Crow for one: ‘Microsoft’s Windows 7 will drive Mac market share below 5% by the end of 2010’

Mac Daily News ^ | Friday, December 31, 2010 - 09:42 AM EST

[flintsilver7]

I made, over the course of this thread, more complete arguments about market share. Sales in the calendar year 2010 are just that. A true discussion of market share must include all actively used computers sold prior to 2010. It must also consider what machines were transferred or replaced as a result of the aforementioned sales.

Apple sold more than 10% of the computers in the U.S. in the third quarter of 2010. This does not mean they have 10% of the PC market share because market share is not defined by a three-month sales period. A computer is not considered a consumable device, so a quarterly sales report is of greatly reduced importance.

[flintsilver7]

I will not consider iOS to be relevant in a discussion about desktop operating systems. Now, Apple holds approximately 5% of the world's OS share. They hold undoubtedly more in the U.S., and I believe that most malware comes from outside the U.S. (Whether they target the U.S. or not is unknown.)

Whether security through obscurity is achieved depends on what a hacker wants to do. If they're looking to create botnets to launch DoS or DDoS attacks (or mass-mail spam, or whatever) they aren't going to target OSX. They aren't going to target Linux, or Windows 7, or Windows Vista either. The largest target remains the millions upon millions of pirated Windows machines overseas, particularly in China. Microsoft does not allow these machines to be updated. They remain vulnerable and will continue to be the biggest target.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-10444561-245.html?tag=untagged

Some there speculate that Windows Vista and Windows 7 have a more secure codebase than OSX. I don't agree with that. An updated operating system will almost never be attacked because it's a hard target. In the world of today's computers, as it turns out the softest target (unpatched Windows machines) is almost certainly the largest target as well.

By the way, I would like to thank you for being civil to me. I usually deserve it (not always) but in the nearly five years I've been here I can't remember you being rude to me. I thank you for that and wish your compatriots would follow your lead. I am not against you regardless of what it may seem like.

[antiRepublicrat]

I will not consider iOS to be relevant in a discussion about desktop operating systems.

50 million installed base, not counting iOS, and one of the most well-known companies in the world. They are not going by obscurity. But as with Linux in Android, the lower levels of the desktop and mobile OSs are very close, making them vulnerable to similar attacks. Apple brings that even higher in the architecture.

If they're looking to create botnets to launch DoS or DDoS attacks (or mass-mail spam, or whatever) they aren't going to target OSX.

Big botnets only need a few million. That's a tiny bit of the installed base.

The largest target remains the millions upon millions of pirated Windows machines overseas, particularly in China. Microsoft does not allow these machines to be updated.

Microsoft does allow security updates. They toyed with tying it to WGA, but dumped that, especially in the case of IE7. Personally, that gets a big thumbs up from me for Microsoft, because they cared about the world community more than the bottom line.

Some there speculate that Windows Vista and Windows 7 have a more secure codebase than OSX. I don't agree with that.

Many of Microsoft's woes come from that codebase that is backwards compatible way back to Windows 3.1. Apple was smart and dumped its old OS, and backwards compatibility with it. Recently Microsoft has been showing an increased willingness to dump backwards compatibility, a move I applaud. But in the end, facts is facts. For whatever reason, Mac users experience far less successful malware. They are, in practicality, safer. It may not be so later, but for now that safety is a fact. And as a long-time Windows guy who switched three years ago at home, I still like OS X a lot better.

As far as being nice, you don't attack me, I don't attack you. Nice is easy. Being a dick takes effort. I'm lazy.

[Swordmaker]

Again, you are attempting to correct my usage. First of all, pre-eminent or preeminent—either spelling is acceptable. When adding the prefix "pre" results in a double "ee" a hyphen is acceptable. You might try getting yourself a copy of the Oxford Dictionary of the English language, the ultimate arbiter of the language... and what is proper or not proper... not an on-line popular, abridged dictionary.

The dictionary built into the OS in the Mac, the Oxford Dictionary of American English, a subset of the OED, accepts both spellings as correct.

Secondly, the usage of "hoist on his own petard" has become a usage in and of it's own right as a phrase, not requiring worrying about archaic roots or verb tenses. Ignorant people use "hoisted" and sound ignorant when they use it. I do not believe you knew the source of the saying. Nor does anyone else here, especially given your extreme minority opinion of Shakespeare. Someone with that opinion is hardly aware of the hundreds if not thousands of aphorisms attributed to him. You are dancing again, and as I have said, you do not do it well.

