AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Mac OS X market share up 29%, Leopard still most common
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mac OS X market share up 29%, Leopard still most common - Page 4

post #121 of 162
2/28/10 at 7:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You try to sarcastic but it just comes off as lame. You have to have a valid point and be a better writer for it to work.

You are a fine one to hassle peoples writing...

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Why you think that Mac equates to 'X' is beyond me. All the devices spoken about are bases on OS X. Apple even referred to the iPhone OS with the 'X' you say can't possibly have been part of the name without also being a Mac. Of course, I am at fault for expecting a troll to do any research so here is proof from one of many places showing that even Apple acknowledged that the Mac OS was the base for creating the iPhone under the OS X umbrella. I even choose a picture so you don't have to strain your brain reading...

What's that in the background? Could that be OS X iPhone. Bu..bu..but how could that be when you claim that the 'X' can only be associated with Mac. But they've changed it! Surely it couldn't be to make an easier name to market so it must be because they removed all the 'X's from the code.

Yes, fine Apple originally called it OS X, good for you. If it is OSX, why has Apple not released the source code for it like they did with the Darwin? After all it is OSX.

Where have I stated the X was only associated with the Mac? Once again you lie, you do this ever post you do. How is that holiday going, you know the one you told us all about for a month, claiming you were going away for a month, never happened did it, go you...
Reply
Reply
post #122 of 162
2/28/10 at 7:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by allblue View Post

Absolutely. You get it whereas jfanning clearly doesn't. The concept of 'The Computer' i.e. a box on a desk in a room is already outmoded. The migration from that 80s/90s model to the mobile i.e. laptop, has been under way for a decade or more. Now, as the tech allows, the migration from the mobile to the ultra-mobile is here, and as you correctly point out, the iPhone was at the vanguard. The iPad I suspect will become the defining device of this next wave.

Well said...I like it 'the mobile to the the ultra-Mobile!' Now if we can just get the carriers to 'get it!'

Especially for worldwide travel!
Reply
Reply
post #123 of 162
2/28/10 at 7:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

You are a fine one to hassle peoples writing...

Yes, quite fine indeed.

Quote:
Yes, fine Apple originally called it OS X, good for you. If it is OSX, why has Apple not released the source code for it like they did with the Darwin? After all it is OSX.

Never on point, just keep spinning an argument trying to find a way in but you never do. Darwin Darwin forms the core set of components that make up base of Mac OS, AppleTV OS, and iPhone OS. Do you really expect apple to release a DarwinLite or DarwinMobile? Please!

Quote:
Where have I stated the X was only associated with the Mac? Once again you lie, you do this ever post you do. How is that holiday going, you know the one you told us all about for a month, claiming you were going away for a month, never happened did it, go you...

That has been addressed. If you think by bringing it up will sadden me you're mistaken, but feel free to continue, you're just coming off as more of a jackass than usual.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #124 of 162
2/28/10 at 8:19pm
OS X market share up 29%.

I guess that's because they're selling more computers.

'Os X' is selling ALOT more 'computers.'

Telling that Steve Jobs noted that they are a 'mobile' computing company.

He included the iPhone/Pod, Laptops and the new iPad in that.

'Mac', for me, is going to be increasingly seen as a semantic harping back to 1984.

I view the iPad as an ultimate 'Mac'. Bringing the promise of the Macintosh as the computer for the 'rest of us' to a product that, finally, brings 'computing' to the rest of us.

Going forwards, petty squabbles over what 'is' or 'isn't' a Mac will become increasingly irrelevant as the power of the iPad eventually eclipses desktops from a ten years ago...gaming consoles sold a few years ago, netbooks from a year ago...

Apple themselves dropped the 'Mac' tag or 'iphone' tag when referring to their 'Os X'.

Going forwards, Apple is well placed to dominate the '3rd Great Age' of computing. If the iPad performs anywhere near as well as the iPhone/Pod Touch...

