Mac web share nears 10% in December

[AppleInsider]

In spite of fears of a late-year plunge, Apple has again beat its own market share record in December and now has a record 9.6 percent of web traffic as Microsoft's own influence continues to fall.

Net Applications' December results show Mac OS X surging from just under 8.9 percent in November to the new 9.6 percent mark for the tens of thousands of sites monitored by the web tracking firm.

The figure is an all-time high for Apple and a significant jump from the same period a year before, when the Mac maker held 7.3 percent.

Its iPhone also made significant inroads and claimed 0.44 percent versus 0.37 percent the previous month, and just 0.12 percent in December 2007. The handset still claims the title of the most popular non-desktop operating system and now has more than half the market share of Linux.

Apple's success during the holiday month, as with the month before, once again comes directly at Microsoft's expense. December represented the second month in a row where Windows had less than 90 percent and dropped nearly a full point to 88.7 percent; both Apple's computers and cellphones were responsible for much of the erosion of Windows' share.

Net Applications does caution that December can potentially skew the results. As more people are staying at home or are on vacation, the researchers note, users are more likely to be running Macs and iPhones than the Windows PCs that still rule the business world.

However, Apple has historically maintained or grown its share following the holiday spike and often uses the season as a platform for further gains.

[bloggerblog]

This is great news, Apple is off to a good start, I hope this year they'lll work more on making things right.

Oh yeah, and a mactablet, new iPhone, new macpro, xmac, new iMac, new mac mini, web based iWork, and a new ATV won't hurt either.

[wobegon]

Looking at the other results, I can't believe how pathetic the Wii's web share is. The PS3, which has a far smaller install base, is beating it 4 to 1! And Sony doesn't even advertise or talk about their console's web browser, while I'm pretty sure I remember Nintendo talking about their system's Opera browser. Maybe it says something about the average Wii user: not very technologically informed. But then, I have a Wii, most of my friends do, and none of us browse the web on it much, probably because it's slow and kind of clunky. If Apple TV gains the ability to browse the web, I question how much it would be used.

Otherwise, essentially 10% is not a bad way to kick off 2009. I can't wait for when we hit the big 20%, but then again, Macs already have a 66% share of the +$1000 computer market, ie the premium market where they largely compete.

Wish we could get a breakdown of Windows versions to see how Mac OS X is competing against Vista.

[aaarrrgggh]

Well, looks like great sales for Apple's Q1! Wonder how much lower that will push the stock...

[kim kap sol]

Originally Posted by wobegon

Looking at the other results, I can't believe how pathetic the Wii's web share is. The PS3, which has a far smaller install base, is beating it 4 to 1!

The PS3 is essentially a computer marketed as a game console. The Wii is a game console. People aren't dumb though...they know the PS3 is more like a computer. Is it really that surprising that people are using their PS3 as a computer and the Wii as a game console?

People that bought a Wii bought the console to play games...not to wait for good titles and browse the web in the meantime. Hell...there are more and better games on Mac than on the PS3.

[Ireland]

This should send the stock... down?

[wobegon]

Originally Posted by kim kap sol

The PS3 is essentially a computer marketed as a game console. The Wii is a game console. People aren't dumb though...they know the PS3 is more like a computer. Is it really that surprising that people are using their PS3 as a computer and the Wii as a game console?

A great many people bought the PS3 because it was the best Blu-ray player for the buck. It may be as powerful as a mid-to-high end gaming PC, but it doesn't ship with a keyboard and mouse. I'm not surprised that PS3 owners use their console's web browser, that's not what I said at all. I'm just amazed that they use them enough that they beat the immensely popular, nearly impossible to find (until mid-2008, nearly two years after launch) Wii, which has been bought up by many casual/non-gamers thanks to its motion-based controls and Wii Sports. I thought enough of them would have found enjoyment in web surfing on the TV to easily outnumber the PS3's web share, even if only a quarter of Wii owners did so. Probably having the browser on the system, as the PS3 did, rather than requiring users to download one off the Wii Shop Channel had an effect.

Originally Posted by kim kap sol

People that bought a Wii bought the console to play games...not to wait for good titles and browse the web in the meantime. Hell...there are more and better games on Mac than on the PS3.

Haha, most Wii owners play Wii Sports and Wii Fit, the latter of which isn't even a game. Being a Wii owner myself (since launch day), there are at least twice as many games worth playing on the PS3 as the Wii, and many are new, original titles. If the PS3 is poor in the game selection category, the Wii is abysmal.