While I was initially trolling in this thread and I apologize for that, I have made salient points that have not (and cannot be, for that matter) denied. I again apologize for the fact that most don't have anything to do with this thread. Still, though, that doesn't make them any less correct.

Please. Name some of the things you've said that are more correct. I'd like an opportunity to show you how wrong you might be about them... or, just possible, agree with you. Mostly, you've put up myths and canards and expected them to stand as truths... and get upset when people dispute your claims.

[Swordmaker]

I made, over the course of this thread, more complete arguments about market share. Sales in the calendar year 2010 are just that. A true discussion of market share must include all actively used computers sold prior to 2010. It must also consider what machines were transferred or replaced as a result of the aforementioned sales.

Apple sold more than 10% of the computers in the U.S. in the third quarter of 2010. This does not mean they have 10% of the PC market share because market share is not defined by a three-month sales period. A computer is not considered a consumable device, so a quarterly sales report is of greatly reduced importance.

You have not the faintest clue about what MARKET SHARE is. Market IS sales, NOT INSTALLED BASE! Market is about the people who buy and sell, sellers and buyers, not about the people who already HAVE who are not in the market to buy. Study some economics, not computers and you might have a clue.

If you want to look at installed base, there are approximately 55 million OSX Macs in the installed base, and Apple is adding about 3 million new ones every quarter.

You are making yourself look silly again.

[flintsilver7]

First of all, I was incorrect as to what the exact wording of the phrase was. I have admitted as such already. I had heard the phrase and many variants use the word “hoisted” (as would be correct in moder English) and assumed that my usage was correct. While my sentence was grammatically correct, it was incorrect with regards to Shakespeare. I have already stated that I think Shakespeare is trash, so I did not reference the original text (nor would I ever care to). I am not “dancing” when I say this. I don’t care for Shakespeare and I don’t care what quotes are attributed to him. You don’t have to be unfamiliar with someone’s work to think they suck. Oliver Stone is overrated, yet I’ve seen most all of his films.

I referenced your use of the word “preeminent” in its hyphenated form because while correct, it’s outdated. I know your precious Mac includes a dictionary that is obviously the best dictionary ever created (I mean, there’s no way Apple would include just any dictionary - it has to be THE authoritative dictionary).

I am under no obligation to go back through my posts and illustrate those facts you have chosen to ignore. Why don’t you look at what you haven’t addressed yourself. It’s not my job to keep bringing them up.

As for market share, let me ask you a few questions. Did the market exist outside of the last year? If the answer to that is yes, then when did “the market” start? Given that computers are meant to be used and not simply placed on a mantle for decoration, how do sales from an older period, perhaps from 2002-2003, for devices still in operation not affect market share today? Wikipedia’s entry for “market share” says that “market share refers to the relative market adoption of various products, for example: ... operating systems.” This would mean that something is part of the market as long as it is being used.

I have to say, by the way, that you are easily one of the most obnoxious people I’ve had the misfortune of communicating with. You should try following the lead of the one respectful individual in this thread. If we had this discussion in person, it would’ve certainly ended poorly for you (as I’m sure has happened before). Then again, had we had this discussion in person, I am certain you wouldn’t be as much of a jackass as you think you can afford to be behind the anonymity of a computer.

I’ll ask you not to respond to me and to never do so again. This is meant to be a civil request. I’ll do the same.

[ReignOfError]

First of all, pre-eminent or preeminent—either spelling is acceptable. When adding the prefix "pre" results in a double "ee" a hyphen is acceptable.

That's because diacritical marks have fallen out of use in English, so we don't have a means to indicate the accent on the back half of the diaeresis. Preëminent was the preferred spelling in the 19th and early 20th century, and the accent was also used in words like naïve and coöperation.

[Swordmaker]

I have to say, by the way, that you are easily one of the most obnoxious people I’ve had the misfortune of communicating with. You should try following the lead of the one respectful individual in this thread. If we had this discussion in person, it would’ve certainly ended poorly for you (as I’m sure has happened before). Then again, had we had this discussion in person, I am certain you wouldn’t be as much of a jackass as you think you can afford to be behind the anonymity of a computer.

I’ll ask you not to respond to me and to never do so again. This is meant to be a civil request. I’ll do the same.

It is not civil, not with that highly uncivil, insulting, ad hominem attack lead in you preceded your oh, so "civil" request with.

