Built in virus protection in mac os?

[mi5moav]

How hard would it be for Apple to integrate virus protection into a future os upgrade. With the demise of symantec(not the virus side) This could be a selling point for an operating system. They could market as a self healing self protecting operating system from virii, trojans, and worms. Updating the defs would probably just use the software update. The biggest problem with symantec was that they want you to see that you are using their software(ala splash screens, huge update screen). With Apple they could just put it in the background and have a small inormative tag in the menubar or dock, we don't need to see it working just know it's working.

[Randman]

Apple markets virus protection with .Mac and Virex is solid. Symantec had many problems and few in the know are going to miss it around the OSX farm.
Why would Apple market anti-virus protection in the first place? Most people are aware that Macs are very safe from viruses already. And to be honest, a dedicated marketing approach might draw some fire from virus writers looking for the challenge.
That said, i do wish Apple would give a few months, 3-6, of free .Mac subscriptions to new purchasers of Macs to take further advantage of what it has to offer, including Virex protection.
Otherwise, there are far more important things that Apple could be promoting in its marketing schemes.

[mi5moav]

Best in class virus protection or fast user switching. As 1000 non mac users about viruses and if you tell them the mac has fast user switching or built in anti virus protection hardwired into it's os... guess which one will sway them.

It's hillarious to see someone post a comment for disscussion and then another being decide their only role in life is to change the mindset of others.

Your right, you are always right.

[Randman]

I'm sure there is far more compelling that either fast user switching or the lack of viruses. Both should be mentioned, however.
Better to tell 1,000 non-Mac users that viruses are virtually non-existent, therefore there's little need for built-in virus protection, however there are programs available for those who want them.
I guess it's just two views of an issue. I would prefer to focus on the positive aspects rather than the negative.
As far as the smart-ass comment on being right, I'm not always right. However, I do appreciate that you think I am.

[michaelsanford]

I would also point out that the independance of anti-virus creators from the OS maker adds to the security of the anti-virus app. How many Microsoft anti-virus apps do you know of?

It's the same idea as releasing Zimmerman's PGP as open source: everyone could look it over and see if there were any back doors or security holes...

Not that I'm suggesting that Apple would intentionally write viruses taylor-made for holes they left in the OS, of course.

[Gnomo]

Companies that develop OSes have to be extremely carefull about the types of
"extras" that they incorporate into the OS, especially after M$ got sued by Netscape for bundling IE with Windoze (not that M$ didn't deserve it).

While it might make the system safer having antivirus be apart of the OS, I think it would be dangerous from a legal point of view.

[mi5moav]

how the heck could it be dangerous from a legal point of view? While feeding the public at it's olive garden restaurants the courts have ruled that the public need to bring their own forks and spoons. Until Apple has 80% market share they can bundle anything with their computers and no one would care. Unfortunetly virex is a pay for use product and quite expensive at 99 a year.

[mindbend]

I would imagine there is already some degree of protection in terms of the security updates we keep receiving. I'm sure the last word Apple wants to use is "virus".