Windows Drops Below 90% Market Share 595
ozmanjusri writes "Online market share of the dominant Windows operating system has taken its biggest monthly fall in years to drop below 90%, according to Net Applications Inc. Computerworld reports that Microsoft's flagship product has been steadily losing ground to Mac OS X and Linux, and is at its lowest ebb in the market since 1995. 'Mac OS X... [ended] the month at 8.9%. November was the third month running that Apple's operating system remained above 8%.' The stats show that while some customers are 'upgrading' from XP to Vista, many are jumping ship to Apple, while Linux is also steadily gaining ground. A Net Applications executive suggests the slide may be caused by many of the same factors that caused the fall in Internet Explorer use. 'The more home users who are online, using Macs and Firefox and Safari, the more those shares go up,' he said. November has more weekend days, as well Thanksgiving in the US, a result that emphasizes the importance of corporate sales to Microsoft."
Good news (Score:5, Funny)
This is good news. It surely means the year of the Linux Desktop is impending.
Re:Good news (Score:5, Informative)
90% for windows.
8.9% for Mac
Meaning 1.1% for Linux and other Operating Systems.
It is Mac who is taking MS. Market Share, not Linux... Sorry. Just because we are all group together so it seems like we are a majority the truth is Linux users are in a small minority.
Re:Good news (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect that Linux usage is a teeny bit higher than Net apps tracks. This is because Net Apps relies on browser response to track OS users. Many Linux users spoof IE/Windows in their browser to allow certain poorly coded websites to function. While it likely won't account for more than a 0.5% difference, Linux usage IS a bit under reported.
Re:Good news (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that just a bit out of date? Yeah, I know back when IE had 95% market share and there were extremely poor "there are no other browsers" sites out there that some did, but with IE at under 70%, Firefox at 20% and others at 10% are there I don't see how. Is there even a single site that would work on Firefox/Win but not Firefox/Lin? Or are you trying to say websites shut out 30% of the market? Sorry, but these days I'd call that wishful thinking.
Re:Good news (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately yes. I know a lot of windows users that use that IE tab or whatever it's called in Firefox. When I have mentioned a site being shit because it doesn't work in firefox, they say "yes it does" and tell me to get this IE tab thing. Then look confused when I tell them it doesn't work on Linux.
And these people are developers. Shitty ones that can only target IE, but employed developers nonetheless.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Good news (Score:5, Informative)
90% for windows. 8.9% for Mac Meaning 1.1% for Linux and other Operating Systems.
ominous voice : There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of... oh forget that.
Oh man, just RTFA's links:
Percent for Jan Aug Nov
Windows 91.50 90.66 89.62
Mac 7.57 7.86 8.87
Linux 0.64 0.93 0.83
iPhone 0.13 0.30 0.37
Playstation 0.03 0.04 0.04
FreeBSD 0.00 0.00 0.01
Other 0.13 0.21 0.26
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/os-market-share.aspx?qprid=9 [hitslink.com]
Re:Good news (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that open source won't/can't accomplish some of the things you ask for.
Some are easy: unified sound architecture. Ok, that's pretty much done (see: ALSA).
Better graphics drivers: Well some of these are binary only, but both Nvidia and ATi have pretty decent drivers for Linux these days.
Filesystem that has a coherent layout? I personally think that the filesystem already makes plenty of sense, and since the OS that IS gaining ground on Windows (Mac OS X) uses the same Unix style layout, then I don't think it's a major factor.
Something other than X11? This could indeed work if done right. Notice how quickly people dumped XFree86 for the xorg fork for example. However, shifting from X11 would require a major, major push. Tons of applications that are no longer actively maintained (or at least not heavily maintained) simply aren't going to take the time to recode. Any replacement would HAVE to include a rootless X11 server as a seperate component. No problem there (Mac OS X has one and there are plenty available for Windows too), but if 99% of your applications just default to using the X11 server built into your new interface rather than the more raw mode, then you haven't accomplished much. Also, those drivers that Nvidia has put out are currently for xorg. It'll take another display method gaining SIGNIFICANT ground before they recode those things. In the transition phase people would have to live with subpar drivers.
So, there's the (somewhat) accomplishable goals. Then we get to:
One unified kick-ass desktop: not going to happen. At all. Linux is based on the concept that the userbase can write software as they see fit for their own use. There is no governing corporate board to choose one solution over another: by nature it's community driven. As such if somebody doesn't like a desktop, they'll write another. Prevent that ability and you destroy most of what's keeping the current Linux users loyal to the platform: freedom to modify, fork, etc.
Consistent look to applications: People tend to code to toolkits that they know. We have several established toolkits out there now: GTK and QT are the biggies. WxWindows, Tcl/tk, and others are minor but still significant. You're not going to get people to give up the ones that they like by choice, and to force them to would again kill freedom. About the best you could hope for here is a common skinning/theme engine that you could use to make both toolkits look similar, but I doubt they'd ever look completely consistent.
