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."
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.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Well if Apple continues to gain marketshare, we will soon find out what that threshold is. As soon as Apple gets slapped with an antitrust suit, note the current market share. That shall be hence forth the monopoly threshold. Apple is just as bad as Microsoft when it comes to consumer lock-in. You don't have to look any further than iTunes to see it, but there's plenty more examples. They just never get in trouble for it because they are perceived to be such a small player in the market (even though the iPod is clearly the dominant mp3 player).
"It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
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.
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.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
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?
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
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.
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)
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
How exactly do you get +4 interesting for something that is so obviously false? Apple contracts out their computer manufacture to 3rd parties - the same 3rd parties that Dell and HP use. Licensing OSX to Dell and HP would just add a middleman, it would not add any manufacturing capacity. And Apple can scale mac production as high as they like, they just have to make a phone call to Taiwan and there you go, more production.
If Apple doesn't go above 10% in market share (though I doubt that statement), it's because it doesn't need to.
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.