Mac web share hits record 9.9 percent in January

[AppleInsider]

Even as the economy has continued to falter, Apple's share of web users has climbed up to a landmark 9.93 percent in the first month of 2009 while Windows' own share continues to slide downwards.

Web tracking data compiled from tens of thousands of websites by Net Applications shows Apple reaching the all-time high with an 0.3 percent bump to the number of Macs making page requests.

The web firm doesn't explain the increase, which comes despite fears of a slide in market share for Apple during the holidays. However, Net Applications has previously warned of a abnormal December web share boost with users likely to spend more time running home Macs during the holidays. That wouldn't have been a factor for January, when many users often return to their frequently Windows-dominated workplaces.

Apple's gain is also roughly on par with the percentages same period a year ago. In January 2007, Apple had reached a then-significant 7.57 percent and gained about 0.26 percent over the holidays; while smaller in relative terms, the gain points to Macs consistently avoiding an immediate post-holiday plunge.

iPhone share has similarly been on the rise and is now at a peak 0.48 percent web share, up only slightly from 0.44 percent in December but well over three times larger than the 0.13 percent of January last year. The company's Safari browser also made gains and now accounts for 8.29 percent of all visits regardless of operating system, up 0.36 percent from the month prior.

Net Applications web share data for January.

Most rivals are suffering as a result. Despite its marketing campaigns and the release of a beta for Windows 7, Microsoft is still losing share and has managed 88.26 percent, down a slight 0.42 percent from December but a much more substantial 3.24 percent from just 12 months before. Internet Explorer has been partly hurt by Safari and now represents just 67.55 percent of traffic, with the largest portion of the loss attributable to Apple. The primarily Mac-oriented browser outpaced the cross-platform Mozilla Firefox (21.53 percent) and currently Windows-only Google Chrome (1.12 percent) in terms of absolute growth.

And while it has often profited from Microsoft's troubles at the same time, Linux hasn't shared in Apple's success: in January, it sank back to its November web share level of 0.83 percent.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[solipsism]

IE's largest portion to its loss is attributed to Apple.... not to FireFox???

[macosxp]

So what's going to happen?

A: Microsoft starts making a comeback with Windows 7 while Mac innovation falls; Mac OS X growth retards and reverses, resulting in a 6% market share 5 years from now, 2% market share 10 years from now.

B: Microsoft keeps its place of always falling a little behind the competition; Mac OS X growth remains constant, resulting in a 15% market share 5 years from now, 20% market share 10 years from now. or

C: Microsoft continues to flop while Mac innovation continues to WOW the world; Mac OS X growth gains momentum, resulting in a 30% market share 5 years from now, 60% market share 10 years from now.

It all depends on how good of a job Microsoft and Apple can do. But if things continue as they're going right now, we'll be seeing scenario 'C' and we'll all be living insanely great lives.

[macosxp]

Originally Posted by solipsism

IE's largest portion to its loss is attributed to Apple.... not FireFox?

This month, Safari had more growth than Firefox. Overall, of course, Firefox deserves the most credit for IE's current market share.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by macosxp

This month, Safari had more growth than Firefox. Overall, of course, Firefox deserves the most credit for IE's current market share.

Thanks for the clarification.

[fraklinc]

There's a lot of hype surrounding Windows 7 but no one has seen Snow Leopard yet & i bet that's keeping some people up at night in Redmond.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by fraklinc

There's a lot of hype surrounding Windows 7 but no one has seen Snow Leopard yet & i bet that's keeping some people up at night in Redmond.

At least MS is giving out Betas. I was hoping for some update about 10.6 at Macworld, even some small bit of info. I hope 10.6 isn't keeping people in Cupertino up at night worrying!

[cmf2]

Originally Posted by macosxp

So what's going to happen?

A: Microsoft starts making a comeback with Windows 7 while Mac innovation falls; Mac OS X growth retards and reverses, resulting in a 6% market share 5 years from now, 2% market share 10 years from now.

