the latest figures from retail analysts NPD showing that 96% of netbooks sold in February 2009 were running Microsoft's OS.
The company claims the turnaround has been prompted by enormous customer dissatisfaction with Linux. "Not only are people overwhelmingly buying Windows, but those that try Linux are often returning it"
users simply expect the Windows experience. When they realise their Linux-based netbook PC doesn't deliver that same quality of experience, they get frustrated and take it back
These market analyses about Mac market share always sound pretty desperate at best to bring about some conclusion that Microsoft is being affected. In what other area would it be considered positive that the competition still has 88% marketshare and your share of the mobile space is hovering under 2%?
Microsoft dropping a couple of percent a year means we'll see some significant implications by the year 2030 if it even keeps up. By then, Steve Jobs will have died, Apple stock will drop like a brick due to this and the company will be bought up because computers will have reached a point where you will be able to get supercomputer performance on a single chip with 1TB+ SSD (if we are still using SSD) for about £100.
Computers will be worthless because everything will be fast enough and stable enough. By then Apple will maybe sell their OS for other manufacturers but until they do, those other 90% of the machines that keep being bought will be running Windows and IE will sill be the default browser.
Of course we may all be using just a further incarnation of an iphone and Apple has a huge marketshare but as the article kind of says, if it's a sustained decline, it will be a long, slow one.
These market analyses about Mac market share always sound pretty desperate at best to bring about some conclusion that Microsoft is being affected. In what other area would it be considered positive that the competition still has 88% marketshare and your share of the mobile space is hovering under 2%?
I agree that market share numbers in of themselves without any context don't mean a lot. They certainly don't give a clear assessment of a companies health.
I believe the context of Apple's growth is in the fact that it only sells premium products. Every company that only sells premium products has a small market share in its respective industry. For Apple every point growth translates into billions in revenue.
Quote:
Microsoft dropping a couple of percent a year means we'll see some significant implications by the year 2030 if it even keeps up.
I agree MS loosing a couple of points in the short term doesn't mean much for the companies over all health. The problem for MS is they don't have anything all that exciting to help gain back those couple of points.
I think you play down the extremely vulnerable position MS is in. Just because you are at the top doesn't at all mean you will always be at the top. Being at the top you are most vulnerable because you have the most to loose.
Apple is primarily squeezing MS at the top end of the market. Most of Windows growth is at the lower end. Someone coming up with an OS that squeezes MS at the lower end is their nightmare situation.
Someone could create a simple low cost OS with a familiar UI, that primarily uses web apps and services online as well as offline. As time goes on the core focus of software functionality is moving from native apps tied to a proprietary OS platform to ubiquitous cross platform web apps. With the right circumstances and marketing another OS will successfully work. I think at some point someone will get it right.
As for as the Touch, I'm not sure what to say about 1.5 users out of a 1000 is really being that significant. I can't say that I ever use mobile Safari much anymore, as one, I don't like it, and two, I've got my netbook.
Hmmmm, I guess since cockroaches outnumber dogs about a million to one, you must fully prefer a cockroach as a pet to a dog or cat..... cause of course its all about numbers...
Hmmmm, I guess since cockroaches outnumber dogs about a million to one, you must fully prefer a cockroach as a pet to a dog or cat..... cause of course its all about numbers...
Just a funny thought this sat.
en
bad example. cockroaches will outlive everything lol
Hmmmm, I guess since cockroaches outnumber dogs about a million to one, you must fully prefer a cockroach as a pet to a dog or cat..... cause of course its all about numbers...
I have a co worker who told me he needed a new computer. I suggested a Mac and got the usual "No way! They're too expensive! I'm going to get a four hundered dollar Vista computer from Best Buy."
you will be able to get supercomputer performance on a single chip with 1TB+ SSD (if we are still using SSD) for about £100.
Computers will be worthless because everything will be fast enough and stable enough.
This was once said before in the form "No one will need more than 637 kb of memory for a personal computer." Seems like you could shake hands with Mr. Gates, and realize that like him, you are probably wrong again.
This was once said before in the form "No one will need more than 637 kb of memory for a personal computer." Seems like you could shake hands with Mr. Gates, and realize that like him, you are probably wrong again.
If you think Bill Gates said that, then you'd be wrong.