What xp, vista or 7 do will become increasingly irrelevant to Apple, its users or me...if its not already.

Lemon Bon Bon.
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
post #125 of 162
2/28/10 at 8:32pm
...how long before Apple has sold 100 million 'Os X' powered devices? A matter of time... That's alot more than an installed base of 30 million Macs? Mac sales heading for the 4 million a quarter mark (most of them being 'mobile'...) Add them together and that's serious marketshare for a 'mobile' computing platform.

I think iPhone sales are about 10 million a quarter? Or about there. What if iPad sales hit 10 million a quarter within the next year?

That's 20 million (almost installed base of Macs?) OsX 'computing' devices per quarter. 80 million per year. 160 million over 2 years. 240 million over 3 years. 320 million over 4 years. That's assuming flat line growth.

And if Mac sales can head towards 5 million a quarter over the next several years...

For me, it's not a case of what 'windows' does. Apple are doing their thing. And in the context of 'mobile', Windows is looking increasingly out of touch. Exciting times ahead for Apple users, methinks.

Lemon Bon Bon.
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...[/
Reply
post #126 of 162
2/28/10 at 8:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon. View Post

...how long before Apple has sold 100 million 'Os X' powered devices? A matter of time... That's alot more than an installed base of 30 million Macs? Mac sales heading for the 4 million a quarter mark (most of them being 'mobile'...) Add them together and that's serious marketshare for a 'mobile' computing platform.

I think iPhone sales are about 10 million a quarter? Or about there. What if iPad sales hit 10 million a quarter within the next year?

That's 20 million (almost installed base of Macs?) OsX 'computing' devices per quarter. 80 million per year. 160 million over 2 years. 240 million over 3 years. 320 million over 4 years. That's assuming flat line growth.

And if Mac sales can head towards 5 million a quarter over the next several years...

For me, it's not a case of what 'windows' does. Apple are doing their thing. And in the context of 'mobile', Windows is looking increasingly out of touch. Exciting times ahead for Apple users, methinks.

Lemon Bon Bon.

Hopefully they use OS X for more future products, like a Home Server or a much more powerful router. I think a Home Server would be a huge hit and would love to see a commercial router that can handle the traffic some homes have and the bandwidth some ISPs offer. 200Mbps coming to Finland next month.

Here is a chart you can use for most of the Mac OS X sales so far. Note Mac OS X 10.0 landed in March 2001.
http://www.businessinsider.com/chart...ows-os-2009-10 A rough estimate looks to be about 60M(?) OS X-based Macs sold so far? If I get an hour tomorrow I'll look up the quarters and graph it out.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #127 of 162
2/28/10 at 10:45pm
So far, 51,419,000 Macs and 42,469,000 iPhones for a total of 93,888,000 devices running OS X (ie: Mac OS and iPhone OS) have been directly recorded. I didn't add Mac OS X Server, AppleTV or the iPod Touch unit sales to the mix. Only the iPod Touch can be determined and I don't think only for the last few quarters. Since Apple doesn't break out the iPod Touch sales you have to deduce the numbers from the OS X iPhone numbers minus the iPhone sales.
.Qtr/Yr — . . Mac . . iPhone .— . . . . . .Quarterly Earning Report
• Q3/01 — . 827,000 . . . N/A — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2001/jul/17results.html
• Q4/01 — . 850,000 . . . N/A — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2001/oct/17results.html

• Q1/02 — . 746,000 . . . N/A — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/jan/16results.html
• Q2/02 — . 813,000 . . . N/A — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002...7earnings.html
• Q3/02 — . 808,000 . . . N/A — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/jul/16results.html
• Q4/02 — . 734,000 . . . N/A — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002...6earnings.html

• Q1/03 — . 743,000 . . . N/A — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2003/jan/15results.html
• Q2/03 — . 711,000 . . . N/A — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2003...6earnings.html
• Q3/03 — . 771,000 . . . N/A — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2003/jul/16results.html
• Q4/03 — . 787,000 . . . N/A — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2003/oct/15results.html