Sir. The obnoxious Jackass here has been you, from your first insulting, ad hominem laden, trolling post you made to me, to your final insulting, ad hominem attempt to extricate yourself. I am not obliged to abide by your dictates when YOU again insult me, and propose to walk away, claiming victory in your own mind.

If you comment again in a Mac thread, I will respond when you make comments that are obvious wrong. I will NOT leave obvious falsehoods such as your libelous untruthful claim that Apple was including handheld devices in the audited count of computers to achieve an over 10% US market share—a FRAUDULENT ACT that, if true, would have resulted in both civil suits and criminal charges being brought against Apple management—or your totally misunderstood and mistaken explanation of Market Share itself, stand for others to read. They will be corrected by me with the true facts and data, especially in a thread that I started.

I told you, early on, if you don't like a subject, don't comment. Others have told you that you were wrong... yet you persist. You have been presented with the facts which you proceed to ignore. I have used your OWN LINKS to show you they don't quite say what you say they say, or that they support what I said. You ignore it.

You continue to persist in insisting YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE WITH THE TRUTH despite others telling you, you are wrong. You backtrack and try to revise already existing statements you made and try to make them into something else. Even when quoted back to you, you fail to admit you were wrong, and instead, like a petulant child, you come up with an excuse.

You are, like the Red Queen in Lewis Carroll's "Alice Through the Looking Glass," one who claims words mean ONLY WHAT SHE SAYS THEY MEAN. That is not the real world, Flint. I told you my degree is in Economics... and words in economics have specific meanings. I use words in their classic meanings; not in some "loosey goosey," feel whatever I want it to mean at the moment, way. "Market Share" has a specific defined meaning, and it was being used in these articles, by these writers, IN THAT SPECIFIC MEANING. You are NOT permitted to change that meaning to your Red Queen meaning willy-nilly, so you can win. This thread is NOT on the other side of the looking glass!

You take an unknown-to-us, extreme minority position (vis-a-vis, the quality of Shakespeare's canon)—shared by no one but you—so that you can EX CATHEDRA proclaim something that gives your position and opinion authority over everyone else's opinion, and that somehow magically allows you free reign to criticize whatever you like, as you like. It does not! There ARE standards of critique. Your's does not meet that standard. It's just more Red Queen thinking!

Despite your nasty attitude toward me, I have attempted to be civil toward you all along. YOU sir, on the other hand, have been flinging insults and ad hominem attacks at me from the beginning. If you expect to be treated civilly, then act like an adult instead of like an adolescent brat throwing spitwads and tantrums. Now, you continue this by announcing you are taking your ball and going home, after throwing more insults and ad hominem attacks at me. . . and you have the bald audacity to make it MY FAULT! BAH!

YOU, sir, are a thread troll. You admitted it. You came into this thread to troll... to disrupt. You have succeeded. That puts you on the wrong side of Jim Robinson's edicts against this activity.

You are free to comment if you chose, or not. I suggest not.

[Swordmaker]

That's because diacritical marks have fallen out of use in English, so we don't have a means to indicate the accent on the back half of the diaeresis. Preëminent was the preferred spelling in the 19th and early 20th century, and the accent was also used in words like naïve and coöperation.

Exactly... When printers started simplifying their fonts (trays of type, not type faces) the diacritical marks were the first thing that were let go, it was a sorting nightmare and too easy to make a typesetting error... the hyphen in double letters with prefixes was frequently substituted and acceptable.

Frankly, the dropping of the hyphen is causing more confusion, in my opinion. I've seen people who read aloud stumble over the double vowels... saying pree minent... and coo peration... only to have to stop, and correct themselves. I'd prefer to add the hyphen to preserve the prefix separation.

Don't try to tell Flint that. I've been told not to address him anymore. He thinks he's above it...

[PreciousLiberty]

“A true discussion of market share must include all actively used computers sold prior to 2010.”

Nope, you need to understand what “market share” means. It refers to sales, hence “market”.

“Computer use” and “market share” are two different terms. Further, recent sales indicate the trend of which computers are being used more and which less.

Thanks for playing...

[flintsilver7]

Do Anroid phones have greater market share than iOS phones?

[antiRepublicrat]

There’s also a general pattern in English where new formulations of words start with hyphens or other marks, and then the marks eventually disappear after the new word becomes common. It can happen rather quickly. The AP style guide says to insert a hyphen for “e” standing for “electronic” something in a word. But the exception is email. The word is so common in the culture now that the hyphen has disappeared after only about 20 years of common use.