I agree that market share numbers in of themselves without any context don't mean a lot. They certainly don't give a clear assessment of a companies health.
I believe the context of Apple's growth is in the fact that it only sells premium products. Every company that only sells premium products has a small market share in its respective industry. For Apple every point growth translates into billions in revenue.
I agree MS loosing a couple of points in the short term doesn't mean much for the companies over all health. The problem for MS is they don't have anything all that exciting to help gain back those couple of points.
I think you play down the extremely vulnerable position MS is in. Just because you are at the top doesn't at all mean you will always be at the top. Being at the top you are most vulnerable because you have the most to loose.
Apple is primarily squeezing MS at the top end of the market. Most of Windows growth is at the lower end. Someone coming up with an OS that squeezes MS at the lower end is their nightmare situation.
Someone could create a simple low cost OS with a familiar UI, that primarily uses web apps and services online as well as offline. As time goes on the core focus of software functionality is moving from native apps tied to a proprietary OS platform to ubiquitous cross platform web apps. With the right circumstances and marketing another OS will successfully work. I think at some point someone will get it right.
The iphone and ipod. There you go. At $300 price point they offer, in some circumstances, MORE functionality than windows.
Nah the iPhone/iTouch are tertiary products that supplement the main machine. They cannot replace the $400 notebook.
Because of the iPhone/iTouch Apple is less vulnerable than MS to fluctuations in PC sales. A collapse in PC sales would hurt MS far more than it would Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tauron
The iphone and ipod. There you go. At $300 price point they offer, in some circumstances, MORE functionality than windows.
The iphone and ipod. There you go. At $300 price point they offer, in some circumstances, MORE functionality than windows.
And yet you haven't bothered to say what these circumstances are. It would seem to be pretty specialized circumstances given that they're not even the same form of machine.
I didn't realize Linux was so small. We (Mac) are the same size relative to them as Windows is to us.
Linux is huge in server space but desktop not so much. The stats represent people who are surfing the web from a linux box. Not that many people use a server as a browser machine. In comparison Mac used as servers is minimal but desktop/mobile/notebook use is growing significantly.
The iphone and ipod. There you go. At $300 price point they offer, in some circumstances, MORE functionality than windows.
You might as well say that a $2 toothbrush, in some circumstances, offers MORE functionality that an iPod Touch. Well, that is if you wanted to clean your teeth with it that is.
An iPod Touch is not a replacement for a personal computer.
You might as well say that a $2 toothbrush, in some circumstances, offers MORE functionality that an iPod Touch. Well, that is if you wanted to clean your teeth with it that is.
An iPod Touch is not a replacement for a personal computer.
Nope, but for a lot of tasks it is better than any PC. For email, photo, music, and simple texting it beats the PC in practicality since in a PC you have to deal with 10 updates a day and 100 virus attacks a day, defragging, booting up, eventual catastrophic failures (twice a year), file corruption, and other windows "nuiscances", like complete failure to boot up for no apparent reason and yes, the occasional spontaneous reboot while you are working making you lose all your data.
Web browsing is slower and the small screen makes it even slower in the ipod but on the other hand you have complete mobility. In PC laptops half of the time it can't connect even if it finds a network thanks to the 100 security protocol settings and the 100 other unknown reasons that makes it "just not work".
So I would say the ipod is MORE functional than any PC 50% of the time. When using more computer intensive applications you lose of course but the ipod is going to be better and faster in the future and hopefully squeeze some PC marketshare out.
I have a co worker who told me he needed a new computer. I suggested a Mac and got the usual "No way! They're too expensive! I'm going to get a four hundered dollar Vista computer from Best Buy."
Sadly, the ads do work sometimes.
I shudder to think what your friend will get for his 4oo. bucks. I mean he could go to e bay and spend around the same for a fine used mac.
Nope, but for a lot of tasks it is better than any PC. For email, photo, music, and simple texting it beats the PC in practicality since in a PC you have to deal with 10 updates a day and 100 virus attacks a day, defragging, booting up, eventual catastrophic failures (twice a year), file corruption, and other windows "nuiscances", like complete failure to boot up for no apparent reason and yes, the occasional spontaneous reboot while you are working making you lose all your data.
Web browsing is slower and the small screen makes it even slower in the ipod but on the other hand you have complete mobility. In PC laptops half of the time it can't connect even if it finds a network thanks to the 100 security protocol settings and the 100 other unknown reasons that makes it "just not work".
