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."
This is good news. It surely means the year of the Linux Desktop is impending.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
And I get modded flamebait for pointing out earlier today that Apple is gaining market share? It's true. Apple is gaining ground. Of course, it probably doesn't help MS that Vista isn't exactly setting the world on fire.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
OMG! Micro$oft is about ready to go under!!!! There's going to be huge consequences for our economy!!!! Send Steve Ballmer to DC in his private jet to throw some chairs around and get us $25 billion immediately!!!!
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?
the year of... windows not on the desktop!
You're right. Windows should stay where it belongs--on servers and in embedded systems.
This guy's the limit!
There is no such thing as a bogus fact.
[citation needed]
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
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!
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.