[antiRepublicrat]

Do Anroid phones have greater market share than iOS phones?

Yes, all of the current Android phone models from all of the companies producing Android phones on all cell carriers now have a total combined US market share that is greater than the one iPhone sold by Apple on one carrier.

I'd love to see the 1Q11 numbers that will include a month and a half of Verizon iPhone sales. The pent-up demand is supposed to be incredible, and they've stockpiled massive numbers of CDMA iPhones for the launch. Even my wife, no lover of things Apple and current Android user, is thinking of getting an iPhone in a couple months when her window hits.

[flintsilver7]

Apple will benefit greatly from getting to Verizon. I’d consider one if they had a version with any sort of tactile response, but I just don’t work well with touch screens. AT&T is a garbage carrier and has only held the iPhone back. That said, at this point the Android phones are essentially identical, so Apple no longer has the advantage of innovation they had at the initial launch of the iPhone. Sales can only increase, though. It will hurt AT&T, but who cares about that?

Now, about market share, what I was getting at was that the story told by calendar-year sales is not the whole story. Yes, Android sales surged in 2010. This was to be expected. My contention is the same as it is with desktop operating systems - sales of durable goods are not the same as market share. Apple still holds a greater market share in this regard.

http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_os-ww-monthly-200812-201012

[dayglored]

Hi Sword,

> To: flintsilver7; antiRepublicrat; dayglored; ReignOfError

Please drop me from this thread, as I'm not following it. No offense intended to you or anyone; I'm just not reading it any more. Thanks.

[Admin Moderator]

Sword - this is the 2nd time (that I recall) you’ve in some way started talking lawyer-ease in some context....I swear - if you do it again, I’ll ban you. Go ahead and call your posse and whoever else, together - it ain’t gonna help you...This is your final warning.

[PreciousLiberty]

"Do Anroid phones have greater market share than iOS phones?"

This is off topic for this thread, but I'll answer.

At the moment, I think they're close to even. We'll see what the future brings with Verizon and other coming developments. The bigger picture, though, is that iOS devices have far larger market share. That would be the sum of iPod, iPhone and iPad sales, versus nonexistent Android music players and miniscule Android tablet sales.

So, for developers iOS remains by far the most attractive target, since not only are there far more potential customers, but the vendor has a reasonable expectation of getting paid for his product.

[Swordmaker]

Even Flint's own link show that as of January 2011, that iOS is pulling away from Android...

US January 2011


World Wide January 2011

So Flint is wrong again.

[flintsilver7]

I asked that question for a specific reason. Throughout this thread, it is argued by many that sales are the same thing as market share; indeed, the thread itself begins with that premise. Android phones outsold the iPhone in 2010 (http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1466313). However, it has been my claim throughout this thread that sales alone are not the same as market share. You may notice in #114 I am of the belief that Apple leads Android in smartphone market share and the graph I posted supports that. I hope that is clear.

It should be clear, but then again I’m either apparently wrong in asking a question, something I didn’t believe possible, or wrong in stating that Apple leads in smartphone market share despite trailing in recent sales. Only on the internet can I apparently be wrong while the person telling me I’m wrong says the exact same thing. I guess it’s also possible they just don’t know the difference between a declarative statement and an interrogative statement.

[antiRepublicrat]

Market share is not installed base. Market share is also not absolutely sales either. Market share is generally seen two ways:

Unit sales. This is what we’re usually talking about. If X sales were made in a market in a quarter or year, and Company A had X/2 sales, then Company A has a 50% market share. It is possible for a competitor’s sales to grow and for you to still gain market share, because quite often the market itself is growing. If next year the market consists of X*2 sales, and Company A’s sales grow by 50%, then Company A now has less than 50% market share. This is how iPhone sales can grow tremendously and still lose market share to Android. RIM’s market share is shrinking, but IIRC they haven’t sold fewer smart phones.

The other way to calculate it is by revenue. Of the total revenue of a market, what is Company A’s revenue?

Also in market share discussions, be sure to specify the market or even sub-market, and which market share you are using. Is the market all cell phones? Those throwaway and “feature” phones dwarf smart phones in sales. Premium smart phones vs. free or $50 phones, or those given away in two-for-one deals? The latter generally will have more unit sales mainly due to reduced price, not necessarily higher consumer demand.

If you’re thinking about the health and future of a company, it doesn’t really matter that iPhone has less market share than Android, or that RIM share is shrinking, because Apple and RIM are getting all their share’s money, while Android money is spread among several manufacturers.