B: Microsoft keeps its place of always falling a little behind the competition; Mac OS X growth remains constant, resulting in a 15% market share 5 years from now, 20% market share 10 years from now. or

C: Microsoft continues to flop while Mac innovation continues to WOW the world; Mac OS X growth gains momentum, resulting in a 30% market share 5 years from now, 60% market share 10 years from now.

It all depends on how good of a job Microsoft and Apple can do. But if things continue as they're going right now, we'll be seeing scenario 'C' and we'll all be living insanely great lives.

I can't see how option C would be feasible unless Apple opened up their OS to other manufacturers. I can't imagine a premium PC manufacturer holding 60% market share, regardless of how great the operating system is.

[zunx]

WORLDWIDE? For the States only? It is not the same.

[tiltool]

News Analysis. Net Applications' January operating system data puts Mac market share at nearly 10 percent. Don't believe it.

From http://blogs.eweek.com/applewatch/co...elievable.html


I assert this after seeing several reports, including Apple 2.0 blog, touting Mac share gains.

GOT A TIP OR RUMOR?

"Mac's share grew another 3.12 percent in January to grab a record 9.93 percent of Internet traffic. The iPhone grew even faster, albeit from a smaller base, up 9.09 percent to 0.48 percent, also a new record," Philip Elmer-DeWitt writes at Apple 2.0. According to Net Apps data, Mac marketshare rose from 9.63 percent in December. By comparison, Windows marketshare declined from 88.68 percent to 88.27 percent during the same time period. The numbers are bogus, as stated. To be fair, Philip acknowledges limitations with Net Apps metrics. Others may not, if last month's reporting on browser market share is example.

There's a fundamental flaw in the operating system data that is the same as browser marketshare, as I explained about a month ago. Net Apps data does the impossible: Add up to 100 percent.

Operating systems aren't a finite market as measured by Internet traffic. Gartner or IDC measure Mac versus Windows PC marketshare based on finite data—the total number of shipments during a set time period: marketshare can be calculated based on how many computers each manufacturer shipped.

The math doesn't apply to operating systems based on Internet measurements, which don't reflect marketshare or even install base. At best, Net Apps is measuring usage share, which doesn't clearly show how many consumers, business users, businesses or households might be using more than one computer and possibly more than one with different operating systems.

Also, the data only really measures usage share based on Web browser usage from some platforms. Net Apps ranks iPhone fourth, behind Linux. What about BlackBerry OS, Symbian or Windows Mobile? Nokia shipped more than 110 million cell phones in third quarter, according to Gartner (Fourth quarter numbers aren't publicly available yet). Symbian OS smartphone shipments were nearly four times iPhone OS. (18.2 million versus 4.7 million, respectively). What, there are no Nokia smartphone users accessing the Web? Point: Data isn't complete.

Net Apps data is pretty good for measuring trends but not marketshare, even though that's how the data is presented. Alternative data is tough to come by. It's unfortunate that so few analysts track OS install base, which can be somewhat measured using business and consumer surveys. OS shipments aren't the best way of measuring marketshare because Linux can't be accurately counted. One copy can be installed on many computers.

Unfortunately, by late tomorrow, there will plenty of blogs and news sites reporting continued Mac marketshare gains and Windows share declines. Based on PC shipments, Mac share is actually receding. In preliminary fourth quarter PC shipment data, both Gartner and IDC show sequential Mac declines in U.S. marketshare. According to Gartner, Mac marketshare dropped to 8 percent from 9.5 percent in third quarter. IDC: 7.2 percent from 9.1 percent.

Apple's big challenge is going to be first quarter, which first month of sales just ended. Can Apple maintain big Mac shipments growth? I say no, as the big PC growth category is the netbook, for which Apple doesn't compete. But you tell me, please, in comments or by e-mail. Can Macs continue to gain share against Windows PCs?

[monstrosity]

Originally Posted by tiltool

[B]
Net Apps data is pretty good for measuring trends but not marketshare, even though that's how the data is presented.

Where is it presented in such a way? I dont see it. Fairly obvious what the data represented if you ask me. It's interesting and important data in it's own right.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by tiltool

News Analysis. Net Applications' January operating system data puts Mac market share at nearly 10 percent. Don't believe it.