• Q1/04 — . 829,000 . . . N/A — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/jan/14results.html
• Q2/04 — . 749,000 . . . N/A — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/apr/14results.html
• Q3/04 — . 876,000 . . . N/A — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/jul/14results.html
• Q4/04 — . 836,000 . . . N/A — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/oct/13results.html

• Q1/05 — 1,046,000 . . . N/A — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jan/12results.html
• Q2/05 — 1,070,000 . . . N/A — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/apr/13results.html
• Q3/05 — 1,182,000 . . . N/A — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jul/13results.html
• Q4/05 — 1,236,000 . . . N/A — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/oct/11results.html

• Q1/06 — 1,254,000 . . . N/A — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/jan/18results.html
• Q2/06 — 1,112,000 . . . N/A — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/apr/19results.html
• Q3/06 — 1,327,000 . . . N/A — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/jul/19results.html
• Q4/06 — 1,610,000 . . . N/A — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/oct/18results.html

• Q1/07 — 1,606,000 . . . N/A — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/01/17results.html
• Q2/07 — 1,517,000 . . . N/A — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/04/25results.html
• Q3/07 — 1,746,000 . 270,000 — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/07/25results.html
• Q4/07 — 2,164,000 1,119,000 — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/10/22results.html

• Q1/08 — 2,319,000 2,315,000 — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/01/22results.html
• Q2/08 — 2,289,000 1,703,000 — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/04/23results.html
• Q3/08 — 2,496,000 . 717,000 — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/07/21results.html
• Q4/08 — 2,611,000 6,892,000 — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/10/21results.html

• Q1/09 — 2,524,000 4,363,000 — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/21results.html
• Q2/09 — 2,220,000 3,790,000 — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/04/22results.html
• Q3/09 — 2,600,000 5,200,000 — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/07/21results.html
• Q4/09 — 3,050,000 7,400,000 — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/10/19results.html

• Q1/10 — 3,360,000 8,700,000 — http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/01/25results.html

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #128 of 162
2/28/10 at 11:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

So far, 51,419,000 Macs and 42,469,000 iPhones for a total of 93,888,000 devices running OS X (ie: Mac OS and iPhone OS) have been directly recorded. I didn't add Mac OS X Server, AppleTV or the iPod Touch unit sales to the mix. Only the iPod Touch can be determined and I don't think only for the last few quarters. Since Apple doesn't break out the iPod Touch sales you have to deduce the numbers from the OS X iPhone numbers minus the iPhone sales.

Nice work. The last few years since the iPhone was release show amazing Mac growth.
Reply
Reply
post #129 of 162
3/1/10 at 12:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

So far, 51,419,000 Macs and 42,469,000 iPhones for a total of 93,888,000 devices running OS X (ie: Mac OS and iPhone OS) have been directly recorded. I didn't add Mac OS X Server, AppleTV or the iPod Touch unit sales to the mix. Only the iPod Touch can be determined and I don't think only for the last few quarters. Since Apple doesn't break out the iPod Touch sales you have to deduce the numbers from the OS X iPhone numbers minus the iPhone sales.

Excellent chart, do you have the details broken down by OS version number?
Reply
Reply
post #130 of 162
3/1/10 at 12:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Never on point, just keep spinning an argument trying to find a way in but you never do. Darwin Darwin forms the core set of components that make up base of Mac OS, AppleTV OS, and iPhone OS. Do you really expect apple to release a DarwinLite or DarwinMobile? Please!

Once again I see this topic is way above you, I am finished discussing this with you
Reply
Reply
post #131 of 162
3/1/10 at 1:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

Once again I see this topic is way above you, I am finished discussing this with you

He is correct - there is no separate iPhone version of Darwin for them to release, thereby making your argument incorrect. I think the discussion is above you, rather than anyone else, and you obviously don't even know what "Darwin" is in this context.