Klller apps that don't exist anywhere else? Most certainly not going to happen. Again, 99% of software for Linux is open source. If people like any of those programs they are going to port them to other platforms. That's a given. The only way to prevent that is to close the source and take it proprietary, but then you tick off your user base again. The small minority of commercial software for Linux certainly isn't going to code exclusively for it either. Why would someone code for a platform that is only 1% of the total market? It's financial suicide. The only business that would typically do that would be one trying to push the platform from some idealistic standpoint, but businesses that put ideals like that in front of profits don't tend to remain in business very long.
Ha! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you write a true comment in a Flamebaitisticalish way (which you did), you will get modded as such ;)
Re:Ha! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ha! (Score:5, Funny)
Apple is not a cult.
See, no sarcasm.
Oh, I see...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Erm. Alright, let's try it another way:
Argh. I give up!
Re:Ha! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Ha! (Score:5, Funny)
When my aunt wasn't able to install her MS Money on Vista, she thought her world was on fire
Re:Ha! (Score:5, Interesting)
No, it's not apples gain in market share people were complaining about, it was the conclusion that desire to write viruses and market share have any significant correlation that they were probably modding you on.
Remember, not many mods follow the 'there is no -1 disagree for a reason' rule for modding.
That being said, I think the whole 8.9% market share in conjunction with Apple's "We're number 1" cheerleader commercial quite hilarious.
Re:Ha! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's less a "good news for Apple" story as it is a "bad news for MS" story. Apple gained a slight bit of market share. But MS is in a much more vulnerable position. MS's entire business model is pretty much PREDICATED on the proposition that they pretty much own the OS market (and has been for a long time now). Anything that threatens that share, even just a little, threatens the very underpinnings of the company.
God, it was hard getting through that paragraph with no sarcasm.
Re:Ha! (Score:5, Funny)
Good thing they're spending $300 million more on marketing, then! Maybe that Mojave thing we keep hearing about will turn things around for them.
Yeah, I can't avoid the sarcasm either.
Re:Ha! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's less a "good news for Apple" story as it is a "bad news for MS" story. Apple gained a slight bit of market share. But MS is in a much more vulnerable position. MS's entire business model is pretty much PREDICATED on the proposition that they pretty much own the OS market (and has been for a long time now). Anything that threatens that share, even just a little, threatens the very underpinnings of the company.
God, it was hard getting through that paragraph with no sarcasm.
Okay, let's get a little perspective here. It's a common meme in the business that Microsoft makes more money selling software to Mac users than Apple makes selling Macs to Mac users. I'm not positive whether that's still true, but it would not surprise me in the least if it was. MS-Office for Mac still costs a king's ransom and still sells like hotcakes at Apple Stores everywhere.
Microsoft makes pretty good bank on Windows, but it's far from being their main revenue stream. Productivity software, enterprise solutions, and services are where their big bucks come from.
What I find amusing about the story is this: Apple raises their market share from what was possibly as low as 3 percent a couple years ago to about 9 percent, while Linux remains something that non-nerds are not even sure how to pronounce, and what's the spin on Slashdot? "OS X and Linux are chipping away at Microsoft's market share!"
Re:Ha! (Score:5, Insightful)
OS X is chipping away at the desktop market.
Linux is chipping away at the enterprise server market.
So yes, OS X and Linux are chipping away at Microsoft's market share of 2 or more markets...
Re:Ha! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an article about the desktop market, not the enterprise market. Linux remains a non-factor on the desktop.
As for the enterprise, I admit I haven't been paying very close attention since shifting my career towards more of a programming role, but it seems to me that there were a lot more enterprises running some flavor of Unix or another (including Linux) ten years ago, and a lot fewer Windows Enterprise shops back then. A decade ago, Windows was not taken very seriously as a "big iron" server solution. Now they seem to have bleed into many (if not most) corporate server farms, though still not the overwhelming dominance they have in the desktop market. Am I just horribly misguided on that score?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Correct, however, since when do we allow the topic of the article to restrict commentary.
The poster that I responded to questioned the validity of OS X *and* Linux chipping away at Microsoft's market share.
While Linux based OS desktop marketshare may be minimal in the United States, there are many countries where it's gaining a lot of momentum, especially in the government arenas.
But in the server arena is where Linux based operating systems are really carving into Microsoft's market share.
Re:Ha! (Score:5, Insightful)
GP's point is still valid though. Microsoft's main profit point is neither Windows nor Office, it's synergy. Especially in the corporate office environment. They sell you the Windows, and the Windows works best with the Windows Server, and then well, you bought the Windows Server and the Exchange is not much more, so you get the Exchange... but the Exchange works Best with the Outlook, so you get the Outlook, which is MUCH cheaper as part of the Office, so you get the Office too. Hey! The SQL Server will grab auth info from the Active Directory! If you need a database, you should get the SQL Server, which works better with the IIS, which really wants the Visual Studios to develop the VB and ....