From http://blogs.eweek.com/applewatch/co...elievable.html


I assert this after seeing several reports, including Apple 2.0 blog, touting Mac share gains.

GOT A TIP OR RUMOR?

"Mac's share grew another 3.12 percent in January to grab a record 9.93 percent of Internet traffic. The iPhone grew even faster, albeit from a smaller base, up 9.09 percent to 0.48 percent, also a new record," Philip Elmer-DeWitt writes at Apple 2.0. According to Net Apps data, Mac marketshare rose from 9.63 percent in December. By comparison, Windows marketshare declined from 88.68 percent to 88.27 percent during the same time period. The numbers are bogus, as stated. To be fair, Philip acknowledges limitations with Net Apps metrics. Others may not, if last month's reporting on browser market share is example.

There's a fundamental flaw in the operating system data that is the same as browser marketshare, as I explained about a month ago. Net Apps data does the impossible: Add up to 100 percent.

Operating systems aren't a finite market as measured by Internet traffic. Gartner or IDC measure Mac versus Windows PC marketshare based on finite data—the total number of shipments during a set time period: marketshare can be calculated based on how many computers each manufacturer shipped.

The math doesn't apply to operating systems based on Internet measurements, which don't reflect marketshare or even install base. At best, Net Apps is measuring usage share, which doesn't clearly show how many consumers, business users, businesses or households might be using more than one computer and possibly more than one with different operating systems.

Also, the data only really measures usage share based on Web browser usage from some platforms. Net Apps ranks iPhone fourth, behind Linux. What about BlackBerry OS, Symbian or Windows Mobile? Nokia shipped more than 110 million cell phones in third quarter, according to Gartner (Fourth quarter numbers aren't publicly available yet). Symbian OS smartphone shipments were nearly four times iPhone OS. (18.2 million versus 4.7 million, respectively). What, there are no Nokia smartphone users accessing the Web? Point: Data isn't complete.

Net Apps data is pretty good for measuring trends but not marketshare, even though that's how the data is presented. Alternative data is tough to come by. It's unfortunate that so few analysts track OS install base, which can be somewhat measured using business and consumer surveys. OS shipments aren't the best way of measuring marketshare because Linux can't be accurately counted. One copy can be installed on many computers.

Unfortunately, by late tomorrow, there will plenty of blogs and news sites reporting continued Mac marketshare gains and Windows share declines. Based on PC shipments, Mac share is actually receding. In preliminary fourth quarter PC shipment data, both Gartner and IDC show sequential Mac declines in U.S. marketshare. According to Gartner, Mac marketshare dropped to 8 percent from 9.5 percent in third quarter. IDC: 7.2 percent from 9.1 percent.

Apple's big challenge is going to be first quarter, which first month of sales just ended. Can Apple maintain big Mac shipments growth? I say no, as the big PC growth category is the netbook, for which Apple doesn't compete. But you tell me, please, in comments or by e-mail. Can Macs continue to gain share against Windows PCs?

I'm sorry to answer such a long post with such a short answer, but you've got it wrong.

All that NA measures it the percentage of each OS that is clicking on one of their 40,000 or so websites that they get their information from. So what we get from this is the percentage that each OS is on the web, on their sites.

It doesn't tell us what the percentage of marketshare each OS has in terms of computers sold, or owned.

At some places in your post, you seem to recognize that, but in other places you don't.

[Threpac]

Well, I choose Firefox over IE and Safari. The Latter just seem to be lacking. I like having my ads blocked, and having web pages load faster, but maybe thats just me

[Hudson1]

"Web tracking data compiled from tens of thousands of websites by Net Applications shows Apple reaching the all-time high with an 0.3 percent bump to the number of Macs making page requests."

Question for anyone who knows: Do they really mean number of Macs making page requests or number of page requests that came from a Mac?

Not the same question, obviously. One measures machines (or and OS) while the other is counting page requests.

