Slashdot Mirror
Windows Drops Below 90% Market Share
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."
If you write a true comment in a Flamebaitisticalish way (which you did), you will get modded as such ;)
These type of stats always ignore the bulk of Linux devices. There are more than 300 million Linux devices sold every year. The total number of Linux devices outnumbers everything else by a wide margin.
However, it is nice to know that Microsoft still supplies 100% of all Windows systems...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Hi twitter.
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 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?
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
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.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
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.
GPL Deconstructed
Sorry, but this is wrong. A Monopoly has nothing to do with being anti-copetitive, and everything to do with market share. Monopolies them selves are not illegal, the only become illegal when they activly act anti-competitivly. If I invent something new, with nothing at all like it existing, I have a monopoly, a legal monopoly.
in par with that, acting anti-competitively is not illegal if you are not a monopoly, as long as the individual action is not illegal that is.
The US antitrust regulators like to go by two metrics: Herfindahl Index (HHI) and Market Concentration Ratio (google them up). HHI = s1^2 + s2^2 + s3^2 + ... + sn^2 (where sn is the market share of the ith firm)
If the HHI index is > 1800, this usually means it's a monopoly. Nothing is set in stone, but play around with the numbers and you'll get an idea. Basically Microsoft is still considered a monopoly for a long time.
Oh god, I hate replying to myself but I forgot to include the source of the second quote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2008/oct/08/linux.windows
Sorry about that.
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
Guess you missed this antitrust lawsuit over the iPod?
So speaks an idiot who know nothing of the law.
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.
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.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
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 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.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
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.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Microsoft is a company.
So is Apple.
Do I win a prize? ;)
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
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.
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.
As Apple market share increases, don't you think they'd increase their capacity to make and deliver more systems? Do I even need to ask this question?
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...
DEMETRIUS: Villain, what hast thou done?
AARON: Villain, I have done thy mother.
Shakespeare invents 'your mom'
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 around longer than Display Postscript (which was replaced by Quartz in OS X), and many X servers in the '90s included the X Display Postscript extension.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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
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.
You are mistaken. OS X's kernel is a hybrid of Mach and FreeBSD (uses FreeBSD's VFS, processes, sockets, etc), with some significant additions developed by Apple as well. Also much of OS X's POSIX-y userland is FreeBSD-derived.
-- listen to interesting music, support independent radio... WPRB
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.