You get the idea. When you buy Windows you are often on the slippery slop of becoming a "Microsoft Shop" often one product at a time. But if you never buy Windows, why buy all that other stuff? If you replace Windows, most of that stuff becomes either unnecessary or counter productive. So if some little 100 man company replaces all of their Windows PCs with Macs, Microsoft hasn't just lost 100 Windows sales, chances are they've lost server sales, IIS sales, Exchange sales... On and on. Even if the company does get MS office, it's still a pretty big hit on what they COULD have bought. Now multiply that by 10 or 100 or 1000.
Microsoft is still in no danger of going out of business, but loss of desktop sales hurts them far beyond just the individual license sale lost. The main hole in GPs argument it that most of the lost Windows sales are for home use. The synergy is less important there. I wasn't buying a full fledged tech infrastructure for my house anyway, so MS hasn't lost many potential synergy sales because I bought a Mac or switched to Linux. Still some businesses are switching, so the tide MAY be turning, but it's going to be a long while before you see Apple or Linux get the kind of penetration on business workstations that they're starting to get in the home. (At least partially because a lot of businesses have already invested a fortune in those infrastructure synergies, and don't want to lose them)
Re:Ha! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a matter of margins.
Each Mac mini needs to be built in a Chinese sweatshop and then shipped to the US.
Each MacBook needs to be built in a Taiwanese sweatshop and then shipped to the US.
Each version of MS-Office needs to be written once and then sold on $0.50 disks to millions of users for hundreds of dollars each. Plus, if the user is "keeping up" with your versions, you'll ding them about 3 times over the useful life of the Mac they're running it on.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The cost of duplication for an OS is almost $0 now.
Microsoft margins on Windows and Office are enormous. It's a clear indicator that they are still a monopoly.
The grand-daddy of them all was the unit responsible for Windows. It had costs of just $545 million but generated a profit of $2264 million, a staggering 415.4% profit on the money they put into it.
Let's put this in context. Dell's recent quarterly statement shows its margin at about 9%, which is a lower margin than even the least productive of Microsoft's profit-making groups. IBM's margin is similar to Dell's but HP's is about 6% in total, thanks mainly to printers, and Sun Microsystems is even lower.
http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2003/11/16/microsofts-money-machine-revealed [theinquirer.net]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Okay, let's get a little perspective here. It's a common meme in the business that Microsoft makes more money selling software to Mac users than Apple makes selling Macs to Mac users. I'm not positive whether that's still true, but it would not surprise me in the least if it was. MS-Office for Mac still costs a king's ransom and still sells like hotcakes at Apple Stores everywhere.
Maybe I'm being naive here, but how could this possibly be true? Even if every single Mac owner bought a copy of Office for every single Mac they owned, wouldn't Microsoft still be making less money by virtue of the fact that Office is (hopefully? I haven't checked) cheaper than the Mac itself?
Assume a mac costs $1000 and has a 5% profit margin.
Assume MS-Office costs $100 and has a 51% profit margin.
Apple gets $50 (net) for each mac sold, while MS gets $51 (net). So MS makes $1 more with 1/10 as much in sales, due to the absurd profit margin having a copyright gives them.
(note that I don't know what the real numbers are, the ones here are made up to show how this could be possible)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
OTOH, MacOS has been around since 7 years before the first line of the Linux kernel was ever written
Mac OS X shares almost nothing in common with MacOS classic, other than containing a virtualised copy that never made the switch to Intel. Mac OS X is a linear descendent of NeXTSTEP, via OPENSTEP. The first release of NeXTSTEP was 1989, only two years before Linux 0.1, although there were previews available from around 1986. If we're comparing kernels to kernels, then it would be fair to include BSD and Mach on the OS X side, which date from earlier. If we're comparing windowing systems, X has been ar
Re:Ha! (Score:4, Funny)
Of course, it probably doesn't help MS that Vista isn't exactly setting the world on fire.
Put it in charge of fire control systems and it may.
Federal bailout? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Federal bailout? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
w00h00! The monopoly is broken! Microsoft will never dominate the operating system market like they used to again!
"Ding dong, the witch is dead, the wi..." Wait, 80 what percent? Rats.
amazing revelations from computerworld (Score:3, Funny)
"The more home users who are online, using Macs and Firefox and Safari, the more those shares go up,"
Let me get this straight...if more people use a browser, then there are more people using that browser? Brilliant!
Monopoloy (Score:5, Interesting)
Just curious, but at what point is Microsoft no longer considered a monopoloy? At what percentage are they legally allowed to start pulling the dirty tricks again?
Re:Monopoloy (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Monopoloy (Score:4, Insightful)
Meh. Regardless of its popularity, OS X is still going to be the nicer platform to work with.
Mainstream acceptance does not always invalidate "hip" status. Obama won the election comfortably, but he's still considered the more "cool" candidate to have supported by most trendy urbanites.
Popularity (Score:5, Insightful)
That's true with nerds too. Why, just the other day, I was Yahooing a javascript method...
See what you did there? "Why, that fool doesn't use Google!" The mainstream - and yet still the coolest - search engine. Because it works the best.