[enzos]

Originally Posted by Threpac

Well, I choose Firefox over IE and Safari. The Latter just seem to be lacking. I like having my ads blocked, and having web pages load faster, but maybe thats just me

SafariBlock... works fine for me. I'm not going to dis FF, it's a good modern browser (one that I need to use for Typo3-editing of our website), but Safari gets the job done without all the brass knobs and gewgaws and (strange to say) never crashes.
-Enz

[mark2005]

Originally Posted by tiltool

Also, the data only really measures usage share based on Web browser usage from some platforms. Net Apps ranks iPhone fourth, behind Linux. What about BlackBerry OS, Symbian or Windows Mobile? Nokia shipped more than 110 million cell phones in third quarter, according to Gartner (Fourth quarter numbers aren't publicly available yet). Symbian OS smartphone shipments were nearly four times iPhone OS. (18.2 million versus 4.7 million, respectively). What, there are no Nokia smartphone users accessing the Web? Point: Data isn't complete.

If you go to NetApplications website, you'll see that they actually do measure all those others but that they are miniscule when considering Web usage. The charts most people use are the top level summaries, where .00x just doesn't show, especially with rounding.

NetApplications data is really only useful for comparing against itself over time. It reveals relative trends. I don't know anyone who has reported a tight coupling between its web usage data, and actual sales or installed base data.

[mark2005]

Originally Posted by Threpac

Well, I choose Firefox over IE and Safari. The Latter just seem to be lacking. I like having my ads blocked, and having web pages load faster, but maybe thats just me

As long as I open new pages in the same window or a new tab, Safari (on a Core Duo PC) is quick for me. If a link opens a new page in a new window, there is a long delay.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by tiltool

Net Apps data is pretty good for measuring trends but not marketshare, even though that's how the data is presented.

Originally Posted by monstrosity

Where is it presented in such a way? I dont see it. Fairly obvious what the data represented if you ask me. It's interesting and important data in it's own right.

It depends on what is meant by market share. What a lot of people think of as market share is really installed base, and those numbers can differ.

[Virgil-TB2]

Originally Posted by mark2005

As long as I open new pages in the same window or a new tab, Safari (on a Core Duo PC) is quick for me. If a link opens a new page in a new window, there is a long delay.

All such reports are anecdotal of course but for me, I have never seen FireFox of any description do anything faster than Safari. I understand lots of people like it and I've heard people say they think it's faster etc. but for me ... never. FireFox is always slightly slower than Safari on my computers even though the main reason I don't use it is actually the aforementioned "brass knob" effect.

[doh123]

Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2

All such reports are anecdotal of course but for me, I have never seen FireFox of any description do anything faster than Safari. I understand lots of people like it and I've heard people say they think it's faster etc. but for me ... never. FireFox is always slightly slower than Safari on my computers even though the main reason I don't use it is actually the aforementioned "brass knob" effect.

Safari is faster for me too, and very stable.... but thats only since Safari 3... version 2 and before I used Firefox most of the time... but as good as 3 has been, I rarely use firefox anymore, as Safari is very stable now, and runs overall much faster.

[JavaCowboy]

Could it be that with all the layoffs more people are surfing at home more often than they were before? Were these people still employed, they would more likely be surfing with Windows and IE, instead of the Macs and either Safari or Firefox they use at home.

[JavaCowboy]

Originally Posted by Virgil-TB2

All such reports are anecdotal of course but for me, I have never seen FireFox of any description do anything faster than Safari. I understand lots of people like it and I've heard people say they think it's faster etc. but for me ... never. FireFox is always slightly slower than Safari on my computers even though the main reason I don't use it is actually the aforementioned "brass knob" effect.

I have no doubt that Safari is faster and more integrated into OS X than Firefox. The thing that keeps me using Firefox instead of Safari is that it has more features:

1) Plugins/extensions (Adblock Plus, Foxmarks, etc)
2) Better bookmark shortcuts (ex g {search term} for Google or wp {search term} for Wikipedia.
3) Type ahead find and the use of ENTER to trigger a hyperlink.
4) userContent.css (for finer-grained ad, image, and text blocking)
5) etc...

Having said that, Firefox is moving rapidly towards Cocoa away from Carbon, so expect better OS X integration with 3.1

[elroth]

Originally Posted by macosxp

This month, Safari had more growth than Firefox. Overall, of course, Firefox deserves the most credit for IE's current market share.

