So The Mac OS X Install base (number of Macs currently used) is about to eclipse the worldwide number of Windows PCs currently in use? I have been waiting for this day to come, for the Macintosh!! If this article is categorizing iOS devices to fill those numbers, it's pointless then...I am only interested if this article actually refers to the Macintosh becoming #1.
This article is about SALES of new computer types, not the INSTALL base. Windows has a huge install base.
However, you are partly right in that since the graph doesn't show any up-tick due to Windows 7 or 8, that the Windows install base is increasingly composed of older versions of WIndows. With iOS and OSX at 90% of the Windows sales that puts Apple's OS at +47% of the two company's combined sales. It's a real horse race now with the old nag huffing and puffing and still ahead while Apple closes in on the outside and still looking fresh!
While Android Linux outsells iOS on smartphones by more than 2-to-1, the goal here is to arbitrarily slice and dice the definition of "computers" until we can find a mix that's flattering to Apple. Get with the program, lest you be called "troll!".
This place does take on kind of a circle jerk tone at times. I've stated before that a big problem with the inclusion of devices like the ipad is that they're designed to be partially reliant on other devices for a full level of computing functionality. You're left with certain gaps, storage and backup being the worst ones. If all of those were resolved at the tablet level (MS seems to do this with the surface pro) it would make more sense to describe sales this way. My issue is that even in lighter tasks, they're still relegated to being a subordinate device like this.
I wonder if Microsoft should start building Windows on top of Unix the way Apple does, make Windows just another "skin" GUI that could be used on Apple or Android machines, on any machine basically.
Apple didn't build Mac OSX on top of UNIX, at all. Mac OSX is a microkernel, which is comprised of several different elements to communicate with basic UNIX commands, such as POSIX and message passing. The only thing "UNIX" about OSX is the Terminal. Even Aqua is a proprietary GUI, as opposed to xWindows or XORG for Linux. Funny you mention Windows. Any OS can achieve UNIX accreditation with the right compatibility layer. We see an offshoot of this already in Windows with PowerShell. But, like OSX, that wouldn't turn Windows into a UNIX operating system. When people talk about OSX being "UNIX-based," they're generalizing, and most of the time it's due to lack of knowledge. A more proper term would be "UNIX-compliant." Remember, OSX wasn't accredited by the Open Group until Leopard was released. That's quite far down the pipe. However, Linux...being closer to UNIX than OSX ever will be, still has not been OG accredited. So you see...terms and accreditation don't mean much in the world of UNIX.
When people talk about OSX being "UNIX-based," they're generalizing, and most of the time it's due to lack of knowledge. A more proper term would be "UNIX-compliant."
"OS X version 10.7 Lion combines a proven UNIX® foundation with the easy-to-use Mac interface. OS X [is] the most widely used UNIX desktop operating system. The OS X kernel at the heart of Darwin is based on FreeBSD and Mach 3.0."
It's neither of the extremes of Apple making a skin on top of a 3rd party UNIX base, nor is it so detached from UNIX as to only have a terminal in common. OS X is a heavily customised freeBSD UNIX OS with the ease of use provided by loads of Apple software development.
Wait... So if we apply this same logic to Linux devices. Does this mean that Linux (Largely Android) sells more personal computers than Microsoft?
When Android tablets start selling in large numbers perhaps. Android doesn't have a firm distinction between the tablet and phone OS though (Andy Rubin doesn't want there to be) so there isn't quite the same motivation for optimized apps:
I like the scalability of desktop operating system UIs so in theory Android's approach should work better but in practise it doesn't for mobile devices and I think the reason is that desktop displays tend to all be above a certain size. Once you get below about 10", the scalable desktop UI is much less useful.
When Android tablets start selling in large numbers perhaps. Android doesn't have a firm distinction between the tablet and phone OS though (Andy Rubin doesn't want there to be) so there isn't quite the same motivation for optimized apps:
I like the scalability of desktop operating system UIs so in theory Android's approach should work better but in practise it doesn't for mobile devices and I think the reason is that desktop displays tend to all be above a certain size. Once you get below about 10", the scalable desktop UI is much less useful.