Popularity does not always have a negative feedback loop.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Monopoloy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple with anti-trust?!
Only when they achieve a dominant position. That's not likely to happen unless Apple turns into Microsoft and allows Dell, Lenovo, HP, Acer and others to embed OSX into their computers.
Which is to say, pretty accurately, never.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do people keep going on about the 'iTunes lock-in'? It is equivalent to Zune Marketplace, and any other mp3 player + music manager combo (there have been many over the years). I had a Rio MP3 player before an iPod, it had a music manager that only worked with the Rio, and I had to switch to iTunes when I got my iPod... so what??
As for the DRM, Apple is trying to get rid of DRM in their music. EMI is selling all their stuff through iTunes without DRM, the other music labels are selling DRM-free music thr
Re:Monopoloy (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is trying to get rid of DRM in their music? How did Amazon get all of theirs without it? Are you telling me the CEO from Amazon is a better negotiator or speaker than Steve Jobs? I don't think so. Face it, it's not in Apple's best interested to remove the DRM.
Honestly iTunes is fair game for scrutiny.
Re:Monopoloy (Score:4, Informative)
Amazon got DRM free for two reasons:
There might have also been demands that Apple force the sale of Albums (vs single tracks) at the Music Companies whim, but I'm not sure if that was part of this or other negotiations...
Re:Monopoloy (Score:4, Insightful)
The labels intentionally gave Amazon the right to offer DRM free tracks to lessen Apple's negotiating power over them. Hasn't worked very well, ITMS is still the top seller of music.
Re:Monopoloy (Score:5, Insightful)
That is what people are talking about, when they complain about iTunes lock-in. Try using a Rio without their software: easy. Try using an iPod without their software: hard and you get threats and deception from an Apple lawyer. [slashdot.org]
Because it's not "damn near everyone else," it's damn near no one else. It's unusual for an MP3 player to require a proprietary syncing app and refuse to work if the user chooses some other way to get the music onto the player.
Re:Monopoloy (Score:5, Informative)
Guess you missed this antitrust lawsuit [informationweek.com] over the iPod?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft was found guilty NOT because they were a monopoly but because they used their monopoly size to force competitors out of the market and force OEMS into exclusive contracts.
Get a clue.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say that Apple's worse.
That's because you're an idiot.
When you buy a PC, you normally buy a box that happens to have Windows on it.
Yes, you buy an HP or a Dell and it comes with Windows on it. They both make more machines than Apple, and yet you aren't blathering about suing them.
and proprietary hardware
Name one part of a Mac that's proprietary. Then name all the parts that aren't and get back to us with the percentage.
Re:Monopoloy (Score:5, Insightful)
Just curious, but at what point is Microsoft no longer considered a monopoloy? At what percentage are they legally allowed to start pulling the dirty tricks again?
when they no longer conspire to dominate the market through misconduct.
Re:Monopoloy (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
90^2 is 8100 (and 10^2=100 for a total of 8200) - maybe the GP just got the 8 and 1 reversed
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I submit that all monopolies abuse their position sooner or later. What are you going to do about it? Especially when (looking innocently at the telcos) they own the politicians.
Measurement (Score:2)
Re:Measurement (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know if their clients are U.S. only or Worldwide.
Also in that report, it shows that Firefox use broke 20% for the first time ever at the expense of Internet Explorer.
Many factors... (Score:3, Insightful)
There's the general opinion of Vista's unsuitability, the rise in Macs, the netbook phenomenon, the economic downturn slowing hardware turnover, all leading to fewer Windows boxes out there. The question is whether MS has any chance of reclaiming them with their even-fatter Windows 7, or accelerate the downturn.
Now if some Large Visible Company decided to jump off the Microsoft Upgrade Treadmill in favor of Some Other OS, *THAT* would be a story...
SCOX(Q) DELENDA EST!!
I believe it .... (Score:4, Insightful)
When people realize there are alternatives, they start to look for MORE of them. Firefox specifically is proving that one doesn't need MS to do normal activity. When no website "breaks" because one is using FF, they subtly say "wow". When they learn of new features (tabs) in IE and realize that those were available in FF long before MS got to them, they go "wow".
This would cause people to look at what they do, not what they use to do it, and see if what they need is available elsewhere.
The next big push should be OpenOffice. My kid comes in and shows me her "Powerpoint" (her words) and I know that I haven't put MS Office on her computer, then I point out that it isn't "PowerPoint" but a presentation. She realizes it isn't Microsoft Office and I now have someone who can tell her friends "I didn't use MS Office" (and she will too!).
When people realize they can surf the net (already there) and make "PowerPoints" and "Word Documents" and "Excel Spreadsheet", it will increase the options for discovering that one CAN get along quite nicely without Microsoft.
I've long said that 2007-8 is going to be the beginning of the end for MS. The writing is on the walls, it is just a matter of time before the whole thing collapses.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Users switching from IE to FF means nothing in the long run
On the contrary. If not for Firefox on Windows, I wouldn't be using Linux today. As the GP said, "when people realize there are alternatives, they start to look for MORE of them".
and so it begins (Score:2)
Goliath has just felt the stone impact his cranium.