I think also that while Safari had more growth percentagewise, Firefox grew more in actual users. So saying Safari had more of an effect on Microsoft losing share than Firefox isn't really true.

[anantksundaram]

Originally Posted by tiltool

News Analysis. Net Applications' January operating system data puts Mac market share at nearly 10 percent. Don't believe it.
[B] etc etc........

Apple's big challenge is going to be first quarter, which first month of sales just ended. Can Apple maintain big Mac shipments growth? I say no, as the big PC growth category is the netbook, for which Apple doesn't compete. But you tell me, please, in comments or by e-mail. Can Macs continue to gain share against Windows PCs?

I don't see the big point that you are making here.

'Market share' numbers -- whether measured by web hits, type of OS, units sold in a finite period of time such as a quarter, totals currently-in-use, etc -- are all inherently problematic and contain a lot of noise. It is fairly useless to try and make inferences about one based on data for another (e.g., inferring machines in use from web share data).

They are only useful in showing some broad trends over time (i.e., compared against the same prior measure), and lead to any meaningful market value implications only when there are significant changes.

[columbus]

Originally Posted by macosxp

So what's going to happen?

A: Microsoft starts making a comeback with Windows 7 while Mac innovation falls; Mac OS X growth retards and reverses, resulting in a 6% market share 5 years from now, 2% market share 10 years from now.

B: Microsoft keeps its place of always falling a little behind the competition; Mac OS X growth remains constant, resulting in a 15% market share 5 years from now, 20% market share 10 years from now. or

C: Microsoft continues to flop while Mac innovation continues to WOW the world; Mac OS X growth gains momentum, resulting in a 30% market share 5 years from now, 60% market share 10 years from now.

It all depends on how good of a job Microsoft and Apple can do. But if things continue as they're going right now, we'll be seeing scenario 'C' and we'll all be living insanely great lives.

Linux takes over everything. It has to, it is open.

Any year now…

[melgross]

Originally Posted by columbus

Linux takes over everything. It has to, it is open.

Any year now…

Decade, century?

[JavaCowboy]

Originally Posted by macosxp

So what's going to happen?

A: Microsoft starts making a comeback with Windows 7 while Mac innovation falls; Mac OS X growth retards and reverses, resulting in a 6% market share 5 years from now, 2% market share 10 years from now.

B: Microsoft keeps its place of always falling a little behind the competition; Mac OS X growth remains constant, resulting in a 15% market share 5 years from now, 20% market share 10 years from now. or

C: Microsoft continues to flop while Mac innovation continues to WOW the world; Mac OS X growth gains momentum, resulting in a 30% market share 5 years from now, 60% market share 10 years from now.

It all depends on how good of a job Microsoft and Apple can do. But if things continue as they're going right now, we'll be seeing scenario 'C' and we'll all be living insanely great lives.

I think Linux is going to make some serious moves in the low-end computing market, which won't fit neatly into your scenarios.

Here's how it's going to go down:

Dell and H.P. will give up on their Pystar gambit and realize that there's only one way to increase their margins without Microsoft doing an end-run around them with Vista-like shenanigans.

They'll start collaborating with Intel's Moblin (http://moblin.org/) project for netbooks. This will allow them to build a full-featured OS that's light, free, and customizable. They'll be able to tweak the user interface of any given computer to fit any demographic, and build up better margins, assuming their marketing is up to the task. This will put Microsoft in a tough position, as they still need to sell their OS and not offer it for free.

Meanwhile, Apple will continue to dominate the high-end market, which is all they're really interested in.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by JavaCowboy

Dell and H.P. will give up on their Pystar gambit

How about you post some evidence that they're behind Psystar. Just believing it doesn't make it so. We don't need people spreading rumor as a fact.

[NasserAE]

Originally Posted by melgross

At least MS is giving out Betas. I was hoping for some update about 10.6 at Macworld, even some small bit of info. I hope 10.6 isn't keeping people in Cupertino up at night worrying!

