Posted on 07/01/2008 9:23:25 PM PDT by Swordmaker
Net Applications' Operating System stats for June 2008 show Apple's Mac hit a new all-time high with 7.94% share of the operating systems visiting Net Applications' network of websites worldwide. The stats also show Apple iPhone with 0.16% share and Apple iPod with 0.04%. Net Applications noted last month, "Apple has confirmed that its online inventories for the original version of the iPhone are sold out in the U.S. and U.K. Apple appears to be clearing out its inventories in preparation for the iPhone 2.0 release. This, in conjunction with customers holding off purchasing until 2.0 is released has temporarily leveled off the iPhone usage share." The data is aggregated from 40,000 websites that are predominantly ecommerce or corporate sites.
Net Applications' June 2008 Operating System Stats:
Net Applications' Operating System Market Share for June 2008:
Net Applications' Operating System Market Share Trend for Apple Macintosh for July 2006 to June 2008:
More details can be seen via Net Applications' here.
MacDailyNews Note: As always, the actual percentage numbers are not as important as the trends shown since all "market share" reports have unique measurement sources. Net Applications, for example measures 40,000 corporate and ecommerce websites — how many of which are restricted to WIndows and/or IE, if any, we do not know. If anything, Net Applications is providing one measure of installed base, rather than "market share." Again, what's important is the trend (and consistent data points). The trend shows Apple's Macintosh ascending.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Macs just work. OSX is a tremendous OS. I won’t ever switch back. Even the latest Microsoft OS’s are less elegant, slower, and more crash prone. If there is ever a program I need to run in windows, which there never is, I can run that too on my machine.
Have you heard of any glitches in the OS update...
I can’t stand Windows Vista.
An example from today. I’m using Vista in Parallels to test a web site I’m working on. Okay, I go in, I make notes about rendering issues with IE 7 with the site (IE is the least standards compliant browser out there, including IE7). I want to shut down Vista and get on with my life.
I go to the Windows menu (yeah, the Start menu) and the default option for shutting down is “Shutdown and Install Updates). I skip that option and select “Shutdown” from the little side menu... and what does Vista do but it decides to install updates before shutting down without even asking me for permission.
Stupid Vista! Stupid Vista! Stupid Vista!
I’m tempted to just force quit parallels. Heck, I’m tempted to just nuke the hard disk file for the Vista soft-partition. Heck, point me toward a red button and I’ll nuke Redmond (not really, but darn me if an OS that does what it wants regardless of what I want is going to get the better of me).
I saw one report on AppleInsider about slow reboots and Safari taking 8 - 10 bounces to start up. That was not my experience. Safari starts up in only 1 bounce on my G5 tower and rebooting is faster after the upgrade.
I enjoy Mac, I have one along with some PCs. But at the end of the day, 8% is 8%. It’s a niche product...a darn good one, but a niche product nonetheless.
And which niche is that?
Is Firefox also not relevant? Last I heard it had not reached the magical 25% mark. Apple is an innovative company that even if many people do not own them still have an effect on the rest of the market. They are much like other high end brands that the majority may never own, but who’s features eventually trickle down into other products.
I hope OSX doesn’t become relevant, because it would mean it would draw more attention from hackers and virus writers. Keep it under the radar. Even Firefox has been exploited now that it has mass appeal.
Make that “Firefox”, not “Firefix”
To be fair, IE is 100% standards-compliant. Just not any standards that didn’t come from Microsoft.
Or, to put it another way, in Microsoft’s eyes IE7 IS the standard and it’s the W3C that’s non-compliant.
Most of that 8% made a decision and spent their own money for a Mac. A large portion of the Windows market got their computers from their coprorate ID department.
Windows is still ahead, but I’m sure going to push my family members toward a Mac when they need to replace their computers.
I’m tired of spending my weekends running rootkit revealer, adaware, spybot, Hijack This and other tools on their unresponsive PCs.
In what other sense can a browser be described as relevant?
I find that designing for IE specifically and then adding code to make a site display better in non-MS browsers is harder than designing for the standards compliant browsers and then adjusting for IE.
There are a ton of non-standard ways to do things for IE which can tie a designer up trying to undo later in order to make a site display properly in standards compliant browsers. It takes a lot less time to design for the standards compliant browsers and then add the hacks for IE.
wow..7 some odd percent..
I just built this machine with Windows Vista Ultimate.. and guess what.. I like it..
No crash yet
The “yet” says everything you need to know about the PC/Vista.
Once upon a time IE had just 8 percent of the market.
Simply the difference in a tool and a toy.
Simply another uninformed opinion from a Windows user...
As I said, I use both. I rarely have had to run any of those spybot type programs....maybe once every 6 months or so.
I use the Mac for publishing and graphics (though I also use the PC for some graphics).
I enjoy the PC for other things including games and such. So much more software to choose from which obviously makes sense due to the market share.
Mac makes a nice product and their ingenuity trickles down into other products, something we all benefit from. I’ve just never come to the conclusion that either product or platform is so ironclad to throw complete love, devotion and outright obsession to it as some do.