The year of the linux desktop looms.
So, What's the *Actual* WinVista ONLY use? (Score:4, Insightful)
(Yes, I mean to Exclude counting any WinVista Downgrade licenses in the %, and show the *Actual* market share % use of WinVista in PCs since the WinVista release to date.)
Those stats might be more interesting and possibly more insightful to MS losing market share to other PC OS options.
Grouping *EVERYTHING* marketed as "Windows" into one pool is not statistically transparent.
I argue that many would NOT consider WinME, Win2k, WinXP, WinVista, or even Windows Mobile to be the the same category, etc...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Vista's market share has been monotonically increasing since release, and now stands at 20.45%
Wow, that's pathetic. That means it accounts for about 22% of Windows computers, or 1 in 4.4. Since Vista has been out for over two years now (November 30, 2006 for corporate customers), it would take Vista about 9 years at this rate to cover 100% of the Windows market alone. Given that computers are typically replaced much more often than once every 9 years, it's actually far behind the adoption curve you'd expect from just hardware upgrades.
Design is everything (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course this makes great sense. Design and efficiency in computing are the next big thing, and MSFT seems to do lots of research but no integration.
On the other hand, Apple and others have created very nice, simple and streamlined applications that seem to be driven less by research than by practical testing and design.
Which means that, in the future, Apple and others will continue to gain ground... unless... the new windows... nah...
Not quite. (Score:5, Insightful)
The most important paragraph (Score:4, Insightful)
"Windows' share typically falls on weekends and after work hours, as users surf from home computers, a larger percentage of which run Mac OS X than do work machines."
So, what they are saying is that people would rather use something else, and do so at home. In effect, people don't want windoze but are forced to use it at work.
Windows sucks and there's your proof.
Re:The most important paragraph (Score:4, Insightful)
The same thing could be said about Linux actually. There are quite a few people who use Linux workstations at work, but have windows PCs at home (often because their home PC is a family PC). By your logic, I could say "people don't want to use Linux, but are forced to use it at work".
Phil
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are quite a few people who use Linux workstations at work, but have windows PCs at home
Back up that statement with facts please. In my experience, Linux users who have Linux work stations at work have Linux machines at home and for family members, either Linux or Mac. That is not something I'd assert as fact, but is has more foundation in my portion of the observable universe.
Re:The most important paragraph (Score:4, Insightful)
Though every time I have installed Linux on a computer at home I spend so much time trying to install drivers and software I usually give up after a week.
There is no way to politely respond to this statement because it presents only two alternatives. Either the author is an idiot or the author is lying. Either way, it would not be nice to point that out.
Instead, I'll say maybe Linux is not for you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
it usually takes closer to two weeks, and even then he is happy to accept that only 90% of everything works properly, because "hey it's free, what do you expect".
This is pure FUD. Plain and simple, here's why:
No operating system is perfect, this is a fact. However, if we were to assume that universal support of devices were some sort of benchmark to quality, then Vista would have a HUGE problem. (Well, another one, anyway) Linux supports more devices than Vista.
I'd rather have 90% support from something tha
How do these people get their stats? (Score:4, Interesting)
I just don't trust these stats (and that's not because they don't say what I want them to), from the Net Applications [hitslink.com] site:
So it's all customers from some analytics service these guys own. But what type of sites use their service? It's hard to believe these figures do not have a built-in bias due to the types of sites providing them.
By far the most popular analytics service is Google Analytics.* If Google were to produce figures like these, I'd be more inclined to believe them, as their analytics software is used on a decent cross-section of sites, including technical ones like Slashdot.
My own data -- with bias due to having a technical audience -- across two sites, says roughly: Windows 75%; Mac 9%; Linux 13% (with 3% AWStats reports as 'Unknown', and other sundry OSs like BSD, OS/2, AmigaOS, BeOS etc.) None of my sites use Net Applications' software, and get around 125,000 visitors a month.
* Sorry I haven't a citation for this, but just look at the source code of almost any site and you'll see a Javascript block from Google Analytics. Also, see this unscientific evidence [google.com].
Just Look Around (Score:4, Interesting)
And Apple is near thier peak of marketshare (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple will NEVER get more than maybe 10% of the market. The company doesn't scale well. And they tie OSX to their hardware.
Let's say Apple releases Snow Leopard. It's the greatest OS known to man. it's 50% faster than 10.5, runs ALL Windows applications faster than Windows, has ZFS as the filesystem, and has zero security flaws.
Ok, great, let's run it. But I have to buy a machine from Apple. Now if I just want a machine, I can get one. But Apple has enough problems with releasing new systems with their 8% share now. What happens when this goes to 20%? 30%? They are bottlenecked by the number of systems they can produce. They physically can't get the number of systems out there to get any real marketshare. Is OSX better than Vista? No arguments here. But what already has more share? When you have one company releasing something, and everyone else releasing something else, Windows will win every time. It doesn't matter how great OSX is, or how shitty Windows is. Which this is something most people figured out ages ago. Except for the Apple people, who somehow think OSX can take over the world.
