Mac presence on web up nearly 5 percent in September

[AppleInsider]

More and more consumers are choosing Apple computers to access their favorite online content, with the presence of Macs on the Web growing more than 4.7 percent last month, according to the latest market share figures from Net Applications.

Macs accounted for 8.23 percent of all traffic on Web sites tracked by the firm during the month of September, up from 7.86 percent the month before. Those gains came largely at the expense of rival systems running flavors of the Windows operating system, which saw their combined share slip from 90.66 percent to 90.29 percent.

Also on the rise was the share of Web traffic coming from iPhones, which inched up nearly 7 percent from August to garner a combined 0.32 percent share. Those gains, however, pale in comparison to the more than 57 percent leap made by the touchscreen handsets immediately following the release of the iPhone 3G in July.

Meanwhile, Apple's Mac- and Windows-based Safari web browser also maintained its forward progress during the month of September, with its share climbing a bit over 4 percent.

The largest gains in the browser space came by way of Google, whose new Chrome offering snagged a 0.78 percent share of all web traffic during its first partial month on the market.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[petermac]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

More and more consumers are choosing Apple computers to access their favorite online content, with the presence of Macs on the Web growing more than 4.7 percent last month, according to the latest market share figures from Net Applications.

4.7% X 12 months=56% growth pa. AAPL has got to go up if this trend continues even for the next 3-4 months. It confirms apples greater acceptance and uptake versus the rest of the industry. Is this a good metric, given new OSX users might browse more.... not really, iPhone yes, but not on Mac OSX.

Can this method be used to measure the contribution that iTunes data has made to internet traffic. ie can hi def d/l inflate OS usage?

Edit added last line.

[TheToe]

Just as important as the Mac climbing up is Windows' slide toward 90%.

90% is considered somewhat of a magic number, over which one has a monopoly... and under which one does not. It looks like Windows is about to lose it's iron grip.

Notice how the tone has changed already? People used to say their software runs on Mac and Windows. Then they stopped saying that, figuring practically everyone uses Windows anyway. Now the phrase is back. Developers can't ignore Macs anymore, unless they want to lose one in ten potential customers.

[Virgil-TB2]

I'm not sure what the point of breaking out iPhone numbers is in this analysis. If it's OS based, then iPhone numbers should be added into the Mac.

I am sure that the mobile Windows and mobile Linux numbers are just too small to register by themselves and so are added into the desktop figures, but if so then surely iPhone should similarly be blended into the desktops figures.

This should be two charts, one with just the OS numbers and a second one dealing with the battle of the much much smaller mobile versions of the same OS's. iPhone's numbers are really only relevant compared to other mobile platforms anyway.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2

I'm not sure what the point of breaking out iPhone numbers is in this analysis. If it's OS based, then iPhone numbers should be added into the Mac.

I am sure that the mobile Windows and mobile Linux numbers are just too small to register by themselves and so are added into the desktop figures, but if so then surely iPhone should similarly be blended into the desktops figures.

This should be two charts, one with just the OS numbers and a second one dealing with the battle of the much much smaller mobile versions of the same OS's. iPhone's numbers are really only relevant compared to other mobile platforms anyway.

They have many more stats broken down on their site.

• http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=10

WinCE-based devices register as 1/6th of OS X iPhone with 0.06% and S60-based devices register at 1/11th of OS X iPhone-based devices with 0.03%.

[enzos]

Originally Posted by petermac

4.7% X 12 months=56% growth pa.

Edit added last line.

For exponential growth 1.047^12 = 1.73; so it's 73% per 12 months.

[kaiser_soze]

Why would you anticipate even geometric (linear) growth for something like this, much less exponential growth? The numbers that you got should tell you that neither expectation is realistic. The error in extrapolation is analytically undetermined except for when the data corresponds to some physical phenomenon that is perfectly understood to abide by an exact analytical formula. Both of those projections are entirely meaningless.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by TheToe

Just as important as the Mac climbing up is Windows' slide toward 90%.

90% is considered somewhat of a magic number, over which one has a monopoly... and under which one does not. It looks like Windows is about to lose it's iron grip.