I hate IE, I use FireFox. Perhaps Mac will rule the day at some point, but I doubt it. Their dominance in the corporate world and even their heavy advantage in the home world make that unlikely.
I havent used IE since 3.0
= )
<<
. . . IE’s lack of standards adherence in certain areas . . .
>>
IE’s lack of standards adherence in every area
Fixed that typo for you.
I guess Mercedes-Benz, who are about 5% of total market share, are not relevant in the auto industry either.
<<
You have every right to hate Microsoft, but your comment shows you to be completely ignorant when it comes to standards put forth by the various standards bodies.
>>
I work with it every day. IE is the least compliant POS on earth. Try Googling the phrase “IE bug” some time. I have one person on staff whose sole job is workarounds for all the things IE does wrong. Tell me with a straight face that IE’s CSS box model is “compliant” and we’ll see how deep your knowledge goes.
In the end, Apple's flagship product is nothing more than a really good PC.
by Lance Ulanoff Buzz up!on Yahoo!
"I'm a Mac. And I'm a PC." I've heard these phrases countless times on TV and the Web. Heck, the ad is even running on the PC Mag Web site right now.
This brilliant ad campaign from Apple, which manages to make PC users look like uptight boobs, is entertaining and impressively effective. It also helps foster one of the greatest misconceptions of our still relatively young digital age: that Windows-based computers are PCs while Macs are, well, something else. Of course, that's wrong—dead wrong.
If the ad were accurate, John Hodgman (the actor who plays the "PC") would say, "I'm a PC," and Justin Long (the actor who plays the "Mac") would say, "And I'm a PC, too." Why? Because a Macintosh is a PC!
Pardon my frustration, but this common misconception has had a long and lasting impact on the venerable brand you're patronizing right now. Here's a typical conversation I have on an alarmingly frequent basis.
A few weeks ago, I attended my brother-in-law's wedding in Virginia. He started teasing me, saying that even though I was the editor of PC Magazine he, and his extended family, still loved me. He felt the need to poke fun because his is a "Mac family." (In fact, while I was there, his wife was using iChat on her 15-inch MacBook to talk to friends in Europe.) My brother-in-law couldn't understand why anyone would use a PC. In any case, this ribbing continued throughout my visit, with his constantly making snide comments about how it was "okay that I was at the wedding even though…." Then he'd trail off as if he were stating a widely known fact: "Lance is a PC guy; he doesn't care about the Mac."
Finally, after a few days of this, I couldn't stand it anymore, and I cut him off mid-jibe with: "Not for nothing, but PC Magazine has been covering the Mac since 1984. We regularly test Apple products, and many of them win our Editors' Choice award." I was talking fast, and while my brother-in-law seemed ready to offer some apology or joking rejoinder, I plowed ahead with what I thought was a zinger, "And by the way, the PC in PC Magazine stands for "personal computer," and the Mac is a personal computer." My brother-in-law laughed, but he did look a bit startled by my intensity.
I'm sure I overreacted, but I think he ended up serving as a proxy for all the Macheads who somehow manage to forget that they're simply using a computer and not some other-worldly device that was born instead of built.
Back in 1984, PC Magazine, as well as the industry in general, typically referred to PCs as IBM PCs. Then Apple—after the collapse of the Apple III program and the dismal reception of the "Lisa"—launched its new system, the "Macintosh." Virtually all IBM PCs (and non–IBM PCs, which we referred to as "clones") ran the text-based MS-DOS operating system. The Mac was the first to have a graphical interface, making it even more unique at the time. Even so, it was still just a PC, with a keyboard, an integrated display, a floppy disk drive, a CPU, a hard drive, memory, and a file-system structure. The inclusion of a mouse made it special, too, but IBM PCs soon had mice of their own.
I'm not saying that Macs are not wonderful products. We almost always love them when we test them here at PC Magazine Labs. Apple is, without a doubt, the most consistent company in computerdom. But Steve Jobs is not God, and his products are not grown on trees and picked by loving workers who let them ripen on cotton sheets by the window sill. If you need further evidence that Macs are not vastly different from Windows-based PCs, remember that all Macs now use Intel CPUs─the same CPUs you find in Windows PCs. With Boot Camp, Macs can even run Windows. I wonder if the folks who do this refer to their Macs as PCs.
Enough already. Put simply, we all use computers that run different operating systems. If the Apple ad campaign were really correct, Long would say, "I'm a Mac," and Hodgman would say, "And I'm a Windows." Oh, wait, that sounds odd. How about this: Long says, "I'm a Mac PC," and Hodgman says, "And I'm a Windows PC"? Of course, the ads would then be far less effective, because consumers might realize that the differences Apple is trying to tout aren't quite as huge as Apple would like you to believe.
I'm under no illusions that Apple will change, or even drop, the most effective ad campaign technology has ever seen. I also know that people will forever assume that PCMag.com and PC Magazine are Windows-only destinations. They'd be wrong. But who am I to argue with good old-fashioned American marketing?
What happened to Linux?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.