So, are you saying that Tablets are designated to be PCs but Smartphones are not?
Also, the chart shows IOS devices (Iphones included I suppose) so I think the author is dumping Apple's smartphones as PCs, thus Android smartphones should be considered as such as well.
Lastly, that article talks about the lack of tablet optimized apps, which IMO makes no sense for the working resolution of current smartphones equal those of tablets. I must admit that I don't like Tablets and I have only owned one, so my experience with them is limited and I can't stop myself from thinking that they are swollen smartphones. Btw, Android (Linux) can natively support a variety resolutions and that is limited by hardware capabilities so there should not be any scaling unless it is a port.
So, are you saying that Tablets are designated to be PCs but Smartphones are not?
Also, the chart shows IOS devices (Iphones included I suppose) so I think the author is dumping Apple's smartphones as PCs, thus Android smartphones should be considered as such as well.
I'd say it's ok to consider tablets as PCs but not smartphones. It's the same OS and largely the same hardware components and they are only separated by screen size but it has to be about usage scenarios. It's a mildly interesting stat to see that all of Apple's OS sales are coming close to Microsoft's and with Android included, it puts unix-based systems ahead of Microsoft but I think the tablet sales are more important and still impressive:
With Macs and iPads combined, it puts Apple ahead of HP in terms of hardware vendors shipping PCs. When people are sitting at home browsing the web on their phones for long periods and watching movies, that's when it would replace PCs and should be considered in the same category. I don't see that being commonplace but people are definitely replacing laptops with iPads.
Lastly, that article talks about the lack of tablet optimized apps, which IMO makes no sense for the working resolution of current smartphones equal those of tablets. I must admit that I don't like Tablets and I have only owned one, so my experience with them is limited and I can't stop myself from thinking that they are swollen smartphones.
In some respects they are but you can easily sit and use a tablet for hours to type, browse, read and watch films where it would just get uncomfortable to do on a small display. It's difficult to replace a laptop or netbook with a smartphone.
Btw, Android (Linux) can natively support a variety resolutions and that is limited by hardware capabilities so there should not be any scaling unless it is a port.
iOS is based on OS X so has the same ability to scale across different resolutions but apps for Android and iOS sometimes have UI layouts that inherently don't scale. If you need a second UI column, that has to be developed into the app.
And that right there is where this article contradicts itself, and is exposed as complete BS.
No, Virginia, the iPad is NOT a "conventional PC," it's a tablet. A good tablet, possibly the best tablet on the market, but still just a tablet.
See that orange bar on the above chart? That's the accurate representation of Apple's "conventional PC" market share, and I daresay it's substantially lower than Microsoft's.
What is up with all these articles trying to convince people that Apple is a powerhouse, despite it's recent stock performance? When did Apple users and investors become so thin skinned, and where are the days of "market share doesn't matter, profit margin does"? Apple is still a solid performer, a market leader in all the ways that matter. I don't feel any less confident in my stock or my Apple products than I did a year ago, so what is with all these lipservice articles? They aren't helping.
Want to look weak? Go out of your way to convince everyone you're not.
It does seem she is grasping at straws here. Until Apple takes over the enterprise market from Windows it really doesn't matter. iPhones compliment the enterprise, but Windows and Office still reign supreme across most businesses. Until they crack that nut these comparisons don't make much sense.
I'd say it's ok to consider tablets as PCs but not smartphones. It's the same OS and largely the same hardware components and they are only separated by screen size but it has to be about usage scenarios. It's a mildly interesting stat to see that all of Apple's OS sales are coming close to Microsoft's and with Android included, it puts unix-based systems ahead of Microsoft but I think the tablet sales are more important and still impressive:
With Macs and iPads combined, it puts Apple ahead of HP in terms of hardware vendors shipping PCs. When people are sitting at home browsing the web on their phones for long periods and watching movies, that's when it would replace PCs and should be considered in the same category. I don't see that being commonplace but people are definitely replacing laptops with iPads.