Here's a space for you to use to go off on another tangent:
________________________________________
My Android phone is the worst phone I've ever owned.
Reply
My Android phone is the worst phone I've ever owned.
Reply
post #132 of 162
3/1/10 at 4:10am
an open note to all apple hating trolls

who cares how many people run what OS ?? in fact why get so hot about code and equipment anyway ??

apple people are thrilled with snowy and all it promises us . why does that fact annoy you all so much ??

are all you asshole trolls happy with win7 vista longhorn xp ??
yes ??
fine
go enjoy your fat code crash city lost data virus needed day


why bother us
what sick thrill do you get making a complete fool of your selves do for you . ???
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #133 of 162
3/1/10 at 4:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

Once again I see this topic is way above you, I am finished discussing this with you

finished discussing?? are you sure ?? i mean
why stop now you have made a complete fool of your self 8 posts in a row !!
google darwin silly man .
the world reads this page
smile for the google bots
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #134 of 162
3/1/10 at 4:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

yes I know what a Mac is, I own four of them at the moment, but I don't think you do. The Mac is a personal computer, you are provided with the full power of OSX, the iPhone and iPod touch don't run OS X, they run the iPhone OS which is based on OS X technologies but more restricted in what you can do, big difference.



No, and I don't have either, and I am a lost to see why you think that would make a difference, my son has an iPod touch though.

Ah! It all comes clear now!: you enjoy starting arguments about things you have no experience with! I fully understand (I've done that myself, from time to time).

All I was saying, however, is that I thought it a pity that this thread about market share was missing the point if they were counting netbooks but not all the pocket Macs out there.

Now, jfanning, maybe (big maybe), later this month, when Apple releases the 10" version of the iPod Touch (which they've decided to name the iPad), and the 10" version of the iPhone (which they've decided to name the iPad3G), which all run on a version of Mac OSX with the Cocoa Touch layer, then maybe, just maybe, you'll understand my original point, and not get all hung about whether or not I have a pocket Mac in my pocket (which I most certainly do, btw).

I have hope for you, jfannning, open your eyes and close down your pride a bit. Arguments aren't about winning, they are about understanding.

Peace.
Reply
Reply
post #135 of 162
3/1/10 at 5:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

So far, 51,419,000 Macs and 42,469,000 iPhones for a total of 93,888,000 devices running OS X (ie: Mac OS and iPhone OS) have been directly recorded. I didn't add Mac OS X Server, AppleTV or the iPod Touch unit sales to the mix. Only the iPod Touch can be determined and I don't think only for the last few quarters. Since Apple doesn't break out the iPod Touch sales you have to deduce the numbers from the OS X iPhone numbers minus the iPhone sales.
.Qtr/Yr . . Mac . . iPhone . . . . . . .Quarterly Earning Report
Q3/01 . 827,000 . . . N/A http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2001/jul/17results.html
Q4/01 . 850,000 . . . N/A http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2001/oct/17results.html

Q1/02 . 746,000 . . . N/A http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/jan/16results.html
Q2/02 . 813,000 . . . N/A http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002...7earnings.html
Q3/02 . 808,000 . . . N/A http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/jul/16results.html
Q4/02 . 734,000 . . . N/A http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002...6earnings.html

Q1/03 . 743,000 . . . N/A http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2003/jan/15results.html
Q2/03 . 711,000 . . . N/A http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2003...6earnings.html
Q3/03 . 771,000 . . . N/A http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2003/jul/16results.html
Q4/03 . 787,000 . . . N/A http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2003/oct/15results.html

Q1/04 . 829,000 . . . N/A http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/jan/14results.html
Q2/04 . 749,000 . . . N/A http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/apr/14results.html
Q3/04 . 876,000 . . . N/A http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/jul/14results.html
Q4/04 . 836,000 . . . N/A http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/oct/13results.html