Notice how the tone has changed already? People used to say their software runs on Mac and Windows. Then they stopped saying that, figuring practically everyone uses Windows anyway. Now the phrase is back. Developers can't ignore Macs anymore, unless they want to lose one in ten potential customers.

There is no absolute percentage required for something to be declared a monopoly.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2

I'm not sure what the point of breaking out iPhone numbers is in this analysis. If it's OS based, then iPhone numbers should be added into the Mac.

I am sure that the mobile Windows and mobile Linux numbers are just too small to register by themselves and so are added into the desktop figures, but if so then surely iPhone should similarly be blended into the desktops figures.

This should be two charts, one with just the OS numbers and a second one dealing with the battle of the much much smaller mobile versions of the same OS's. iPhone's numbers are really only relevant compared to other mobile platforms anyway.

The iPhone is a different platform, and can be determined that way. so are the other phone platforms. Why would you ASSUME that their numbers would be combined with desktop numbers? They are not.

These surveys rarely list every separate item once they fall below a certain number, or below the first five or so top results. they will be listed in the actual report.

That's why Apple is never listed in the published surveys about world's computer manufacturers, because they fall below number five. They are on the non public list. You just have to look deeper.

[LuisDias]

Why would you anticipate even geometric (linear) growth for something like this, much less exponential growth? The numbers that you got should tell you that neither expectation is realistic. The error in extrapolation is analytically undetermined except for when the data corresponds to some physical phenomenon that is perfectly understood to abide by an exact analytical formula. Both of those projections are entirely meaningless.

I agree. It is at least necessary to make a regression fit line, in the linear case. I did this fairly quickly with the 12 months the site has, and I've come up with a line that has R^2=0.7821, which means not so good, but not too bad. It generates a trend of 0.1% per month increase, which is ~1.2% per year (in absolutes). It gives a growth of 16% per year.

This means that this particular month was very good. There have been months that the growth was negative.

In a exponential curve, I got R^2=0.7736, quite similar to the linear one. The equation gives a growth of 0.0135/month, 1.35% per month, or 1.0135^12 = 17.46% per year.

So easy folks. If this is a tipping point, the stats don't really confirm it just yet.

[LuisDias]

Of course, given 17% of growth per year, and with 8 points, we could envision a future where Apple would be 9.4% in sep 2009, 12.8% in sep 2011, 20.51% in sep 2014, 33% in sep 2017, 53% in sep 2020.

I'm afraid though that life is never this simple.

[Kendoka]

Would be a major thing if Apple could rise above 10% - this would make it harder for web developers etc. to ignore Macs.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by LuisDias

Of course, given 17% of growth per year, and with 8 points, we could envision a future where Apple would be 9.4% in sep 2009, 12.8% in sep 2011, 20.51% in sep 2014, 33% in sep 2017, 53% in sep 2020.

I'm afraid though that life is never this simple.

Those numbers for OS X aren't just representing OS X, but also representing Apple's HW. Even the largest PC vendor in the world only has 20% marketshare. If Apple matched that to become #1 PC vendor worldwide they would still be giving 80% to Windows et al.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by Kendoka

Would be a major thing if Apple could rise above 10% - this would make it harder for web developers etc. to ignore Macs.

The platform is the issue with web developers, it's the browser engine. With Google in the mix with Chrome and the iPhone being the most popular method to access web on a phone/MID, There are much more powerful factors working than Apple's OS marketshare to support WebKit.

[TheToe]

Originally Posted by melgross

There is no absolute percentage required for something to be declared a monopoly.

No, 'course not. But from what I understand, there is a major perceptual effect to controlling more than 90% of a market. (Though to be fair, I've also heard 80% referred to as a major hurdle.)

[melgross]

Originally Posted by TheToe

No, 'course not. But from what I understand, there is a major perceptual effect to controlling more than 90% of a market. (Though to be fair, I've also heard 80% referred to as a major hurdle.)

It can also be 70%. Under certain circumstances, and depending on the industry, it could be 60%

There is no one rule.

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by solipsism

Those numbers for OS X aren't just representing OS X, but also representing Apple's HW. Even the largest PC vendor in the world only has 20% marketshare. If Apple matched that to become #1 PC vendor worldwide they would still be giving 80% to Windows et al.