In some respects they are but you can easily sit and use a tablet for hours to type, browse, read and watch films where it would just get uncomfortable to do on a small display. It's difficult to replace a laptop or netbook with a smartphone.
iOS is based on OS X so has the same ability to scale across different resolutions but apps for Android and iOS sometimes have UI layouts that inherently don't scale. If you need a second UI column, that has to be developed into the app.
To cut the chase. I disagree that screen size has any bearing whether a device is considered a PC. Smartphones can do the same tasks as tablets and should not be discriminated for their screen size, specially when most of these devices have HDMI out options. To top it off, I think we'll see smartphones offering desktop solutions (like Ubuntu for Android) in the near future and I predict they will curve Tablet sales (if executed properly). I think OS X for Iphone is a possibility if Canonical does a good job bringing a mobile desktop.
It does seem she is grasping at straws here. Until Apple takes over the enterprise market from Windows it really doesn't matter. iPhones compliment the enterprise, but Windows and Office still reign supreme across most businesses. Until they crack that nut these comparisons don't make much sense.
Which will probably never happen. But I don't think Apple is worried about that, they are making plenty of money from the mobile market.
I also agree that Smartphones and Tablets do not replace PCs (specially not in the business world), they merely compliment PCs.
A desktop OS. I see that you are not familiar with the Ubuntu for Android concept. It is easy, you have your mobile OS (Android/IOS) running in your phone, then you dock it or plug your HDMI cable and your phone switches to desktop OS (Linux/MAC OS) for full productivity support. Not that hard.
So putting it on an iPhone would be a… "good" idea? Or even a possible one?
I see that you are not familiar with the Ubuntu for Android concept.
What about Apple makes you think that anything involving the words 'Android' and 'Ubuntu' makes any sense to them?
It is easy, you have your mobile OS (Android/IOS) running in your phone, then you dock it or plug your HDMI cable and your phone switches to desktop OS (Linux/MAC OS) for full productivity support. Not that hard.
To pitch, maybe. To use and to sell? Eh… Now, if we're talking both OS' successors…
I'd go further to suggest it's likely inevitable that OS X and iOS will merge. But I fear the merge will not favor OS X as much as iOS on all device types.
They don't need to merge. They can coexist in the same device, they would just be launched depending on the output (phone screen/HDMI)
1.- So putting it on an iPhone would be a… "good" idea? Or even a possible one?
2.- What about Apple makes you think that anything involving the words 'Android' and 'Ubuntu' makes any sense to them?
3.- To pitch, maybe. To use and to sell? Eh… Now, if we're talking both OS' successors…
1.- We now have 8 core processors for Smartphones. It is possible and if a nonprofit can do it, I am sure Apple can. I think its a great idea (specially for businesses), but we all have our opinions.
2.- If you'd get off your defensive stance. You'd see that I am saying that Apple could do something similar and probably execute it better.
3.- Should I start listing what products were thought not to be profitable but turned to be great successes?
1.- We now have 8 core processors for Smartphones.
Not my concern. Usability is my concern.
3.- Should I start listing what products were thought not to be profitable but turned to be great successes?
This isn't one of them. I know Apple is a master of taking something formerly crap and making it work, but this is perpetually crap. OS X requires a keyboard and mouse. Those would either be built into this dock (as would a display, or something) or be Bluetooth. So the dock would have to have its own Bluetooth chip, since iOS devices can't handle multiple Bluetooth inputs. The dock basically needs its own power, at which point you may as well just get a computer. Everything is going to be stored—two OS' and their respective applications are going to be stored—on an iDevice? Where's the backup? Time Capsule/Airport+hard drive? That's another couple hundred.
OS X requires a keyboard and mouse. Those would either be built into this dock (as would a display, or something) or be Bluetooth. So the dock would have to have its own Bluetooth chip, since iOS devices can't handle multiple Bluetooth inputs. The dock basically needs its own power, at which point you may as well just get a computer. Everything is going to be stored—two OS' and their respective applications are going to be stored—on an iDevice? Where's the backup? Time Capsule/Airport+hard drive? That's another couple hundred.
- Add USB ports (OSX supports USB) to the dock and get a wireless mouse and keyboard.