Also, just because the PS3's web share is larger than the Wii's doesn't mean PS3 owners have no games to play. That's like saying iPhone (or Mac or PC) users have nothing to do but surf the web.

[FuturePastNow]

Is this about OS X... or Safari? (I didn't read the article)

[macosxp]

Originally Posted by wobegon

Wish we could get a breakdown of Windows versions to see how Mac OS X is competing against Vista.

Why don't you take a look for yourself? http://marketshare.hitslink.com/default.aspx
Vista has 21.1% of the market share, XP has 65.2%, Linux has 0.85%, and OS X has 9.6%.

And don't forget about web browsers! That's even bigger news. Internet explorer dropped almost 2% to 68.15% while Firefox jumped up to 21.34%. Safari also made a big climb to 7.93% while Chrome broke the 1% barrier.

[cygnusrk727]

Originally Posted by macosxp

Safari also made a big climb to 7.93% while Chrome broke the 1% barrier.

Though it is only 1 percent, there is no Chrome for Mac yet. So expect a little eat in to Safari's share sometime this spring. Safari could still out grow that little eat in which would be great.

[wobegon]

Originally Posted by macosxp

Why don't you take a look for yourself? http://marketshare.hitslink.com/default.aspx
Vista has 21.1% of the market share, XP has 65.2%, Linux has 0.85%, and OS X has 9.6%.

A direct link would be nice. I can't seem to find the article that shows your info (though I'm not questioning it, just like to look over all the numbers).

[zunx]

US share? Worldwide share? IT IS NOT THE SAME!

[Booga]

Originally Posted by cygnusrk727

Though it is only 1 percent, there is no Chrome for Mac yet. So expect a little eat in to Safari's share sometime this spring. Safari could still out grow that little eat in which would be great.

Why would Mac users use Chrome? While Safari for XP is pretty awful, Safari on the Mac is pretty good. And since they use the exact same renderer it's not going to increase the ability to use certain sites like Firefox might do.

[Booga]

Originally Posted by kim kap sol

The PS3 is essentially a computer marketed as a game console. The Wii is a game console. People aren't dumb though...they know the PS3 is more like a computer. Is it really that surprising that people are using their PS3 as a computer and the Wii as a game console?

People that bought a Wii bought the console to play games...not to wait for good titles and browse the web in the meantime. Hell...there are more and better games on Mac than on the PS3.

My PS3 has wireless, USB, media card reader, Blu-Ray drive, HD component (or HDMI) and really nice graphics for a few hundred bucks. Macs that cost 2-3x as much are lacking some of those features. And since you can use almost all the USB peripherals on both it basically IS a nice little computer that connects to your HD TV. I admit to buying more Blu-Ray movies than games for it.

But the game selection is actually quite good. It's a really nice machine compared to the other two "third generation" consoles, but is more expensive so hasn't sold as many.

[Bergermeister]

The Blue Ray was included to help them win the BR/DVD HD war, and now they have a great head start.

They charge a premium for the inclusion of BR, too, on other makers' machines.

[Virgil-TB2]

Originally Posted by Booga

Why would Mac users use Chrome? While Safari for XP is pretty awful, Safari on the Mac is pretty good. And since they use the exact same renderer it's not going to increase the ability to use certain sites like Firefox might do.

Yeah. The main attraction of Chrome is how it handles web-applications and we have yet to see what the next Safari will offer in that category. Also, almost no one uses web-apps at this point. It's certainly waaay too early to think that Chrome will "take over" when it's released for Mac as many of teh internet wizards are trying to imply. Personally, aesthetics mean a lot to me (it's one of the main reasons I quit using FireFox) and the Chrome browser is the ugliest looking thing to come down the pike in a long time IMO.

Chrome is also more like a technology demo than an actual product and was even introduced as such. There are a lot of Google-lovers out there however, who assume that everything that falls from the fingers of a Google programmer is not only gold, but also destined to be the next big thing. This is absolute foolishness of course, Google has had many failures.

The big nail in the coffin of Chrome is that it's a one-note application and it's open source. It's only "raison d'être" is the tabs all being separate app-spaces. This feature can, and will be easily copied by every other browser out there in no time at all. The new Safari is likely to have a different solution to this same problem when it comes out next month already. The degree to which it is different or less capable than Chrome will be minor and also easily fixed with a point release anyway.

