Slashdot Mirror
Vista Taking a Nibble Out of Apple in OS Wars?
PetManimal writes "Despite all of the positive buzz about the Mac operating system and the 'halo effect' of iPod sales, Mac OS X market share actually dropped last month, reports Computerworld: 'The share of PowerPC-based Macs fell ... from 4.29% in February to 3.94% in March. That dip was not fully offset by an increase in Intel-based Mac hardware, leading to a overall net decline in Mac share of 0.3%, to 6.08% in March.' Meanwhile, Vista is rising, the article says, with just over 2% of computers connected to the Internet using the new Windows OS. The figures are from a company called Net Applications, which collects its data from the browsers of visitors to its network of 40,000+ Web sites."
One word - 'LEOPARD'
:)
If there is a down blip, it's due to people waiting for Leopard, not because of vista, and ho boy...wait 'till you see her hit the track
I guess Boot Camp has just barely started supporting Vista, but how much of this could be due to dual-booting OSX and Vista on the same machine? Or from people that beta tested Vista? I tried out the beta, then installed a release copy of Vista on my work laptop, but then I switched back after a couple of months.
This strikes me as low for a brand new windows OS. I'm not familiar with previous statistics, but I would have thought that sales would increase quickly after the release then slowly decrease. If it is at 2% now, I don't expect we'll get much more after this.
$20 says Microsoft will simply disable XP machines to boost sales.
Vista TAKING a NIPPLE OUT of Apple in OS Wars?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
XXX#######
I powered my Mac off yesterday and forgot to turn it back on. Try it again now...
*throws hands up in the air*
Ok, Microsoft, you win.
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson
My new operating system had 100% growth as I sold my 2nd copy and it still had far fewer reported bugs than either OSx or Vista....Only 2 users reported blank CDs but thats just a distribution problem...
=)
Maybe it's because a lot of people knew that the iMac, mini, and Mac Pros were due for a refresh.
What websites do they monitor so I can fire up my Windows 95 machine and make an entrance?
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The macs haven't been rev'd in quite a while. I had hoped that revs would occur more frequently with the switch to intel, but it's simply not the case. And sorry, I don't count an additional option for 8-core on the Mac Pro a rev as much as it's another BTO option. Especially when they didn't change anything else on the machine.
;)
http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/
mini is still at CD, not C2D. iMacs haven't been updated in over 200 days. macbook and MBP in 150. Compare that with the ONLY way to upgrade on the PC side - buy a new machine, and you begin to see the appeal of Vista over OS X when it comes to hardware sales. Finally, Tiger is on it's way out as well. So people are holding off on new Macs until they come pre-installed with leopard.
Would like to see the figures once leopard comes out
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
' Meanwhile, Vista is rising, the article says, with just over 2% of computers connected to the Internet using the new Windows OS
They won't be connected for long:
net start BOTNET
The tone of this article is very misleading.
I do a lot of consulting work and it's very hard to get a new PC for someone that doesn't come with Vista. They don't want Vista but they have no choice. Then we get to deal with figuring out what software they need works and what needs patches and what just plain doesn't work and never will.
The actual decline they have reported is 0.3%; which I'm sure is well within there margin of error.
Which means, Apple's share hasn't changed. Despite the fact there are less PowerPC machines than before.
One corporate copy could easily account for thousands of machines.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Can we get real? Apple's market share dropped for one month? Let's see what could cause that:
There. That took about 3 seconds to think up. When Vista has displaced Apple for 3 months in a row, we can talk. Until then this is stupid hype designed to make Vista look like it isn't a dog sales wise (when from MS you would think it would have started selling like Windows 95 did). Plus, this is the PowerPC share that dropped. They are old and slow as hell (I'm using one). Now that CS3 is out (and was about to come out by the time they did this survey) you'd be an IDIOT to buy one. So the Intel side didn't jump up. People are probably waiting for CS3 (to put their requisitions in at work), or for Leopard (coming any time now, June 21st at the latest).
Non-story.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Give the guys at Roughly Drafted a week or two to point out all the reasons this sort of assessment is downright wrong, while decorating the article with all sorts of nice pie charts, graphs, and equally questionable statistics. Then we will know what really happened. Because the mainstream media certainly has an anti-Apple agenda, we can't trust just ANY statistics.
I use both Macs and PCs and it seems like I buy and upgrade PCs a lot more often. My latest Mac is a Powerbook G4 from early 2004 and I'm just now starting to think about a replacement. Over those last 3 years I've bought 2 PCs and will probably buy a 3rd long before I replace the Mac. The PC's just feel dated after less than a year while the Macs take about 3 years to feel the same way. At least to me.
If PCs have a much shorter useful life, their percentage of sales will be higher than their actual percentage of machines in use.
A drop in overall percentage doesn't necessarily mean a drop in users. It could easily mean that Windows is growing, and the Mac market is stagnating before a new release.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
FTA:
"Net Applications collects its data from the browsers of visitors to its network of more than 40,000 Web sites."
Any statistics that purport to show "usage" based on browser hits is inherently suspect, especially if the stats are used to imply they have some larger meaning. If they can answer these questions, I'll believe them:
- How are the servers of these "40,000 webs sites" identifying unique users? (server logs, scripts, or both? How long are the sessions they are looking at?)
- Are they looking at number of hits, unique user views, or what?
- How well can they ensure that machines are not being counted multiple times?