Becoming the #1 PC vendor would be nice regardless of Windows share and it could happen I think.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by digitalclips

Becoming the #1 PC vendor would be nice regardless of Windows share and it could happen I think.

I think 20% for the US is doable within a couple years if they lower the starting price of notebook Macs. For the worldwide share, they are too low and not in enough countries to have the same effect, but If they were #1 in the US, I'd assume they would at least be in the top 4 worldwide.

It's this reason of PC vendor percentage that I don't see Windows ever going away in favour of OS X. If they reached US dominance, and they are already saturated as the primary consumer choice for >$1000 machines, the only way for them to grow their HW sales would be to drastically lower prices or go into the business sector, but I don't think these business machines would be called or look like Macs if they did that.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by solipsism

I think 20% for the US is doable within a couple years if they lower the starting price of notebook Macs. For the worldwide share, they are too low and not in enough countries to have the same effect, but If they were #1 in the US, I'd assume they would at least be in the top 4 worldwide.

A couple of years? That's very optimistic. I think it's possible in five years, maybe, if everything goes just right, in four.

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by melgross

A couple of years? That's very optimistic. I think it's possible in five years, maybe, if everything goes just right, in four.

It's ironic that the competition between PC manufacturers helps Apple who actually have a form of monopoly in that they are the only source of that particular product we all love, the combination of Apple hardware and software (OK, most of us lol). That (i.e. only source) being my interpretation of the M word rather than % of market share.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by digitalclips

It's ironic that the competition between PC manufacturers helps Apple who actually have a form of monopoly in that they are the only source of that particular product we all love, the combination of Apple hardware and software (OK, most of us lol). That (i.e. only source) being my interpretation of the M word rather than % of market share.

Well, monopoly isn't defined that way, or almost all companies would be defined as monopolies in certain product areas.

Even MS, with Office having a bigger marketshare than all Windows sales put together, isn't defined a monopoly in office suites.

[stn2001]

This is nice for MAC! And in fact Microsoft helped Apple to gain this share! Why? - Because of Vista which sucks big time! I am not saying is the reason but one of the top reason!

- PC owner, waiting for my pc to die! ;-)
http://www.slickdeals4u.com

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by melgross

Well, monopoly isn't defined that way, or almost all companies would be defined as monopolies in certain product areas.

Even MS, with Office having a bigger marketshare than all Windows sales put together, isn't defined a monopoly in office suites.

It is a complex issue, this is a good source of info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

[melgross]

Originally Posted by digitalclips

It is a complex issue, this is a good source of info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

Basically, it's a good article, including the links it goes to.

But, there are errors, and omissions, in the article, which I seem to find in most all Wiki articles.

Some of what is said is misleading. It doesn't cover descriptions of situations that appear to be a monopoly, but aren't, such as Apple's case.

It also is incorrect when it states that monopolies will attempt to restrict manufacturing, and distribution of goods, to keep prices high. That's part of the old, and now partly obsolete, definition. It simply isn't true in the modern case of almost unlimited markets. It only works in saturated markets, for example.

We can look to software here (which is, in a sense, what we're talking about anyway).

Other than for items such as food and fuel, most markets are not infinitely sellable. Once the product is purchased, that's it for an indefinite time. It used to be that most Americans bought a new car every two years. No longer.

Software is infinitely upgradable, which, like food and fuel, also extends the market to infinite levels.

We can go on with this forever too. Its a long, and as you noted, complex subject.

[LuisDias]

Originally Posted by melgross

Software is infinitely upgradable, which, like food and fuel, also extends the market to infinite levels.

Nothing's infinite. Just because the number of software possibilities appear to you as such, there is no such thing in this human universe that is infinite.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by LuisDias

Nothing's infinite. Just because the number of software possibilities appear to you as such, there is no such thing in this human universe that is infinite.

You're missing the logic.

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by LuisDias

Nothing's infinite. Just because the number of software possibilities appear to you as such, there is no such thing in this human universe that is infinite.

Finitism eh?

[melgross]

Originally Posted by LuisDias

Nothing's infinite. Just because the number of software possibilities appear to you as such, there is no such thing in this human universe that is infinite.

Um, well, yes, of course. I think we all know that. It's a matter of relative proportion.

It's also just an expression. I didn't expect anyone to take it literally.

Though the number system extends infinitely.