Q1/05 1,046,000 . . . N/A http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jan/12results.html
Q2/05 1,070,000 . . . N/A http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/apr/13results.html
Q3/05 1,182,000 . . . N/A http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jul/13results.html
Q4/05 1,236,000 . . . N/A http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/oct/11results.html

Q1/06 1,254,000 . . . N/A http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/jan/18results.html
Q2/06 1,112,000 . . . N/A http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/apr/19results.html
Q3/06 1,327,000 . . . N/A http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/jul/19results.html
Q4/06 1,610,000 . . . N/A http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2006/oct/18results.html

Q1/07 1,606,000 . . . N/A http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/01/17results.html
Q2/07 1,517,000 . . . N/A http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/04/25results.html
Q3/07 1,746,000 . 270,000 http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/07/25results.html
Q4/07 2,164,000 1,119,000 http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/10/22results.html

Q1/08 2,319,000 2,315,000 http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/01/22results.html
Q2/08 2,289,000 1,703,000 http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/04/23results.html
Q3/08 2,496,000 . 717,000 http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/07/21results.html
Q4/08 2,611,000 6,892,000 http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/10/21results.html

Q1/09 2,524,000 4,363,000 http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/01/21results.html
Q2/09 2,220,000 3,790,000 http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/04/22results.html
Q3/09 2,600,000 5,200,000 http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/07/21results.html
Q4/09 3,050,000 7,400,000 http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2009/10/19results.html

Q1/10 3,360,000 8,700,000 http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/01/25results.html


wow
now i see why amazon/nokia are so scared
this chart shows a run away train.....
wow WOW

GO APPLE
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #136 of 162
3/1/10 at 6:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucep View Post

wow
now i see why amazon/nokia are so scared
this chart shows a run away train.....
wow WOW

GO APPLE

Yeah, and the iPhone and iPod touch sales are ramping up so fast you can't even afford to blink. There are probably closer to 50 million iPhones in the market (as of this second), and maybe as many as 30 million iPod Touches. All of which are unrepresented by Quantcas in this thread.

It's a big deal to not mention it. The iPhone OS has a big future, WinXP does not. i.e. the iPhone, Touch, and soon to be iPad are very worthy of mention, whereas the netbooks . . . not so much.
Reply
Reply
post #137 of 162
3/1/10 at 6:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucep View Post

wow
now i see why amazon/nokia are so scared
this chart shows a run away train.....
wow WOW

GO APPLE

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfhednar View Post

Yeah, and the iPhone and iPod touch sales are ramping up so fast you can't even afford to blink. There are probably closer to 50 million iPhones in the market (as of this second), and maybe as many as 30 million iPod Touches. All of which are unrepresented by Quantcas in this thread.

It's a big deal to not mention it. The iPhone OS has a big future, WinXP does not. i.e. the iPhone, Touch, and soon to be iPad are very worthy of mention, whereas the netbooks . . . not so much.

And onc I can get the iPod Touch numbers in there, which I think are beating the iPhone numbers you have a huge user base for OS X. Apple has no reason not to be making OS X from the kernel up as efficient as possible. There is just too much money at stake not to be dumping massive resources into refining it.

There seems to be an all-or-nothing attitude with may people. Statements like "Apple makes more money now from the iPhone so they means they don't care about Macs", "Apple dropped the term "computer" from their name that must mean they don't care about Macs", and "JObs said they are a mobile company that must mean they don't care about Mac users", but looking at the growth there is absolutely no way Apple will be reducing Mac support and the OS X foundation common to 50 million(?) devices in 2010 will make all versions of OS X better for it. At least, that is what I see.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #138 of 162
3/1/10 at 6:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

And onc I can get the iPod Touch numbers in there, which I think are beating the iPhone numbers you have a huge user base for OS X. Apple has no reason not to be making OS X from the kernel up as efficient as possible. There is just too much money at stake not to be dumping massive resources into refining it.