Now if they licensed OSX, and then you have Dell, HP, et.al. selling them, it's another thing. But Jobs will never do this, so talking about it is a moot point.
Re:And Apple is near thier peak of marketshare (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And Apple is near thier peak of marketshare (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason Apple sells is because they represent the high end and the stylish. Arguing Apple is stupid because it cannot grab 10% market share in the computer market makes just as much sense as arguing Rolex is stupid because it cannot grab 10% market share in the watches market, or Porsche is stupid because it cannot grab 10% market share in the cars market. Problem is - do these companies need to?
As Apple's venture with iPod and iPhone has shown, Apple can increase their profits by taking their brand and design and expanding into other markets, rather than go destroy their brand and combat the lower end PC markets. I'm not saying Apple is superior to HP, Dell, etc. But Apple's direction is fundamentally different from HP and Dell, it just doesn't make sense to judge Apple's success with HP/Dell's metric. It's like judging a fashion company from the viewpoint of a drugs company - it doesn't make sense.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Second, i don't see apple having huge problems with hardware. They have problems releasing pretty hardware that stays pretty, and has occasional issues with high performance, but in 20+
FLAWED METHODOLOGY (Score:4, Informative)
Only problem with that is if you run Adblock et al, you'll not show up in the stats. If you don't connect to one of the sites running Net Apps partner adverts, you'll not show up in the stats. If you don't use the internet or use it rarely, you'll not show up in the stats.
This site [wikipedia.org]gives a better view as it aggregates data from several different sources and doesn't just use one that can be excluded by an ad blocker.
Revenue and profit, a comparison (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, Microsoft makes a bit more than a billion dollars a week in gross revenue, and more than $930 million per week in profit.
Apple, on $32 Billion in revenue, makes a bit more than $11 billion in profit. Microsoft makes almost as much in a week as Apple does in a month.
Novell plus Red Hat? The two major Linux companies spend a year generating the revenue that Microsoft generates in a week and a half or so.
Google generates less than a third of Microsoft's revenue, and their gross profits are under $10 billion, less than Apple's.
Anyone who thinks that Microsoft doesn't have the resources to hire who it needs to in order to deal with changing market conditions is nuts. A few years ago, Intel was supposedly on the ropes. They changed direction, killed a few processors, and fairly quickly released the Core Duo processors and turned the company around. AMD was left flat-footed, and are only now even coming close to regaining their footing. I don't really care much whether Microsoft does, but I don't think people realize the difference in scale and the difference in resources that can be brought to bear. If Windows 7 works and gains acceptance, it won't matter that Vista had huge problems. And they're spending a ton on stuff like Sharepoint, which is a relatively unique product - and good enough to get a ton of organizations to tolerate vendor "lock in" to get the feature set.
Don't underestimate how much money they have and how many talented people they do have in much of the company. You can certainly compete with them and make money, but it's unlikely that even Google will be able to dislodge them any time soon.
Breathe deeply, now. (Score:3, Interesting)
The iPhone platform is less than one year old, and at 0.4% has a presence half the size of Linux. Operating System Market Share [hitslink.com]
MS Vista has 20% of the market, up 8% since January. Linux 0.8%, up 0.2%. Pathetic.
In rounded numbers, Windows - all versions - still has a 90% share.
It takes a Geek to read statistical significance in a 1% drop in a webstat.
The most useful way to read these numbers is simply as a reminder of the growing number of web-enabled mobile devices and home appliances -- a reminder as well that both Apple and Microsoft are both significant and successful players in these emerging markets.
GNU/Linux is free speech, not a product (Score:3, Interesting)
GNU/Linux does not have a market share because it operates out of the market. A few GNU/Linux distributions are commercial and therefore can have market share, but the majority of distros operate in out of the market. GNU/Linux is out of the market because it is not a product. Rather, GNU/Linux is an act of free speech, an act of love and passion, and a gift.
So, counting the market share of GNU/Linux has no meaning, since it's not a product. Calling it a competitor to any other OS is also wrong, for the same reason. Calling free software products of competitors are propaganda terms designed to make decision makers believe that GNU/Linux could potentially be subject to regulations about products. But if they suceed in this, then they can cook some new regulation that would effectivelly ban GNU/Linux. Don't let them do this, call GNU/Linux and free software what it really is: free speech, not a product, and therefore protected as free speech rather than subject to product regulations.
Just to tell you an example, suppose a new regulation says that all products must contain encryption that is X bits powerful and the keys be submitted to a central repository, but that the product must take precautions not to let its users discover the keys. Such a regulation would apply on products (IANAL: I am not a lawyer), but what if you printed a book with your words that just happen to be the secret keys? Free speech is protected so printing a book must be ok (IANAL: I am not a lawyer). Now, if someone comes and say "look you hackers, you created an OS and you put it online for download, therefore you have put a product in the market, therefore you must hide the secret key" that would be a cause of trouble if they suceed in labelling free software packages as products. But free software in my view is not a product, it is an exercise of free speech.