MS is giving out Windows 7 Beta for marketing purposes and to fix what Vista did not to help improve the OS itself. I have tried many Windows Beta in the past and they always start fast and clean but once they final version is release they mess things up.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by JavaCowboy

I think Linux is going to make some serious moves in the low-end computing market, which won't fit neatly into your scenarios.

Here's how it's going to go down:

Dell and H.P. will give up on their Pystar gambit and realize that there's only one way to increase their margins without Microsoft doing an end-run around them with Vista-like shenanigans.

They'll start collaborating with Intel's Moblin (http://moblin.org/) project for netbooks. This will allow them to build a full-featured OS that's light, free, and customizable. They'll be able to tweak the user interface of any given computer to fit any demographic, and build up better margins, assuming their marketing is up to the task. This will put Microsoft in a tough position, as they still need to sell their OS and not offer it for free.

Meanwhile, Apple will continue to dominate the high-end market, which is all they're really interested in.

Linux users have been saying this for YEARS! Every year for at least the past five or six years was going to be "The Year Of Linux On The Desktop".

Uh, no!

Linux will always be at least a couple of years behind the commercial systems. There is too much infighting there. Ego's are rampant. Everyone thinks their way is the only way. If they're not happy, they fork it off.

Until there is one authority, and far fewer distros, that's only going to be a dream.

One thing I agree with Vinea about here, is that a monolithic system has the best chance. There are only two entities that are doing this. Apple and MS. Even companies such as Red Hat are tiny after all the years they've been in business. Other major companies involved in Linux haven't made much progress.

A few years ago, IBM made a highly publicized announcement that they were going to change over all their desktop users to Linux, but it never happened.
Firstly, they had too many technical problems. Secondly, there was far too much user resistance to it. It was abandoned.

What's needed is one major fork. One that's sold from one or more companies. Yes, that's right, sold! With support for the everyman. Just like Apple and MS offer. With call-in support etc.

Otherwise, very few people will be interested. Even though Dell and Hp have been offering Linux on some of their machines for years, nothing has happened. It's too terrifying for most potential users.

Packaged software, just like other software providers offer.

This is anti-ethical to most Linux devotees. They even argue about licensing major media codecs and such. Because of that they have to try to develop it all on their own, which often doesn't bear fruit.

So I just don't see it happening.

[JavaCowboy]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

How about you post some evidence that they're behind Psystar. Just believing it doesn't make it so. We don't need people spreading rumor as a fact.

I'm not a newspaper. I don't have a legal department, and I can't get sued for making false statements, since I have never represented them as fact, nor am I under any obligation to do so. I'm a visitor to an online forum, and I have the right to express an opinion that's not based on fact.

I *believe* that Dell and H.P., based on the motivations behind those two companies and the fact that Pystar didn't cave in as they would have if they had no real money behind them. However, I acknowledge that that may not be true. I don't have evidence to back it up, and I'm under no obligation to provide any.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by NasserAE

MS is giving out Windows 7 Beta for marketing purposes and to fix what Vista did not to help improve the OS itself. I have tried many Windows Beta in the past and they always start fast and clean but once they final version is release they mess things up.

The point is that they HAVE been giving out betas. Apple has not even said anything since many months ago.

Apple can at least give us some idea of where they are, and what they're doing. The idea that MS will rapidly start copying it is silly at this point. There is little they can do to make a major change.

And we can't always assume that MS will screw things up.

Win 7 is just a minor update to Vista. It's a refining of the OS. According to most accounts, this one will go down much easier with users. It's not the big step Vista was, where there were no drivers etc. Those issues are past. Any problems they should have with this will likely be no more than Apple will have when 10.6 comes out.

I'm being carful with my expectations, as Apple has told us little.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by JavaCowboy

I'm not a newspaper. I don't have a legal department, and I can't get sued for making false statements, since I have never represented them as fact, nor am I under any obligation to do so. I'm a visitor to an online forum, and I have the right to express an opinion that's not based on fact.

I *believe* that Dell and H.P., based on the motivations behind those two companies and the fact that Pystar didn't cave in as they would have if they had no real money behind them. However, I acknowledge that that may not be true. I don't have evidence to back it up, and I'm under no obligation to provide any.