There seems to be an all-or-nothing attitude with may people. Statements like "Apple makes more money now from the iPhone so they means they don't care about Macs", "Apple dropped the term "computer" from their name that must mean they don't care about Macs", and "JObs said they are a mobile company that must mean they don't care about Mac users", but looking at the growth there is absolutely no way Apple will be reducing Mac support and the OS X foundation common to 50 million(?) devices in 2010 will make all versions of OS X better for it. At least, that is what I see.

Well said. I couldn't agree with you more.
Reply
Reply
post #139 of 162
3/1/10 at 8:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

There seems to be an all-or-nothing attitude with may people. Statements like "Apple makes more money now from the iPhone so they means they don't care about Macs", "Apple dropped the term "computer" from their name that must mean they don't care about Macs", and "JObs said they are a mobile company that must mean they don't care about Mac users", but looking at the growth there is absolutely no way Apple will be reducing Mac support and the OS X foundation common to 50 million(?) devices in 2010 will make all versions of OS X better for it. At least, that is what I see.

+1
"Apple dropped the term "computer". That's a particular bugbear of mine! Despite dropping the "computer" name Apple just keep selling more and more of them each year. Seeing as how HP makes more money from non-computers... than computers, troll logic would have you believe that they should stop making computers too.

Quote:
And onc I can get the iPod Touch numbers in there, which I think are beating the iPhone numbers you have a huge user base for OS X.

Interesting figures Sol. It's only anecdotal, but most of the analysts reckon that iPod Touch sales are around one third of all iPod sales... and around 65% of iPhone sales.

I think it may be a bit of a stretch to count all owners of G3 iMacs and iBooks (2001-2) as active OS X users. I mean they possible are... but could be using newer gear.

From the horses mouth. Back in June 2009, Phil Schiller made a big deal of announcing that there were 75 million OS X users. Mac, iPhone and iTouch. Using my patented 'sticky note math' I reckon that figure reaches around 130 million by the end of this quarter. Add the iPad and a new iPhone... and a following wind, and that could be close to 150 million at the next WWDC.

Interesting times.
Reply
Reply
post #140 of 162
3/1/10 at 8:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot View Post

I think it may be a bit of a stretch to count all owners of G3 iMacs and iBooks (2001-2) as active OS X users. I mean they possible are... but could be using newer gear.

To clarify, my numbers aren't to show installed base, but to answer Lemon Bon Bon's earlier question of how many devices has Apple sold running a form of OS X.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #141 of 162
3/1/10 at 10:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfhednar View Post

Now, jfanning, maybe (big maybe), later this month, when Apple releases the 10" version of the iPod Touch (which they've decided to name the iPad), and the 10" version of the iPhone (which they've decided to name the iPad3G), which all run on a version of Mac OSX with the Cocoa Touch layer, then maybe, just maybe, you'll understand my original point, and not get all hung about whether or not I have a pocket Mac in my pocket (which I most certainly do, btw).

I have hope for you, jfannning, open your eyes and close down your pride a bit. Arguments aren't about winning, they are about understanding.

Peace.

So if they are running a version OSX, will Apple release a new XCode with a Mac target of ARM? Or is this where you are missing the point again?
Reply
Reply
post #142 of 162
3/1/10 at 10:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by knightlie View Post

He is correct - there is no separate iPhone version of Darwin for them to release, thereby making your argument incorrect. I think the discussion is above you, rather than anyone else, and you obviously don't even know what "Darwin" is in this context.

Here's a space for you to use to go off on another tangent:
________________________________________

I total know what Darwin is, it is the open source core of OSX, open source in the fact that Apple will release the Intel code, but not the ARM. Why is this, especailly if they are the same like you claim? Now you can use your tangent since you don't understand.
Reply
Reply
post #143 of 162
3/1/10 at 10:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

So if they are running a version OSX, will Apple release a new XCode with a Mac target of ARM? Or is this where you are missing the point again?