So, next time someone labels your free software a product, a market participant, or a competitor to their products, just tell them the truth: your free software was never supposed to be viewed as a product, your free software is instead only an act of free speech, and the fact that it is available online is an exercise of the right of assembly and communication with other people, as well as a gift.
In a similar way, product regulations may say that new TVs should do this and that, but if you are an engineer and you build your own homebrew TV at home and you just want to post its blueprints online to share your passion with fellow homebrew engineers then your creations should be treated as free speech rather than as an attempt to enter the market, therefore in my view amateurs should not be subject to product and market regulation rules in the same way as commercial players are.
Of course I have absolutely no idea whether this line of thinking would make any sense in a legal setting about questions of applicability of product regulations on free software, as I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
My clients are doing the same (Score:3, Interesting)
One of my clients just told me this week that four of their people, who were on my maintenance contract for Windows support, would be shifted to Mac laptops. Two other staff members were shifted earlier, and they are happy with their systems after having had problems with Vista and XP. The staff members who were shifted basically don't do much beyond email and Web work, so they don't really need a lot of Windows software. One of the two earlier shifted staff members is running Parallels on her Mac to deal with QuickBooks. This company will probably shift several more people in the new future.
One of my other clients, which does digital media conversion, has brought in a Mac server-grade system to handle some of their video editing which was bogging down their Windows XP workstations.
So, yes, it's happening. The dam is breaking and people are getting fed up with Windows to the degree that they can afford to (i.e., software lock-in.)
Re:BSD is dead (Score:4, Funny)
Re:BSD is dead (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:BSD is dead (Score:5, Informative)
If you mean that OSX is a descendant of FreeBSD then you are mistaken.
OS X uses a Mach Kernel, but OS X and FreeBSD OSs include more than a kernel. Much of the OS X userspace is derived from FreeBSD and as such one can claim OS X a a descendent of NextStep (Mach), FreeBSD, and the original MacOS.
Re:BSD is dead (Score:4, Informative)
Nah, that would just be stuff they both inherited from their common ancestor.
That just isn't so. Next integrated parts of both FreeBSD and OpenBSD into NextStep, which in turn was pulled into OS X, but Apple also pulled in additional parts of the FreeBSD userspace in the creation of OS X. Heck, they still are doing so as the latest release version (Leopard) pulled in some of the ACL architecture from the TrustedBSD project of FreeBSD. OS X is clearly a direct descendent of FreeBSD via multiple paths.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But then you have to factor in the people that do things like setup firefox to report its running IE6 on Windows XP to get web pages to display correctly (remember when MS would send broken CSS Pages to non-MS browsers a few years ago?). And 4 million SubNetbooks is nothing. Think about how many windows desktops have been sold, over the last 5-6 years that are still being used! (and you can get the EEE PC with XP on it)
Re:Will someone please think of the XP users? (Score:5, Insightful)
No one is buying a GNU/Linux netbook and then torturing themselves with a $200 XP install.
No, but a lot of people buy the cheaper linux netbook, and then install a pirated xp on it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I own an Acer Aspire One with ... well ... something they called Linux on it. Upon boot you are greeted with big shiny colourfull buttons to start some of the applications which are actually installed on the AA1 and you have no way to add any application you might need (VLC or Skype) if you never used any linux distro before.
Of course, a 5 second search on Google will show you how to very easily remove the original desktop menu, revert to a real (xfce) desktop with way more applications, and all the nifty
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Funny thing.. I ordered an XP netbook and wiped it to put Linux on it.. Why? The XP version had more extras (memory, better webcam) because of incentives.
Truly a case where everyone wins. Microsoft gets to claim their OS dominance. The retailer gets a sale. I get better hardware and the knowledge that the Beast of Redmond subsidized my purchase.
Re:Will someone please think of the XP users? (Score:5, Informative)
Bad upper management decisions doomed CompUSA - such as focusing on advertising printers that had no real profit, instead of advertising their formerly lucrative (and always profitable) Tech Services and Business Services divisions. By the time people in upper management were changed out with people who understood this, the company didnt have the money to fix the problem (though they did come up with very viable plans to do so - just couldnt get the backing at that point).
PCs and Windows sales had nothing to do with it. Do you have any idea how many people didnt even know we repaired PCs? Or that we had a Business Sales and Services department? Or that we offered training on a variety of things?
The above, and no longer catering to the core customers that maintained their profitability were the cause.
I know... I was there.
Re:Will someone please think of the XP users? (Score:4, Funny)
But seriously, Microsoft does just fine screwing up on it's own merits. It doesn't need you attributing every single evil in the world back to it.
Pulling stats out of thin air (Score:4, Informative)
Hi twitter [slashdot.org].