Jeff isn't really expecting you to have actual evidence. He's only hinting that as it's your opinion, you should say that, rather than say it as if it were a fact.

[JavaCowboy]

Originally Posted by melgross

Linux users have been saying this for YEARS! Every year for at least the past five or six years was going to be "The Year Of Linux On The Desktop".

They have a 20-30% share of the netbook market. Both major OEMs (Dell and H.P.) sell desktops and notebooks with Linux pre-installed. There are OEMs like System76 that sell *only* Linux systems. All of the above would have been unthinkable just 3 years ago.

Uh, no!

Linux will always be at least a couple of years behind the commercial systems. There is too much infighting there. Ego's are rampant. Everyone thinks their way is the only way. If they're not happy, they fork it off.

Do you have any examples of this infighting? There is such a thing as the Linux Standards Base, you know?

Until there is one authority, and far fewer distros, that's only going to be a dream.

Ubuntu seems to be the desktop distro of choice nowadays, with all due respect to Fedora. It's the one Dell installs on their systems.

One thing I agree with Vinea about here, is that a monolithic system has the best chance. There are only two entities that are doing this. Apple and MS. Even companies such as Red Hat are tiny after all the years they've been in business. Other major companies involved in Linux haven't made much progress.

Canonical (company that distributes Ubuntu) is making a tidy profit despite providing their main product for free.

A few years ago, IBM made a highly publicized announcement that they were going to change over all their desktop users to Linux, but it never happened.

Firstly, they had too many technical problems. Secondly, there was far too much user resistance to it. It was abandoned.

From what I hear, this is moving along slowly, but it is happening. They just ported Lotus Notes to cross-platform SWT, which was the last of IBM's major applications that wouldn't run on Linux.

What's needed is one major fork. One that's sold from one or more companies. Yes, that's right, sold! With support for the everyman. Just like Apple and MS offer. With call-in support etc.

Red Hat Enterprise Linux and SuSE are proprietary forks on the server-side. Canonical already "sells" Ubuntu in the sense that they provide commercial support for it.

Otherwise, very few people will be interested. Even though Dell and Hp have been offering Linux on some of their machines for years, nothing has happened. It's too terrifying for most potential users.

Terrifying? Really? Have you actually used a Linux distro lately, or is that just conjecture on your part?

Packaged software, just like other software providers offer.

Packages as in physically packaged, or packaged as in made available to install? Ubuntu and other Linux distros provide a wealth of software (both open source and proprietary) installable over the internet with their package management systems, which are orders of magnitude better than what MS and Apple offer.

This is anti-ethical to most Linux devotees. They even argue about licensing major media codecs and such. Because of that they have to try to develop it all on their own, which often doesn't bear fruit.

Dell offers media codecs pre-installed on their Ubuntu systems.

So I just don't see it happening.

It's already happening.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by JavaCowboy

since I have never represented them as fact,

Either you aren't any good at stating that it was your opinion or you have a very odd idea of what you said if you don't think you represented it as fact.

[JavaCowboy]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

Either you aren't any good at stating that it was your opinion or you have a very odd idea of what you said if you don't think you represented it as fact.

Edit:

Didn't realize it was a moderator that originally replied to me.

I will be more careful to more explicitly state my opinions as opinions in the future and not fact.

[cincytee]

Originally Posted by macosxp

So what's going to happen?

A: Microsoft starts making a comeback with Windows 7 while Mac innovation falls; Mac OS X growth retards and reverses, resulting in a 6% market share 5 years from now, 2% market share 10 years from now.

B: Microsoft keeps its place of always falling a little behind the competition; Mac OS X growth remains constant, resulting in a 15% market share 5 years from now, 20% market share 10 years from now. or

C: Microsoft continues to flop while Mac innovation continues to WOW the world; Mac OS X growth gains momentum, resulting in a 30% market share 5 years from now, 60% market share 10 years from now.

I choose...
D: Microsoft feels the heat and starts making a comeback with Windows 7, but Mac OS X growth continues, resulting in a 12% market share 5 years from now, 15-17% market share 10 years from now.