[wobegon]

Originally Posted by Booga

Why would Mac users use Chrome? While Safari for XP is pretty awful, Safari on the Mac is pretty good. And since they use the exact same renderer it's not going to increase the ability to use certain sites like Firefox might do.

How exactly is Safari for XP awful? Doesn't seem any better or worse than it is on OS X. Actually, it crashes less on XP when playing some QuickTime videos compared to my aging PowerBook G4 running Tiger.

I'm really crossing my fingers for a Safari speed bump at Macworld, but I don't care much about new features as I use NetNewsWire for RSS with Safari set to open pages in the background.

[doh123]

Originally Posted by Bergermeister

The Blue Ray was included to help them win the BR/DVD HD war, and now they have a great head start.

They charge a premium for the inclusion of BR, too, on other makers' machines.

now they have a great head start? against what? HD-DVD is dead if you hadn't heard it was discontinued quite a while back....

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by Ireland

This should send the stock... down?

Not a bad guess......

But, wait till the broader sentiment changes, and the market starts to rebound. AAPL could well start to rocket upwards. Patience.

[doh123]

Originally Posted by wobegon

How exactly is Safari for XP awful? Doesn't seem any better or worse than it is on OS X. Actually, it crashes less on XP when playing some QuickTime videos compared to my aging PowerBook G4 running Tiger.

I'm really crossing my fingers for a Safari speed bump at Macworld, but I don't care much about new features as I use NetNewsWire for RSS with Safari set to open pages in the background.

does Tiger get Safari 3 now? havent used Tiger in forever... when i used to use Safari 2 it was so unstable i dumped it.. but since Safari 3... after a few bug fixes, its been great.... though most of the time I'm still on Firefox since its just what I've been using for years.

[cygnusrk727]

Originally Posted by Booga

Why would Mac users use Chrome? While Safari for XP is pretty awful, Safari on the Mac is pretty good. And since they use the exact same renderer it's not going to increase the ability to use certain sites like Firefox might do.

Safari is certainly my browser of choice. But I and a lot of others will download Chrome and give it a try. Who knows how many will hang with it. My only point there is in a couple of more months, millions of people who currently can't even download and use Chrome, will be able to do so at that point. So far, Safari market share has been shielded from the new browser.

[Booga]

Originally Posted by wobegon

How exactly is Safari for XP awful? Doesn't seem any better or worse than it is on OS X. Actually, it crashes less on XP when playing some QuickTime videos compared to my aging PowerBook G4 running Tiger.

I'm really crossing my fingers for a Safari speed bump at Macworld, but I don't care much about new features as I use NetNewsWire for RSS with Safari set to open pages in the background.

Safari on XP does a terrible job integrating into the look and feel and normal usage patterns of an XP workstation. It feels like a Mac app on Windows. That feels as wrong to me as a Windows app sitting on my Mac desktop. The font rendering is well-known to be different than all the other Windows apps (and ignore Windows font rendering preferences), and the menus in the title bar is truly weird. Basically, Safari feels very natural on my Mac but very alien on Windows.

Firefox does a much better job of blending to both platforms, but ends up with too much of a "lowest common denominator" solution.

[wobegon]

Originally Posted by doh123

does Tiger get Safari 3 now? havent used Tiger in forever... when i used to use Safari 2 it was so unstable i dumped it.. but since Safari 3... after a few bug fixes, its been great.... though most of the time I'm still on Firefox since its just what I've been using for years.

Yeah...I'm using Safari 3.2.1 in Tiger 10.4.11 right now. Notice the Safari for Tiger option on this page?

[wobegon]

Originally Posted by cygnusrk727

So far, Safari market share has been shielded from the new browser.

On the Mac, yes. But don't you think Chrome would have already eaten into Safari's market share on Windows since Internet Explorer is a terrible browser and Windows has a far larger global market share compared to Macs? If Chrome for Mac is anything like Chrome for Windows, I don't see it eating into Safari's market share at all.

[wobegon]

Originally Posted by Booga

Safari on XP does a terrible job integrating into the look and feel and normal usage patterns of an XP workstation. It feels like a Mac app on Windows.

Thank god! That's what I like about it: it doesn't look like crap.

Originally Posted by Booga

That feels as wrong to me as a Windows app sitting on my Mac desktop. The font rendering is well-known to be different than all the other Windows apps (and ignore Windows font rendering preferences), and the menus in the title bar is truly weird. Basically, Safari feels very natural on my Mac but very alien on Windows.