Oy vey!
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #144 of 162
3/1/10 at 11:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfhednar View Post

Yeah, and the iPhone and iPod touch sales are ramping up so fast you can't even afford to blink. There are probably closer to 50 million iPhones in the market (as of this second), and maybe as many as 30 million iPod Touches. All of which are unrepresented by Quantcas in this thread.

It's a big deal to not mention it. The iPhone OS has a big future, WinXP does not. i.e. the iPhone, Touch, and soon to be iPad are very worthy of mention, whereas the netbooks . . . not so much.

and all these old mac phones pods touchs never die
the legacy market FOR used mac products is huge ..
un told stories abound where a father passes a itouch or iphone or imac down to his son so he can buy the newest toy offered by steve
or brother to brother . so the installed itunes or app base is ever growing .

the ipod touch will out sell the iphone by 3 to 1 very soon / the gamers from every part of society are jumping in . !!!!


and when the nano phone arrives the real fun will start ..

mobile mac os has already changed the world and the world habits as we know it . everyone now expect's smart phones to do so much more in a simple fashion.

go apple
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #145 of 162
3/1/10 at 11:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

I total know what Darwin is, it is the open source core of OSX, open source in the fact that Apple will release the Intel code, but not the ARM. Why is this, especailly if they are the same like you claim? Now you can use your tangent since you don't understand.

dude
its painful to watch you try to squirm out of your painted in a corner glaring error . ..

slowly
and i mean
slowly back out of this thread
make 3 random left turns
stop to admire a small rare bottles store
turn and board that bus
whew !!
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #146 of 162
3/1/10 at 12:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by brucep View Post

dude
its painful to watch you try to squirm out of your painted in a corner glaring error . ..

slowly
and i mean
slowly back out of this thread
make 3 random left turns
stop to admire a small rare bottles store
turn and board that bus
whew !!

Come on, using sentences for once, can you show me this glaring error you talk about?
Reply
Reply
post #147 of 162
3/1/10 at 12:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

So if they are running a version OSX, will Apple release a new XCode with a Mac target of ARM? Or is this where you are missing the point again?

What an effing idiotic thing to say.

OBTW, the answer is not only YES, but they already have the beta SDK in distribution.

OS X iPhone SDK 3.2.

Gee it's just the regular Xcode with the iPhone/iPad specific APIs added in. With the appropriate compile targets!!!

OMG OS X apps compilable for an ARM core! Ohes noes!!!!!

Wanna prove anything more about your lack of clue?
Hiro's Hall of Shame ignore list: Tulkas -- because we know he wasn't born dumb.
Reply
Hiro's Hall of Shame ignore list: Tulkas -- because we know he wasn't born dumb.
Reply
post #148 of 162
3/1/10 at 12:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Oy vey!

How was the holday? Must have been good
Reply
Reply
post #149 of 162
3/1/10 at 12:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

What an effing idiotic thing to say.

OBTW, the answer is not only YES, but they already have the beta SDK in distribution.

OS X iPhone SDK 3.2.

Gee it's just the regular Xcode with the iPhone/iPad specific APIs added in. With the appropriate compile targets!!!

OMG OS X apps compilable for an ARM core! Ohes noes!!!!!

Wanna prove anything more about your lack of clue?

effing? Do you meaning fucking? Why not using the word.

With the current XCode for the Mac, you can target PPC and Intel, are you telling me from that same source you can target ARM? That's right, you don't have a clue do you.
Reply
Reply
post #150 of 162
3/1/10 at 1:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

effing? Do you meaning fucking? Why not using the word.

With the current XCode for the Mac, you can target PPC and Intel, are you telling me from that same source you can target ARM? That's right, you don't have a clue do you.

To quote a wise man: Oy Vey!
Reply
Reply
post #151 of 162
3/1/10 at 2:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulfhednar View Post

To quote a wise man: Oy Vey!