- Sell Iphones with bigger storage. USB storage is relatively cheap. Add removable memory to the Iphone. Cloud storage for work files.
The idea is to replace a computer. It makes most sense for businesses since at least you are replacing a laptop and a business phone.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by WardC
So The Mac OS X Install base (number of Macs currently used) is about to eclipse the worldwide number of Windows PCs currently in use? I have been waiting for this day to come, for the Macintosh!! If this article is categorizing iOS devices to fill those numbers, it's pointless then...I am only interested if this article actually refers to the Macintosh becoming #1.
This article is about SALES of new computer types, not the INSTALL base. Windows has a huge install base.
However, you are partly right in that since the graph doesn't show any up-tick due to Windows 7 or 8, that the Windows install base is increasingly composed of older versions of WIndows. With iOS and OSX at 90% of the Windows sales that puts Apple's OS at +47% of the two company's combined sales. It's a real horse race now with the old nag huffing and puffing and still ahead while Apple closes in on the outside and still looking fresh!
Wait... So if we apply this same logic to Linux devices. Does this mean that Linux (Largely Android) sells more personal computers than Microsoft?
Also, why is the OP pitting a desktop distro (Win) vs a mobile + desktop combo (IOS+MAC OS)? It seems largely bad logic.
deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
While Android Linux outsells iOS on smartphones by more than 2-to-1, the goal here is to arbitrarily slice and dice the definition of "computers" until we can find a mix that's flattering to Apple. Get with the program, lest you be called "troll!".
This place does take on kind of a circle jerk tone at times. I've stated before that a big problem with the inclusion of devices like the ipad is that they're designed to be partially reliant on other devices for a full level of computing functionality. You're left with certain gaps, storage and backup being the worst ones. If all of those were resolved at the tablet level (MS seems to do this with the surface pro) it would make more sense to describe sales this way. My issue is that even in lighter tasks, they're still relegated to being a subordinate device like this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shojin Monkey
I wonder if Microsoft should start building Windows on top of Unix the way Apple does, make Windows just another "skin" GUI that could be used on Apple or Android machines, on any machine basically.
Apple didn't build Mac OSX on top of UNIX, at all. Mac OSX is a microkernel, which is comprised of several different elements to communicate with basic UNIX commands, such as POSIX and message passing. The only thing "UNIX" about OSX is the Terminal. Even Aqua is a proprietary GUI, as opposed to xWindows or XORG for Linux. Funny you mention Windows. Any OS can achieve UNIX accreditation with the right compatibility layer. We see an offshoot of this already in Windows with PowerShell. But, like OSX, that wouldn't turn Windows into a UNIX operating system. When people talk about OSX being "UNIX-based," they're generalizing, and most of the time it's due to lack of knowledge. A more proper term would be "UNIX-compliant." Remember, OSX wasn't accredited by the Open Group until Leopard was released. That's quite far down the pipe. However, Linux...being closer to UNIX than OSX ever will be, still has not been OG accredited. So you see...terms and accreditation don't mean much in the world of UNIX.
Being UNIX-based is nothing to be ashamed of:
http://images.apple.com/media/us/osx/2012/docs/OSX_for_UNIX_Users_TB_July2011.pdf
"OS X version 10.7 Lion combines a proven UNIX® foundation with the easy-to-use Mac interface. OS X [is] the most widely used UNIX desktop operating system. The OS X kernel at the heart of Darwin is based on FreeBSD and Mach 3.0."
It's neither of the extremes of Apple making a skin on top of a 3rd party UNIX base, nor is it so detached from UNIX as to only have a terminal in common. OS X is a heavily customised freeBSD UNIX OS with the ease of use provided by loads of Apple software development.
When Android tablets start selling in large numbers perhaps. Android doesn't have a firm distinction between the tablet and phone OS though (Andy Rubin doesn't want there to be) so there isn't quite the same motivation for optimized apps:
http://android.appstorm.net/general/opinion/google-its-time-to-get-serious-about-tablet-apps/
I like the scalability of desktop operating system UIs so in theory Android's approach should work better but in practise it doesn't for mobile devices and I think the reason is that desktop displays tend to all be above a certain size. Once you get below about 10", the scalable desktop UI is much less useful.