So should Apple make iTunes look like Windows XP's Fisher Price junk too?

Apple makes Safari on Windows look as close to Safari on Mac as possible for simplified customer support and to entice people to the Mac, as well as making the transition seamless if they do switch. Obviously, it's also for Windows-based companies who want to develop iPhone/iPod touch web apps and custom iPhone-friendly websites.

Originally Posted by Booga

Firefox does a much better job of blending to both platforms, but ends up with too much of a "lowest common denominator" solution.

I thought FF2 looked alright on XP, but FF3 is ugly imo. And on the Mac it just looks like a Safari knockoff. At the end of the day, I care about text/page rendering and speed, which Safari excels in.

[macFanDave]

Chrome sucks. I tried it on my PC at work, and it sucks. If it ever shows up on Mac OS X, it won't make a ripple in what people use. That's probably why Google has been so slow to release it.

Apple's future as a computer company is very bright. The facts that Vista is widely considered a failure, early reports of Windows 7 being lukewarm at best, and the latest Zune debacle are clobbering Microsoft's ill-deserved reputation for being the only game in town.

Another part of what is helping Apple's computers are the non-computer devices that caused Apple to drop the word Computer from the company name. (I still argue that Apple is subversively causing people to become Mac users when the buy iPhones or iPod Touches.) Once people see how well iPhones and iPods work, it helps them believe that the computers may also be as good. To Mac fans like me, this has been apparent for many years, but if this is the way some people need to be convinced, so be it.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by wobegon

Looking at the other results, I can't believe how pathetic the Wii's web share is. The PS3, which has a far smaller install base, is beating it 4 to 1! And Sony doesn't even advertise or talk about their console's web browser, while I'm pretty sure I remember Nintendo talking about their system's Opera browser. Maybe it says something about the average Wii user: not very technologically informed. But then, I have a Wii, most of my friends do, and none of us browse the web on it much, probably because it's slow and kind of clunky. If Apple TV gains the ability to browse the web, I question how much it would be used.

I can think of a couple other possible factors. Is the Wii browser still a separate cost? If it costs more money to use the web, then maybe that's a big deterrent? How about the TV? Even if it's only $5 worth of points, to me, it makes more sense to spend that on games, though I don't know, I'm not a Wii user and not really interested in the machine as it is, maybe the next iteration. Also, using the web in standard definition may not be as desirable to use as it would be on an HDTV in HD resolutions.

Originally Posted by macFanDave

Chrome sucks. I tried it on my PC at work, and it sucks. If it ever shows up on Mac OS X, it won't make a ripple in what people use. That's probably why Google has been so slow to release it.

If it lets them take the time to fix it, that's fine. If it's going to help them drive their web platform, then they are going to have to keep improving it.

[cygnusrk727]

Originally Posted by wobegon

If Chrome for Mac is anything like Chrome for Windows, I don't see it eating into Safari's market share at all.

Regardless of whether it sucks or not, Chrome will grow some market share. It is, as others have stated, a new and perhaps somewhat immature browser. That doesn't mean Google is not going to stick with it and continue to improve it. I never said it would completely erode away Safari market share. Just that millions of mac users have not even had the chance yet to try it. When they do have that chance, some will stick with it. People have their own opinions and agendas.

[wobegon]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

I can think of a couple other possible factors. Is the Wii browser still a separate cost? If it costs more money to use the web, then maybe that's a big deterrent? How about the TV? Using the web in standard definition may not be as desirable to use as it would be on an HDTV in HD resolutions.

The Wii's Opera browser was a free download for the first six months, I believe, then it became something like a $2 to $5 charge. I wasn't intending to list all the factors affecting the Wii's browser share, just a few major ones. But yeah, just the fact it has to be downloaded is a barrier as new users may have no idea they can browse the web if its not on the system at start up; putting a price on it is even worse.

As for browsing on SD vs HD sets, its not a wonderful experience in either case, but it would likely be better in SD, contrary to logic, because the Wii outputs in 480p. The higher the resolution of the TV, the more glaring the Wii's standard definition graphics are, especially using the stock composite cables all Wiis ship with.

Even with all those shortcomings though, it's still a fairly enjoyable experience to browse around and YouTube videos, for instance. The Wii's installed base is so large, I don't understand how - even with a minority of users downloading the browser - its browser share isn't larger. The PS3's 0.04% share isn't much to write home about either, but when compared to the far more popular Wii, you've gotta admit it's notable.