EEE PC has sold more than 4 million, most of them GNU/Linux
Really? I must admit I didn't know much about this but a little bit of Google reveals this interview [laptopmag.com] with ASUS CEO Jerry Shen, which I think was also reported here on Slashdot (about the return rates for Linux devices, which he seems to invalidate):
Here's another article where Shen is also quoted about the ratio of XP to Linux EEE units sold, which he says is 60:40:
So obviously you're just making that up. Nothing like bogus facts and words like "laughable" and "undeniable" to get on moderators' good graces, eh?
Re:Pulling stats out of thin air (Score:5, Funny)
There is no such thing as a bogus fact.
[citation needed]
Re:Pulling stats out of thin air (Score:5)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just plain wrong.
A fact is a fact, regardless of whether or not it is true. The opposite of fact is opinion, not falsehood.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Um, iPhones sold about 11m now, worldwide, which would help push the EEPC effect down.
On top of that, Mac sales are also about 10m, worldwide.
So even if Linux is growing, Mac/iPhone is growing faster.
Re:sounds like... (Score:5, Funny)
You're right. Windows should stay where it belongs--on servers and in embedded systems.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's hurting Microsoft is pervasive management incompetence. This is the kind of thing that can happen when the money comes in too easily for too long.
It's a corporation thing - when managers start surrounding themselves with their pals and ass kissing flatterers instead of the right people for the job. This cancer eats at all companies from the inside, and it's just human nature. There are ways to deal [wikipedia.org] with THAT kind of thing, but no one has the balls to do it.
Re:This will likely keep happening until.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I know this is gonna hurt, but I'll bite.
Video editing. DVD authoring. MP3 Encoding. Video Capture. HTPC. Signal Processing.
The list goes on for processor limited tasks that new hardware continues to improve. To say that you only use your PC for gaming shows your age and naivete.
Re:The Big news: Linux failed. (Score:5, Interesting)
> Linux seems to have completely failed to capitalize on Vistas unpopularity,
> still having less than 1% market share.
Patience. The netbook appears to be the crack that the penguin has been waiting for. If I had told you three years ago that I forsaw Linux being sold in Target and ToysRUs you would have laughed. Honestly, I would laughed too because I didn't see it coming either. But seeing is believing.
To date we have faced a chicken and the egg problem. Nobody wanted to try selling Linux because nobody had ever succeeded selling Linux. Everybody believed that (Mac excepted, those people are just wierd) all PCs were Windows sales, largely because Microsoft would brutally punish any OEM who didn't agree. All that is now changed. We now know that Linux can be successfully sold in retail environments when correctly executed. ASUS reports return rates sililar to Windows while Acer's less polished implementation was a disaster, thus the correct lesson will be learned; do it right and it sells.
And just wait for the pricepoints on netbooks to shift even lower. Microsoft will either be forced to abandon the segment (fatal) or slash prices to levels that will have Wall Street analysts howling for blood.
Once everyone has completed the mental adjustment to retail Linux as a done deal the whole industry will have to take a long hard look at one of the (if not THE) most expensive components in a lower end PC. If ordinary people will buy an EEE or a Dell Mini 9 with Linux, would they buy a low end desktop (of the sort that won't play current FPS games anyway) if the level of integration were similar? Expect to find out the answer to that question over the next year or two. Will Crossover/Transgaming have a part to play in the final solution? Looking at how Parallels, VMWare and/or Crossover Mac are on display anywhere Mac software is sold I'd put my money on yes.
Re:The Big news: Linux failed. (Score:5, Interesting)
> But they're not. They're putting bigger screens, keyboards, and drives in them.
Because for most of the year an EEE PC on a shelf was about as rare as a Wii. So if you can sell every box you can ship the decision of which to make more of is a simple one. The one with the best profit. That was the 900 series. But ASUS is promising to finally hit their original $200 MSRP next year. And if they don't there are countless generic Chinese houses with products entering the channels and some of those don't even have an x86 compatible CPU so Windows isn't really an option.
When the latest ARM chips finally make it into actual products the whole game is likely to be changed yet again. Imagine a two pound netbook with 10+ hours of battery life with enough DSP grunt to be able to do Flash, YouTube and mpeg4 playback. And it just might be able to run compiz. That will change everything. The great weakness that to date nobody has been able to exploit with Windows is the fact they killed off all their ports and have tied their fortunes to the fate of x86. No x86 on a development map gets near the 1W under load power consumption mark and the notion of idle power in the single digit milliwatt range is fantasy. ARM is already there.
So be patient, those netbooks in blister packs hanging as impulse purchases are the future. And Windows isn't likely to be a part of that future.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Macs used to have 15% to 20% marketshare in the early 1990's. Now they have less than 10%, when they had the Mac Clones they really sold a lot of them. If Apple allowed Mac Clones again, I am sure Macs could easily capture that 20% all over again.
Revisionist history! I hade a couple Apple clones (out of morbid curiousity, and they both sucked). MacOS market share at that time was at an all-time low and the clone market nearly killed the company. Steve Jobs came back, killed the clones, introduced the hockey-puck moused iMac, and that recovery is now legendary, despite the worst mouse ever created.