[Booga]

I'm going to guess that the iPhone's browser market share has probably reached its peak. Most of the stuff I used the browser for when I first got my device has since been superceeded by specialized apps. PNC Bank now has an app... weather... sports... news... facebook... there's less and less reason to actually use the browser. It's really nice to have it there to get on the random Wi-Fi network or go outside the box on one of the services, but I use it about 1/10th as much now as I did when I first got an iPhone.

[columbus]

Originally Posted by Booga

I'm going to guess that the iPhone's browser market share has probably reached its peak. Most of the stuff I used the browser for when I first got my device has since been superceeded by specialized apps. PNC Bank now has an app... weather... sports... news... facebook... there's less and less reason to actually use the browser. It's really nice to have it there to get on the random Wi-Fi network or go outside the box on one of the services, but I use it about 1/10th as much now as I did when I first got an iPhone.

That's assuming Apple isn't going to pick up lots more customers who will start with the web browser first before moving onto apps.

[melgross]

Originally Posted by JavaCowboy

They have a 20-30% share of the netbook market. Both major OEMs (Dell and H.P.) sell desktops and notebooks with Linux pre-installed. There are OEMs like System76 that sell *only* Linux systems. All of the above would have been unthinkable just 3 years ago.

Two thngs about that.

One is that that only comes out to a small share altogether, and two is that it seems many people are not happy with their netbooks after they bought them, because they can't do what they thought they could. This may even be a fad. Once Win 7 is out, and fits on these things, Linux on them will die out, as usual.

Do you have any examples of this infighting? There is such a thing as the Linux Standards Base, you know?

Just go to the various Linux forums, and to any of the major distro sites, and you'll find it.

The standards base is a nice idea, and possibly someday it will be useful.

Ubuntu seems to be the desktop distro of choice nowadays, with all due respect to Fedora. It's the one Dell installs on their systems.

It's more popular now, and Fedora was more popular a short while ago. It could very well change again. But neither is anywhere a majority, as there are so many more.

It would be nice for them if they could decide on one, and stick with it. They keep inventing the wheel every year or so.

Canonical (company that distributes Ubuntu) is making a tidy profit despite providing their main product for free.

Tiny company. Very few have even heard of it outside of the Linux community.

From what I hear, this is moving along slowly, but it is happening. They just ported Lotus Notes to cross-platform SWT, which was the last of IBM's major applications that wouldn't run on Linux.

It's too slow. For the past two years at least, it seems as though the computer industry has grown a whole faster than desktop Linux has. IBM has committed itself to support Linux in order to weaken MS (though they won't publicly say that of course).

Red Hat Enterprise Linux and SuSE are proprietary forks on the server-side. Canonical already "sells" Ubuntu in the sense that they provide commercial support for it.

They sure are! No business wants to deal with some unsupported version of what I've seen called a "pirate" OS in a large business. They need support, and they need it pronto! Both companies have made the changes required for a real business environment.

Terrifying? Really? Have you actually used a Linux distro lately, or is that just conjecture on your part?

What's ok for you and me is not ok for the average person out there. Terrifying is the word. You do realize that many people can't even install software by themselves when it's from Apple or MS?

I'm not Linux ignorant. I follow it fairly well, and have used it numerous times, including recently.

But many people on forums seem to think that what's oh so simple for them is that way for everyone else, when it isn't. Sure Linux has come a long way, but it has a longer way to go. Every improvement they make for ease of use has already been made some time before.

Installing much software in Linux is still a horror story, though some things are pretty easy.

It's like asking how many people change the oil filter in their car, only to find out that most don't even know where it is!

And that's for Windows and OS X!

Packages as in physically packaged, or packaged as in made available to install? Ubuntu and other Linux distros provide a wealth of software (both open source and proprietary) installable over the internet with their package management systems, which are orders of magnitude better than what MS and Apple offer.

Both. Until someone can order a piece of software from Egghead, or walk into their local computer store and pick it off the shelf, it won't be easy for the average person to find, or buy.

Their package management systems are certainly not better, and they only work with a subset of the software out there, as you know.

Dell offers media codecs pre-installed on their Ubuntu systems.

Yes, there are some.

It's already happening.

Barely.