Mac web share nears 10% in December

Posted:
in iPhone edited January 2014
In spite of fears of a late-year plunge, Apple has again beat its own market share record in December and now has a record 9.6 percent of web traffic as Microsoft's own influence continues to fall.



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



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



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



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



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



However, Apple has historically maintained or grown its share following the holiday spike and often uses the season as a platform for further gains.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 57
    bloggerblogbloggerblog Posts: 1,759member
    This is great news, Apple is off to a good start, I hope this year they'lll work more on making things right.



    Oh yeah, and a mactablet, new iPhone, new macpro, xmac, new iMac, new mac mini, web based iWork, and a new ATV won't hurt either.
  • Reply 2 of 57
    wobegonwobegon Posts: 764member
    Looking at the other results, I can't believe how pathetic the Wii's web share is. The PS3, which has a far smaller install base, is beating it 4 to 1! And Sony doesn't even advertise or talk about their console's web browser, while I'm pretty sure I remember Nintendo talking about their system's Opera browser. Maybe it says something about the average Wii user: not very technologically informed. But then, I have a Wii, most of my friends do, and none of us browse the web on it much, probably because it's slow and kind of clunky. If Apple TV gains the ability to browse the web, I question how much it would be used.



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



    Wish we could get a breakdown of Windows versions to see how Mac OS X is competing against Vista.
  • Reply 3 of 57
    aaarrrggghaaarrrgggh Posts: 1,558member
    Well, looks like great sales for Apple's Q1! Wonder how much lower that will push the stock...
  • Reply 4 of 57
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wobegon View Post


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



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



    People that bought a Wii bought the console to play games...not to wait for good titles and browse the web in the meantime. Hell...there are more and better games on Mac than on the PS3.
  • Reply 5 of 57
    irelandireland Posts: 17,223member
    This should send the stock... down?
  • Reply 6 of 57
    wobegonwobegon Posts: 764member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post


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



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



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post


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



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



    Also, just because the PS3's web share is larger than the Wii's doesn't mean PS3 owners have no games to play. That's like saying iPhone (or Mac or PC) users have nothing to do but surf the web.
  • Reply 7 of 57
    Is this about OS X... or Safari? (I didn't read the article)
  • Reply 8 of 57
    macosxpmacosxp Posts: 152member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wobegon View Post


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



    Why don't you take a look for yourself? http://marketshare.hitslink.com/default.aspx

    Vista has 21.1% of the market share, XP has 65.2%, Linux has 0.85%, and OS X has 9.6%.



    And don't forget about web browsers! That's even bigger news. Internet explorer dropped almost 2% to 68.15% while Firefox jumped up to 21.34%. Safari also made a big climb to 7.93% while Chrome broke the 1% barrier.
  • Reply 9 of 57
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by macosxp View Post


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



    Though it is only 1 percent, there is no Chrome for Mac yet. So expect a little eat in to Safari's share sometime this spring. Safari could still out grow that little eat in which would be great.
  • Reply 10 of 57
    wobegonwobegon Posts: 764member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by macosxp View Post


    Why don't you take a look for yourself? http://marketshare.hitslink.com/default.aspx

    Vista has 21.1% of the market share, XP has 65.2%, Linux has 0.85%, and OS X has 9.6%.



    A direct link would be nice. I can't seem to find the article that shows your info (though I'm not questioning it, just like to look over all the numbers).
  • Reply 11 of 57
    zunxzunx Posts: 620member
    US share? Worldwide share? IT IS NOT THE SAME!
  • Reply 12 of 57
    boogabooga Posts: 1,073member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cygnusrk727 View Post


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



    Why would Mac users use Chrome? While Safari for XP is pretty awful, Safari on the Mac is pretty good. And since they use the exact same renderer it's not going to increase the ability to use certain sites like Firefox might do.
  • Reply 13 of 57
    boogabooga Posts: 1,073member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post


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



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



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



    But the game selection is actually quite good. It's a really nice machine compared to the other two "third generation" consoles, but is more expensive so hasn't sold as many.
  • Reply 14 of 57
    The Blue Ray was included to help them win the BR/DVD HD war, and now they have a great head start.



    They charge a premium for the inclusion of BR, too, on other makers' machines.
  • Reply 15 of 57
    virgil-tb2virgil-tb2 Posts: 1,416member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Booga View Post


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



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



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



    The big nail in the coffin of Chrome is that it's a one-note application and it's open source. It's only "raison d'être" is the tabs all being separate app-spaces. This feature can, and will be easily copied by every other browser out there in no time at all. The new Safari is likely to have a different solution to this same problem when it comes out next month already. The degree to which it is different or less capable than Chrome will be minor and also easily fixed with a point release anyway.
  • Reply 16 of 57
    wobegonwobegon Posts: 764member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Booga View Post


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



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



    I'm really crossing my fingers for a Safari speed bump at Macworld, but I don't care much about new features as I use NetNewsWire for RSS with Safari set to open pages in the background.
  • Reply 17 of 57
    doh123doh123 Posts: 323member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


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



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



    now they have a great head start? against what? HD-DVD is dead if you hadn't heard it was discontinued quite a while back....
  • Reply 18 of 57
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    This should send the stock... down?



    Not a bad guess......\



    But, wait till the broader sentiment changes, and the market starts to rebound. AAPL could well start to rocket upwards. Patience.
  • Reply 19 of 57
    doh123doh123 Posts: 323member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wobegon View Post


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



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



    does Tiger get Safari 3 now? havent used Tiger in forever... when i used to use Safari 2 it was so unstable i dumped it.. but since Safari 3... after a few bug fixes, its been great.... though most of the time I'm still on Firefox since its just what I've been using for years.
  • Reply 20 of 57
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Booga View Post


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



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