Quote:
When Android tablets start selling in large numbers perhaps. Android doesn't have a firm distinction between the tablet and phone OS though (Andy Rubin doesn't want there to be) so there isn't quite the same motivation for optimized apps:
http://android.appstorm.net/general/opinion/google-its-time-to-get-serious-about-tablet-apps/
I like the scalability of desktop operating system UIs so in theory Android's approach should work better but in practise it doesn't for mobile devices and I think the reason is that desktop displays tend to all be above a certain size. Once you get below about 10", the scalable desktop UI is much less useful.
So, are you saying that Tablets are designated to be PCs but Smartphones are not?
Also, the chart shows IOS devices (Iphones included I suppose) so I think the author is dumping Apple's smartphones as PCs, thus Android smartphones should be considered as such as well.
Lastly, that article talks about the lack of tablet optimized apps, which IMO makes no sense for the working resolution of current smartphones equal those of tablets. I must admit that I don't like Tablets and I have only owned one, so my experience with them is limited and I can't stop myself from thinking that they are swollen smartphones. Btw, Android (Linux) can natively support a variety resolutions and that is limited by hardware capabilities so there should not be any scaling unless it is a port.
I'd say it's ok to consider tablets as PCs but not smartphones. It's the same OS and largely the same hardware components and they are only separated by screen size but it has to be about usage scenarios. It's a mildly interesting stat to see that all of Apple's OS sales are coming close to Microsoft's and with Android included, it puts unix-based systems ahead of Microsoft but I think the tablet sales are more important and still impressive:
http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/06/ipads-thanks-to-the-mini-accounted-for-1-in-6-pcs-tablets-one-third-of-all-pcs-shipped-in-q4-canalys/
With Macs and iPads combined, it puts Apple ahead of HP in terms of hardware vendors shipping PCs. When people are sitting at home browsing the web on their phones for long periods and watching movies, that's when it would replace PCs and should be considered in the same category. I don't see that being commonplace but people are definitely replacing laptops with iPads.
In some respects they are but you can easily sit and use a tablet for hours to type, browse, read and watch films where it would just get uncomfortable to do on a small display. It's difficult to replace a laptop or netbook with a smartphone.
iOS is based on OS X so has the same ability to scale across different resolutions but apps for Android and iOS sometimes have UI layouts that inherently don't scale. If you need a second UI column, that has to be developed into the app.
It does seem she is grasping at straws here. Until Apple takes over the enterprise market from Windows it really doesn't matter. iPhones compliment the enterprise, but Windows and Office still reign supreme across most businesses. Until they crack that nut these comparisons don't make much sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I'd say it's ok to consider tablets as PCs but not smartphones. It's the same OS and largely the same hardware components and they are only separated by screen size but it has to be about usage scenarios. It's a mildly interesting stat to see that all of Apple's OS sales are coming close to Microsoft's and with Android included, it puts unix-based systems ahead of Microsoft but I think the tablet sales are more important and still impressive:
http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/06/ipads-thanks-to-the-mini-accounted-for-1-in-6-pcs-tablets-one-third-of-all-pcs-shipped-in-q4-canalys/
With Macs and iPads combined, it puts Apple ahead of HP in terms of hardware vendors shipping PCs. When people are sitting at home browsing the web on their phones for long periods and watching movies, that's when it would replace PCs and should be considered in the same category. I don't see that being commonplace but people are definitely replacing laptops with iPads.
In some respects they are but you can easily sit and use a tablet for hours to type, browse, read and watch films where it would just get uncomfortable to do on a small display. It's difficult to replace a laptop or netbook with a smartphone.
iOS is based on OS X so has the same ability to scale across different resolutions but apps for Android and iOS sometimes have UI layouts that inherently don't scale. If you need a second UI column, that has to be developed into the app.
To cut the chase. I disagree that screen size has any bearing whether a device is considered a PC. Smartphones can do the same tasks as tablets and should not be discriminated for their screen size, specially when most of these devices have HDMI out options. To top it off, I think we'll see smartphones offering desktop solutions (like Ubuntu for Android) in the near future and I predict they will curve Tablet sales (if executed properly). I think OS X for Iphone is a possibility if Canonical does a good job bringing a mobile desktop.