So I would say the ipod is MORE functional than any PC 50% of the time. When using more computer intensive applications you lose of course but the ipod is going to be better and faster in the future and hopefully squeeze some PC marketshare out.
Complete and utter crap, what world do you live in?
I have both a MBP and a DELL XPS, my Dell has never experienced any of these issues you claim effect windows computers. I promise you this, 100% true, I press "option, command, esc" far more often than I need "Control, alt, delete".
Where do you people get this garbage from? It is amazing really. If only my MBP had the battery life of my DELL (now down to about 30mins), if only my MBP had the wireless functionality of my DELL instead of the awful, and very common issues i experience now on wifi.
All these issues that you guys use against windows just do not exist in the real world, you are kidding yourselves.
Nope, but for a lot of tasks it is better than any PC. For email, photo, music, and simple texting it beats the PC in practicality since in a PC you have to deal with 10 updates a day and 100 virus attacks a day, defragging, booting up, eventual catastrophic failures (twice a year), file corruption, and other windows "nuiscances", like complete failure to boot up for no apparent reason and yes, the occasional spontaneous reboot while you are working making you lose all your data.
Web browsing is slower and the small screen makes it even slower in the ipod but on the other hand you have complete mobility. In PC laptops half of the time it can't connect even if it finds a network thanks to the 100 security protocol settings and the 100 other unknown reasons that makes it "just not work".
So I would say the ipod is MORE functional than any PC 50% of the time. When using more computer intensive applications you lose of course but the ipod is going to be better and faster in the future and hopefully squeeze some PC marketshare out.
Congrats, you've won the 'dumb post of the day' award. Even Apple doesn't make such stupid generalizations in their ads, and I consider myself relatively OS agnostic (running Ubuntu 9.04 x64 on my laptop the last couple days, while my Vista PC and Leopard Mini have been off).
I have a Touch, and it's only really useful, if you're near a wifi connection, otherwise, it's a video iPod with a bigger screen, as most of the apps I have for it, require an internet connection. An iPhone is better, as that at least gives you alternative connectivity options.
Sony looks to have a pretty decent competitor (in relation to other competitors) to the iPod Touch. It has WiFi and an OLED screen and costs the same as Apple's offerings for the 16 and 32GB versions. I wonder if this means that OLED is now viable for the iPhone/Touch this summer.
Comments
How many netbooks use XP vs. Linux? Either way the Netbook surge could make a serious dent in M$'s market share and put them in even more of a mess.
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/250842/m...n-windows.html
the latest figures from retail analysts NPD showing that 96% of netbooks sold in February 2009 were running Microsoft's OS.
The company claims the turnaround has been prompted by enormous customer dissatisfaction with Linux. "Not only are people overwhelmingly buying Windows, but those that try Linux are often returning it"
users simply expect the Windows experience. When they realise their Linux-based netbook PC doesn't deliver that same quality of experience, they get frustrated and take it back
These market analyses about Mac market share always sound pretty desperate at best to bring about some conclusion that Microsoft is being affected. In what other area would it be considered positive that the competition still has 88% marketshare and your share of the mobile space is hovering under 2%?
Microsoft dropping a couple of percent a year means we'll see some significant implications by the year 2030 if it even keeps up. By then, Steve Jobs will have died, Apple stock will drop like a brick due to this and the company will be bought up because computers will have reached a point where you will be able to get supercomputer performance on a single chip with 1TB+ SSD (if we are still using SSD) for about £100.
Computers will be worthless because everything will be fast enough and stable enough. By then Apple will maybe sell their OS for other manufacturers but until they do, those other 90% of the machines that keep being bought will be running Windows and IE will sill be the default browser.
Of course we may all be using just a further incarnation of an iphone and Apple has a huge marketshare but as the article kind of says, if it's a sustained decline, it will be a long, slow one.
These market analyses about Mac market share always sound pretty desperate at best to bring about some conclusion that Microsoft is being affected. In what other area would it be considered positive that the competition still has 88% marketshare and your share of the mobile space is hovering under 2%?
I agree that market share numbers in of themselves without any context don't mean a lot. They certainly don't give a clear assessment of a companies health.
I believe the context of Apple's growth is in the fact that it only sells premium products. Every company that only sells premium products has a small market share in its respective industry. For Apple every point growth translates into billions in revenue.