You haven't quoted a wise man, well unless you were referring to the message of mine you quoted...
Reply
Reply
post #152 of 162
3/1/10 at 2:45pm
j•fann•ing [j•fann•ing] alt [j•fann\\•ing] noun, verb

–noun
1. a handle on the AI boards (see internet forums)

–verb
1. to perform or do repeatedly in a comically ineffective manner: e.g. To pull a jfanning
2. to lack wit and sensibility: e.g. effing? "Do you meaning fucking? Why not using the word."
2. to cherry-pick inaccurately and in a pathetic maner: e.g. "With the current XCode for the Mac" when responding to a post on OS X iPhone SDK 3.2 in Xcode 3.2

-prediction
1. The only place down from here is if the verb form [ e.g. To pull a jfanning ] were to become a 4chan meme.
Hiro's Hall of Shame ignore list: Tulkas -- because we know he wasn't born dumb.
Reply
Hiro's Hall of Shame ignore list: Tulkas -- because we know he wasn't born dumb.
Reply
post #153 of 162
3/1/10 at 4:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

To clarify, my numbers aren't to show installed base, but to answer Lemon Bon Bon's earlier question of how many devices has Apple sold running a form of OS X.

Righty ho!
Reply
Reply
post #154 of 162
3/1/10 at 4:21pm
Thank for this Adobe. That's Adobe who actually drives professional market for Apple.

If Adobe was supporting their older suite on Snow Leopard the move would be more rapid. I know because I also run some business and i am not planning to spend extra $1000-$1500 for professional graphics ugrades just so to run Snow Leopard if older one works just fine and does everything we need with publishers and print houses. Do you think it is smart to shell out some money in this economy... especially when publishing is not doing so well as it used to?

If you do not have any expensive pro applications then you can go any way you want. After all you're going to pay $29-$49 only for Snow Leopard upgrade.

I would think that those pros forced to buy new Apple computer and stil having license for older Leopard might try to downgrade if hardware allows.
Reply
Reply
post #155 of 162
3/1/10 at 4:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

You haven't quoted a wise man, well unless you were referring to the message of mine you quoted...

To quote an unwise man: effing? Do you meaning fucking? Why not using the word.
Reply
Reply
post #156 of 162
3/2/10 at 4:28am
Apple PC's with OS X are at 6.3% worldwide market share.
HP, Acer,etc. PC's with Windows are at 91.7% worldwide market share.

//
OSX like Linux market share is and was negligible, so why even bother with amazing news about enormous procentage.
Reply
Reply
post #157 of 162
3/2/10 at 6:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by gescom View Post

Apple PC's with OS X are at 6.3% worldwide market share.
HP, Acer,etc. PC's with Windows are at 91.7% worldwide market share.

//
OSX like Linux market share is and was negligible, so why even bother with amazing news about enormous procentage.

Did you really just compare one PC vendor against all PC vendors then say their growth is negligible?!?!?!
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #158 of 162
3/2/10 at 12:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Did you really just compare one PC vendor against all PC vendors then say their growth is negligible?!?!?!

Of course, it's not about PC vendors but Operating system share. And as I said OSX like Linux market share is and was negligible.
Reply
Reply
post #159 of 162
3/2/10 at 1:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gescom View Post

Of course, it's not about PC vendors but Operating system share. And as I said OSX like Linux market share is and was negligible.

if it's about operating systems and not about building PCs then Apple would have licensed their superior OS to all those vendors that have been wanting to get out from underneath MS' thumb for all these decades. But they haven't, so having the most OS marketshare isn't the most important thing for Apple or its customers.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #160 of 162
3/2/10 at 1:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

....if .... would have licensed ......But they haven't

LOL. If, then, maybe, perhaps. It doesn't matter. Facts are facts. LOL.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Mac OS X market share up 29%, Leopard still most common