Originally Posted by Hturt Seaker
I think OS X for Iphone is a possibility if Canonical does a good job bringing a mobile desktop.
Nonsense. Do you know what OS X is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSteelers
It does seem she is grasping at straws here. Until Apple takes over the enterprise market from Windows it really doesn't matter. iPhones compliment the enterprise, but Windows and Office still reign supreme across most businesses. Until they crack that nut these comparisons don't make much sense.
Which will probably never happen. But I don't think Apple is worried about that, they are making plenty of money from the mobile market.
I also agree that Smartphones and Tablets do not replace PCs (specially not in the business world), they merely compliment PCs.
deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Nonsense. Do you know what OS X is?
A desktop OS. I see that you are not familiar with the Ubuntu for Android concept. It is easy, you have your mobile OS (Android/IOS) running in your phone, then you dock it or plug your HDMI cable and your phone switches to desktop OS (Linux/MAC OS) for full productivity support. Not that hard.
Originally Posted by Hturt Seaker
A desktop OS.
So putting it on an iPhone would be a… "good" idea? Or even a possible one?
I see that you are not familiar with the Ubuntu for Android concept.
What about Apple makes you think that anything involving the words 'Android' and 'Ubuntu' makes any sense to them?
It is easy, you have your mobile OS (Android/IOS) running in your phone, then you dock it or plug your HDMI cable and your phone switches to desktop OS (Linux/MAC OS) for full productivity support. Not that hard.
To pitch, maybe. To use and to sell? Eh… Now, if we're talking both OS' successors…
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
I'd go further to suggest it's likely inevitable that OS X and iOS will merge. But I fear the merge will not favor OS X as much as iOS on all device types.
They don't need to merge. They can coexist in the same device, they would just be launched depending on the output (phone screen/HDMI)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
1.- So putting it on an iPhone would be a… "good" idea? Or even a possible one?
2.- What about Apple makes you think that anything involving the words 'Android' and 'Ubuntu' makes any sense to them?
3.- To pitch, maybe. To use and to sell? Eh… Now, if we're talking both OS' successors…
1.- We now have 8 core processors for Smartphones. It is possible and if a nonprofit can do it, I am sure Apple can. I think its a great idea (specially for businesses), but we all have our opinions.
2.- If you'd get off your defensive stance. You'd see that I am saying that Apple could do something similar and probably execute it better.
3.- Should I start listing what products were thought not to be profitable but turned to be great successes?
Originally Posted by Hturt Seaker
1.- We now have 8 core processors for Smartphones.
Not my concern. Usability is my concern.
3.- Should I start listing what products were thought not to be profitable but turned to be great successes?
This isn't one of them. I know Apple is a master of taking something formerly crap and making it work, but this is perpetually crap. OS X requires a keyboard and mouse. Those would either be built into this dock (as would a display, or something) or be Bluetooth. So the dock would have to have its own Bluetooth chip, since iOS devices can't handle multiple Bluetooth inputs. The dock basically needs its own power, at which point you may as well just get a computer. Everything is going to be stored—two OS' and their respective applications are going to be stored—on an iDevice? Where's the backup? Time Capsule/Airport+hard drive? That's another couple hundred.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
OS X requires a keyboard and mouse. Those would either be built into this dock (as would a display, or something) or be Bluetooth. So the dock would have to have its own Bluetooth chip, since iOS devices can't handle multiple Bluetooth inputs. The dock basically needs its own power, at which point you may as well just get a computer. Everything is going to be stored—two OS' and their respective applications are going to be stored—on an iDevice? Where's the backup? Time Capsule/Airport+hard drive? That's another couple hundred.
- Add USB ports (OSX supports USB) to the dock and get a wireless mouse and keyboard.
- Sell Iphones with bigger storage. USB storage is relatively cheap. Add removable memory to the Iphone. Cloud storage for work files.
The idea is to replace a computer. It makes most sense for businesses since at least you are replacing a laptop and a business phone.