[wobegon]

Originally Posted by cygnusrk727

Regardless of whether it sucks or not, Chrome will grow some market share. It is, as others have stated, a new and perhaps somewhat immature browser. That doesn't mean Google is not going to stick with it and continue to improve it. I never said it would completely erode away Safari market share. Just that millions of mac users have not even had the chance yet to try it. When they do have that chance, some will stick with it. People have their own opinions and agendas.

Sure. I just don't see Chrome eating into Safari's share. I see both Safari's and Chrome's (and Firefox's) total cross-platform browser shares increasing at the expensive of Internet Explorer. Chrome can't easily eat into Safari's marketshare because it's a moving target riding the Mac's coattails.

[JeffDM]

I was trying to say that SD just isn't much of a resolution for web - most web pages are designed for bigger screens. With a PS3 on an HDTV, then you can actually see the entire page width without downscaling or navigation issues with horizontal panning.

In all fairness, I'm surprised to see game systems to be used for web at all. I see hits from PSP machines on occasion too.

[johnpross]

Originally Posted by wobegon

The Wii's installed base is so large, I don't understand how - even with a minority of users downloading the browser - its browser share isn't larger.

I paid for the Opera browser to use on a normal older SD television. To read anything you have to zoom in, to navigate you then have to zoom out. The resolution on a SD is truly awful which necessitates the zooming in and out. You have to be a world class couch potatoe to put up with it and not run screaming to any proper computer. It's so bad even using a PC is better.

[wobegon]

Originally Posted by johnpross

I paid for the Opera browser to use on a normal older SD television. To read anything you have to zoom in, to navigate you then have to zoom out. The resolution on a SD is truly awful which necessitates the zooming in and out. You have to be a world class couch potatoe to put up with it and not run screaming to any proper computer. It's so bad even using a PC is better.

Being a Wii owner myself, I've used Opera sparingly and while I agree it's not great, it has improved quite a bit since the launch build, which bordered on unusable. Unfortunately, I don't have a PS3 (yet) to compare it with.

[macFanDave]

Originally Posted by johnpross

I paid for the Opera browser to use on a normal older SD television. To read anything you have to zoom in, to navigate you then have to zoom out. The resolution on a SD is truly awful which necessitates the zooming in and out. You have to be a world class couch potatoe to put up with it and not run screaming to any proper computer. It's so bad even using a PC is better.

Luckily, I got the Opera browser for the Wii before they started charging for it. Frankly, it wasn't worth it. Not only does it suck in SD, it is also pathetic in HD. Truly horrible. Worse than Chrome, even!

[GregoryNP]

Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh

Well, looks like great sales for Apple's Q1! Wonder how much lower that will push the stock...

If it wasn't true it would be funny

[nofear1az]

Tried Chrome... really wanted to love it... has great features and great look for a small footprint but got tired of it freezing up all the time when closing tabs....annoying... love Safari a lot but alas not always compatible with sites so I stick with FF3 but the best part I love about FF are all the extensions for adblocking, Flashblocking and so much more.

[nvidia2008]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

I was trying to say that SD just isn't much of a resolution for web - most web pages are designed for bigger screens. With a PS3 on an HDTV, then you can actually see the entire page width without downscaling or navigation issues with horizontal panning.

In all fairness, I'm surprised to see game systems to be used for web at all. I see hits from PSP machines on occasion too.

I've tried the PS3 for at least a few days here and there in the past six months... And maybe I'm a retard but I can't play console games. I need a keyboard and mouse, especially in any shooter games.

Gawd knows how the hell am I supposed to surf the web on a PS3.

(It's not a hand-eye thing, I need mah keyboard and teh mousey. That dual-axis thingymajiggy... I just don't get it!)

[mcarling]

Originally Posted by wobegon

Macs already have a 66% share of the +$1000 computer market....

Can you provide a citation?

[caliminius]

Originally Posted by nvidia2008

Gawd knows how the hell am I supposed to surf the web on a PS3.

With a keyboard and mouse if them new-fangled controllers are too much for you.

[hill60]

There is no Safari for Linux, there is no iTunes for Linux, MobilMe does not work with Linux, you can't go to the iTunes store with Linux and you can't access the iPhone like a camera in Linux.

It's ironic that I had to install Microsoft XP and Microsoft Outlook and have to dual boot to sync my iPhone.

Microsoft made a fair bit of money from my iPhone purchase.