- Which sites are included? Are both microsoft.com and apple.com sites included? What about msn.com or mac.com? How many tech-savy sites are included and how many might-as-well-be-AOL newbie sites?
- Are the results from some sites weighted above or below other sites?
I'm not saying they haven't taken all these things into account, but publishing them (or referencing them by a third-party) without including how the data was gathered makes this all just so much noise.
Do you remember when you were a kid?
Remember the first time you ordered something in the mail? All you did was think about how cool the thing was going to be.
Now, do you remember the let down when you got the item and it was crap?
It's like that, every single day.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Even if we do assume that their figures are incredibly accurate, this is how it shakes out:
Windows: +0.20
Linux: +0.15
Mac: -0.30
Not a huge deal, although I think the Linux uptick is a bit of an unreported story here. Also, what's with the share of Windows NT growing from 0.71% to 0.80% (the only other MicroSoft OS showing growth)? That's like a 12.7% increase for an ancient OS! So, yeah, given that anomaly, I'm somewhat disinclined to give their figures that much weight.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Microsoft not having proprietary hardware lock-in is exactly my point; the need to cater to every conceivable chuck of hardware along with permitting copious permission between drivers and the kernel is not an advantage. It's a major contributor to instability and only when it was no longer advantageous to gaining marketshare did Microsoft make any overtures to changing that.
The attraction of OS X is that you have it before you, on a piece of hardware on which you know it will run. You don't have a situation where Microsoft points to the OEM, the OEM points to some Taiwanese chip maker's web site for an "updated" driver, unsigned by Microsoft to fix what should have been working the second you pulled the computer from the box.
God bless Linux, but I have to tell you, it has its moments. Is it superior to Microsoft? You bet your sweet bippy. Am I going to run it on my primary notebook machine? I have. Why don't I now? Because I deal with computers and electronics all day and the last thing I want to do when I'm on my own time is maintain a computer in typical PC fashion.
Or, to put it another way; having the hardware and OS lock-in was an attraction to me because I was pretty certain that I wouldn't have to endure the torture of Microsoft in the workplace. And I was right.
I never contend that apple has to sell OSX for any old box, as that would be business mistake for them, but if they aren't going to sell OSX, then they need to offer more hardware choices.
Mac market share is stable at about the 6% mark. These are the people who like integrated monitors or the toy mini. Pro just won't matter for market share as it is ultra high end.
If Apple actually has the slightest interest in increasing market share beyond the current they have to offer what mainstream buyers want and are used to. A decent mid size tower at an affordable price.
I actually want to buy a Mac. I use Linux/Solar/Windows at work and would like a decent Unix workstation at home, but don't find Linux polished enough (my desktop at work runs Redhat).
What is stopping me is the lack of decent midrange hardware without integrated monitor. This gap has to be obvious to Apple execs, perhaps they are moving the company in the direction of devices and away from computer and don't care about computer market share.
I will buy a new computer in the next 6 months. No midrange tower or equivalent and it will be another PC and that will be my computer for the next 4 or 5 years.
As you said, it's always slow before Macworld or WWDC, and this last MacWorld was totally lame for actual Mac owners since it was only about the damn phone and tv. No Leopard, no replacement for the long-absent iSights, no Blu-Ray DVD. The actual "Macintosh" is far more stagnant than I ever remember seeing it in the last five years.
Murray Todd Williams
Security Log of Rent-A-Cop Sam MacSnappy
9:54 a.m. The store is due to open in a few minutes, and already there's a vast, unruly mob outside. Look at those thugs. I saw one guy crunching on a celery stick in an obviously agressive manner, and another slurping a Zero Fat Smoothie with total hostility for authority. Go ahead, Zippy. Make my day.
10:13 a.m. First arrest. Somebody named Merriam got a little too friendly with the new sub-$1000 unit. I told him, "You can do those kinds of things at home in your 1970's-decorated palace of sin," but in the end I still had to mace the sucker.
10:28 a.m. Man down! Man down! They're got Security Associate Clyde Dawkins on his back, and they're tickling him with a long feather boa and singing the "Macarena"! It's just unspeakable!
10:37 a.m. We've barricaded the storefront, but I don't know how long we can last. All these guys in thick, black retro eyeglass frames are throwing themselves against our makeshift barriers, then collapsing with long, attenuated sighs. It's like watching insane undernourished salmon trying to spawn--salmon in pencil-thin black jeans! The staffers are no help, standing around discussing their favorite yogurts and "the identify crisis of the Finder," whatever the hell that is.
10:48 a.m. That's it. I quit. No money is worth watching a grown man kiss an iPod.
I use Firefox on OS X, and my main issue is that it doesn't feel like a "proper Mac application". Certain things don't work like every other program.
For example, on single-line text input boxes, a Mac user should be able to hit the up arrow or down arrow to go to the beginning or end of the line. Firefox doesn't behave correctly.
Widgets don't just look wrong; they look like they were pulled off of a Windows machine. And submit buttons are a different size than regular buttons.
In the OS X version of Firefox, the menus aren't Mac-like at all.
Don't get me wrong; I actually prefer Firefox to other browsers. But Firefox has been on the Mac platform since 2003. Within the last four years, the theme has changed several times. Heck, the toolbar icons have changed at least once under each incarnation(Phoenix, Firebird, and Firefox). Within those four years, I would have expected an attempt at making the browser act and look like a proper Mac application, rather than a port from Windows.