - Dr. Walter Bishop, "Fringe"

Ignoring the more bizarre posts and responding to Hoobs' point :

Theory 3 : A couple of employees - one of whom is the editor of that small section of the organisation - have a distinct slant and as a result the articles publish reflect those. Not an institutional problem, just a matter of lack of checks and balances.

So ... I think I'll plump for that option. YMMV.

Everyone has some sort of bias. Period. I, personally, feel that a couple of people in the beeb are being less than impartial and are damaging it's reputation by doing so. Obviously I deserve to have my head on a spike for suggesting this ...

--------------------
Veni, Vidi, Aesculi
(I came, I saw, I conkered)

Hi
In my experience all the BBC engineers I used to work with regarded Windows as THE standard computer OS, in the same way as they worked entirely within the other broadcasting technical standards from EBU and SMPTE.

That was then, but I doubt things are greatly different today, amongst engineers,
Unless they're involved with the cutting-edge of IT storage systems for media asset management, where open source systems will prevail.

Quote PaulD:

---

Hi
In my experience all the BBC engineers I used to work with regarded Windows as THE standard computer OS, in the same way as they worked entirely within the other broadcasting technical standards from EBU and SMPTE.

That was then, but I doubt things are greatly different today, amongst engineers,

---

I know several Mac users, both engineers and non engineers, in the BBC. It's a big organization and it's not really fair to generalise. In know of quite a few PC v Mac battles in the beeb- but usually they a lot more good natured than most!
I know one BBC engineer who put service pack 3 on his laptop. He was seen logging onto the mac store.......

--------------------
Cubase, guitars.

Quote PaulD:

---

Hi
In my experience all the BBC engineers I used to work with regarded Windows as THE standard computer OS, in the same way as they worked entirely within the other broadcasting technical standards from EBU and SMPTE.

That was then, but I doubt things are greatly different today, amongst engineers,
Unless they're involved with the cutting-edge of IT storage systems for media asset management, where open source systems will prevail.

---

Pretty much the same now, but I think that's the general situation in broadcast IT, not just a BBC engineering bias.

As BBC Technology is now Seimens, the BBC has to rely on them to provide media asset management and other IT solutions. (possibly at much higher cost, though I couldn't comment...). Another triumph of the 'free market' ...

Don't really think there's an anti-Apple bias any more, the situation's far better than years ago - even back then it was more due to ignorance.
I recall being involved in a Watchdog spinoff on 'how to start computing'. In 5 programmes the Mac wasn't mentioned once, despite quite specific recommendations on what people should buy. Perhaps not surprisingly the programmes were offlined on Macs (Avid), and many of the content graphics were created on them too.

One thing that bugs me more is the ASA - there are plenty of food adverts with highly dubious health claims that are left alone, but if Apple dare suggest the iPhone / a Mac is slightly faster than it actually is, it's stopped. The last iPhone ad had a whopping 17 compalints, doesn't the ASA have more important areas of mis-advertising to worry about? I do wonder if there's a group of people that specialise in complaining re Apple's ads.
Food & health or phones & computers, which is really more important?

I don't think the BBC has an anti Apple bias - I was off work the other week and pretty much every show on daytime tv used a macbook pro.

I use macs at work and at home - but I often find the Apple marketing rather embarrasing.

Apple disproved the stuff they were saying about G5s being so much faster than intels when they started advertising that the "new intel mac was 10 time faster than the old G5"

I really can't abide the "Im a Mac and I'm a PC" ads either - its just negative nonsense.
Apple computers are good, so I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to concentrate on their strenths rather than lie about the other guy.

apple didn't disprove it, nor did anyone else.... processor speeds moved up the scale in the intervening 3 years or so....

as they always have.


so of course the new machines were faster than the old ones....


grief...



personally i think there is some shred of truth in the anti-apple thing, BUT mostly as a kind of over-done self balancing thing.... in order to try and present a balanced position, they're over doing the position shift they need to do to counteract the fact that they're nearly all apple users .... and might therefore be accused of a pro-apple bias if they sounded the slightest bit pleased about anything apple.....


if you see what i mean....

Quote Hypnotoad:

---

Quote jellyjim:

---

They're also using Apple Macs as props in various dramas including Spooks. I somehow doubt MI5 uses OSX!

---

HaHa! Glad to see I'm not the only one to be bothered by this

---

Macs are also used in the UK military - the LITS database is on OSX.

I think you're all eading way too much into it and seeing conspiracies that just aren't there.

The virus news story came out on a pretty quiet news day and had already been picked up by many other broadcasters and newspapers, inherently then making it a 'worthy BBC news story'

The plain fact is that if you ask any mac user to list a few advantages of owning a mac, most will smuggly include 'no virus attacks' amongst the top pluses. So a story that warns that the golden egg might be broken now/soon/sometime is of interest generally.

It is also inevitable, of course that as the user base for Mac users expands, sooner or later someone will start creating viruses and all the rest. And that day may well be sooner now that familiar Intel technology lies at the heart of the newer machines.

Having said all that, I've not suffered any virus troubles for years on my office PCs, and at the end of the day, it is just a computer -- a tool for doing a job.

I don't see any particular strengths or weaknesses in either format to be honest. Mac has the advantage of being a one horse show so the standard is known and maintained. But there is no doubt that you are playing for that peace of mind and the hyped lifestyle marketing.

There are some ropey PC builders out there, but the quality brands are directly comparable to Macs in terms of reliability and design in my opinion, and suitably well-informed and spec'd home-builds equally so.

Hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

I am never surprised when techie/geeky-type people say they don't suffer from viruses on their PCs. It's what I would expect, since they have sufficient knowledge and motivation to protect themselves.

However, the situation is very different for regular users. Let's face it, most "normal" people have no idea what goes on inside a computer, how it functions, or how exactly viruses find their way into one's system. All they know is that, seemingly out of the blue, their machines stop working properly. I have seen it happen many times with PC-using friends of mine.

By contrast, under OS X, there is not one regular Mac user who had his machine trashed by a virus. I know that PC users have a hard time believing in this fact, but that's what it is: A fact. You can bet your bottom dollar that a genuine, in the wild, and reproducing virus for the Mac would make global news - in an instant. Not only the BBC, but the entire print and web media would whip itself into a frenzy over it.

So, the argument that hackers haven't yet found interest in creating viruses for the Mac doesn't wash, since any bad boy who would indeed manage to unleash a genuine threat for the Mac would become an instant celebrity, and infamous the world over. Sticking it to the "smug" Mac community - what a temptation.

Imagine the headlines: "Al Gore's computer infected". "Steve Jobs concedes: Macs aren't safe after all". And so on.

None of this has happened, even though OS X has been around since 2001. Plenty of time for hackers to try and break it.

Macs ARE safer. If that isn't a clear advantage over Windows, I don't know what is. And no, I have no intention of starting another useless PC v. Mac debate.