. . . let me remind the legal Mac faithful that I am one of you. If need be, I’ll send you all the receipts for the 2008 vintage 13″ Aluminum Macbook and 2005 vintage PowerBook G4 I own and regularly use . . . and even pictures showing me using them. In fact, I’m using my Macbook now to write this post. So what am I going to grouse about this time? About accuracy when writing about Macs.

I have been working hard to get Windows legal software publishers to acknowledge the growing Mac solo/small firm marketplace and to consider the benefits to them of either (or both): Beginning OS X native development efforts for their practice management systems, legal billing products, document managers, litigation support systems, etc. Relax their tech support policies and formally support their applications running under Windows in a virtual machine mode (i.e. Parallels, VM Fusion, etc.) under OS X (because after all, their app WOULD be running under Windows – what’s the big deal).

So far I can report open-mindedness and a willingness to consider on the part of several leading vendors I spoke with. They point out that it can involve a considerable development effort (and cost, resources, etc.) on their part. I also indicated they could likely kill two digital birds with one proverbial stone by making an OS X product actually their first SaaS products. I can’t name names but the thoughts seemed to be well-received. It’s a process though guys – it will take time, but I believe it will eventually start to happen, acknowleging the continued penetration of business markets by Apple.

So far so good, but here it comes. I just finished reading Ben Steven’s well-written recent Technofeature piece about whether lawyers should switch to Macs. I agree with nearly all of it and with Ben’s conclusion that Macs should definitely be considered. In fact, we are now offering services to our clients who are interested in either adding Macs or switching entirely to the OS X / Mac platform (it’s been a long-time coming – I can’t wait for Mac evangelists to jump all over this saying it’s a knee jerk reaction, etc. etc. – but most of them have no idea how long I’ve been championing Macs as an industry insider – do any of them know I organized one of the very first Mac legal conferences insider of LegalTech West in 2005, working directly with Apple? Probably not – ask Ed Siebel, one of “your” own).

I think that it is imperative to be precise and accurate when writing any tech piece. But I think this is especially the case when an article can have broad impact beyond merely educating readers. I think this is the situation with articles like Ben’s – Mac legal articles will be seen by legal technology software vendors who are considering the “do we start to develop for OS X” question. Inaccuracies will provide fodder for their “devil’s advocate” arguments which inevitably talk about how Macs are evangelized and put on an unrealistic pedestal and all that crap that feeds into the rational not to develop for OS X. I don’t want to see that happen.

Ben stated there are “zero” Mac viruses. That’s inaccurate. There aren’t many, but there are some and they’re well-documented. And as Macs work their way into more and more businesses and the Mac market share grows, it’s lilkely more and more “bad hackers” will try and make a name for themselves by attacking OS X. And while OS X is leaps and bounds more secure than any version of Windows will likely ever be, it’s not invulnerable and not perfect. Creating a false sense of security doesn’t seem like the best course here. And frankly, when one’s law license, reputation and ethical obligations are at stake, a “best practices” approach would seem to say it’s worth spending $60 for Mac anti-virus software (if just for the ability to say you did so in your ethics grievance hearing or in your legal malpractice action deposition).

Here are articles which talk about Mac viruses:

* IBotNet: http://tinyurl.com/dxj2zj

* MSNBC article about the first Mac virus from 2006: http://tinyurl.com/pq9ht

* TheAppleBlog.com (not the official Apple site): http://tinyurl.com/c2gxz8 (and as the post puts it so well, “Is Mac’s status as a highly secure option to Windows in danger? Clearly, Mac users are beginning to present a more attractive target to hackers, because the platform itself is becoming more popular. Not only that, but Mac users may be even more susceptible than others, since they traditionally haven’t had to worry much about malicious attacks.”

* The Apple Store Itself (one of which I visited just yesterday): http://tinyurl.com/an753n (why would Apple sell several Mac anti-virus products if Mac viruses, spyware and other malware didn’t exist??)

So Mac users need to continue to legitimize themselves as a force to be reckoned with in the legal and business world. And one of the ways to do that is to get over OURselves when it comes to myths (and that’s all they are anymore) about being invulnerable from a security perspective.

It’s not an issue of Macs being secure or not secure. It’s about Mac users becoming more educated about the security risks that exist, particularly as Macs become more prominent (and tempting) for criminals who want to steal our information and exploit it. What bad-hacker wouldn’t want to build an inner-circle reputation on thoroughly exploiting a difficult to exploit operating system, especially as more and more Macs are out in the field, tempting them with so many thinking “invulnerable,” “unsinkable”, etc.?

OK, one more beef. Ben said that using Word in OS X on a Mac and using Word in Windows is the same kind of experience. Huh? No it’s not. Word 2004 for Mac looked completely different than Word 2003 for Windows. Word 2008 for Mac looks completely different than Word 2007 for Windows. Sure there’s file compatibility and that’s TERRIFIC. But I *LOVE* Word 2007’s “ribbon interface” (one of the smartest, human-centric things Microsoft has ever developed, in a frankly, very un-Microsoft-like way) and HATE Word 2008 for Mac’s lack of the ribbon and floating palette approach. In fact, I predicted other software vendors would adopt the intuitive “ribbon” interface and that’s started (the terrific SnagIt screen capture tool from Techsmith.com is a good example).

This may be the first time a Windows version of a product that is also available for Mac clearly outclasses its Mac counterpart in design and usability (cynics will say, “duh, Microsoft will always favor apps it writes for its own operating system” and that may well be true). But the point is that aside from file compatibility, the fraternal Word twins are NOT alike at all. I run Word 2007 on my Mac in Parallels 4’s spectacular “Coherence” mode – it makes it feel like an OS X app – works for me.

Again, it’s about accuracy and journalistic credibility. While I expect the MILO community to once against virtually burn me at the stake, they’d be cutting off their noses to spite their collective faces. What they really need is a few more influential Windows legal consultants like me to advocate on behalf of Macs to give “permission” to the legion of uncertain folks who are considering Macs to feel comfortable with the idea and to consider it seriously. So think hard before you attack – all you’re doing is hurting your own “cause.”

I’ve never met Ben in person. I’m betting if I did, we’d probably get along famously. In the ether world of legal blawgging however, we really seem to rub each other the wrong way, although I don’t understand why. So if I were Ben, I could do two things:

1. Shoot me an email, saying thanks for the tips, acknowledging the spirit in which this is written, then write a correcting post on Technolawyer on these issues before someone else does (that’s what I would do if someone alerted me to a similar issue with one of my Technolawyer SmallLaw columns), or
2. Start a nasty personal attack campaign against me (A FELLOW BI-PLATFORM MAC USER) in the MILO community similar to when he fanned the flames of the smear responses that followed my column about Macs for SmallLaw last Fall.

High road’s always the better road and one that much better fits the Mac image. We’ll see what happens.

Related posts:

1. The Big Underscore – Why Mac Lawyers Need to Learn About Security Issues I wrote a couple of weeks ago about how important...
2. Outlook for Mac Coming with Office 2010 – Legal Software Development Floodgates to Open? Microsoft’s Business Unit has confirmed that the next Mac version...
3. Hosted Exchange Server Follow-up: It Needs to Be Well-Considered Thanks to those who commented on my earlier post about...
4. Mac Practice Management: A Short/Quick Answer The question of what to look for in Mac practice...
5. CLE Update: Chicago and on the Web Next Week! Just thought some of you might be interested in two...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.