Microsoft dropping a couple of percent a year means we'll see some significant implications by the year 2030 if it even keeps up.
I agree MS loosing a couple of points in the short term doesn't mean much for the companies over all health. The problem for MS is they don't have anything all that exciting to help gain back those couple of points.
I think you play down the extremely vulnerable position MS is in. Just because you are at the top doesn't at all mean you will always be at the top. Being at the top you are most vulnerable because you have the most to loose.
Apple is primarily squeezing MS at the top end of the market. Most of Windows growth is at the lower end. Someone coming up with an OS that squeezes MS at the lower end is their nightmare situation.
Someone could create a simple low cost OS with a familiar UI, that primarily uses web apps and services online as well as offline. As time goes on the core focus of software functionality is moving from native apps tied to a proprietary OS platform to ubiquitous cross platform web apps. With the right circumstances and marketing another OS will successfully work. I think at some point someone will get it right.
......
As for as the Touch, I'm not sure what to say about 1.5 users out of a 1000 is really being that significant. I can't say that I ever use mobile Safari much anymore, as one, I don't like it, and two, I've got my netbook.
Hmmmm, I guess since cockroaches outnumber dogs about a million to one, you must fully prefer a cockroach as a pet to a dog or cat..... cause of course its all about numbers...
Just a funny thought this sat.
en
Hmmmm, I guess since cockroaches outnumber dogs about a million to one, you must fully prefer a cockroach as a pet to a dog or cat..... cause of course its all about numbers...
Just a funny thought this sat.
en
bad example. cockroaches will outlive everything lol
Hmmmm, I guess since cockroaches outnumber dogs about a million to one, you must fully prefer a cockroach as a pet to a dog or cat..... cause of course its all about numbers...
Just a funny thought this sat.
en
1) its not funny
2) its worse than the car analogy
3) its not funny
I have a co worker who told me he needed a new computer. I suggested a Mac and got the usual "No way! They're too expensive! I'm going to get a four hundered dollar Vista computer from Best Buy."
Sadly, the ads do work sometimes.
you mean he's fiscally prudent?
you will be able to get supercomputer performance on a single chip with 1TB+ SSD (if we are still using SSD) for about £100.
Computers will be worthless because everything will be fast enough and stable enough.
This was once said before in the form "No one will need more than 637 kb of memory for a personal computer." Seems like you could shake hands with Mr. Gates, and realize that like him, you are probably wrong again.
This was once said before in the form "No one will need more than 637 kb of memory for a personal computer." Seems like you could shake hands with Mr. Gates, and realize that like him, you are probably wrong again.
If you think Bill Gates said that, then you'd be wrong.
I agree that market share numbers in of themselves without any context don't mean a lot. They certainly don't give a clear assessment of a companies health.
I believe the context of Apple's growth is in the fact that it only sells premium products. Every company that only sells premium products has a small market share in its respective industry. For Apple every point growth translates into billions in revenue.
I agree MS loosing a couple of points in the short term doesn't mean much for the companies over all health. The problem for MS is they don't have anything all that exciting to help gain back those couple of points.
I think you play down the extremely vulnerable position MS is in. Just because you are at the top doesn't at all mean you will always be at the top. Being at the top you are most vulnerable because you have the most to loose.
Apple is primarily squeezing MS at the top end of the market. Most of Windows growth is at the lower end. Someone coming up with an OS that squeezes MS at the lower end is their nightmare situation.
Someone could create a simple low cost OS with a familiar UI, that primarily uses web apps and services online as well as offline. As time goes on the core focus of software functionality is moving from native apps tied to a proprietary OS platform to ubiquitous cross platform web apps. With the right circumstances and marketing another OS will successfully work. I think at some point someone will get it right.
The iphone and ipod. There you go. At $300 price point they offer, in some circumstances, MORE functionality than windows.
Because of the iPhone/iTouch Apple is less vulnerable than MS to fluctuations in PC sales. A collapse in PC sales would hurt MS far more than it would Apple.
The iphone and ipod. There you go. At $300 price point they offer, in some circumstances, MORE functionality than windows.
The iphone and ipod. There you go. At $300 price point they offer, in some circumstances, MORE functionality than windows.
And yet you haven't bothered to say what these circumstances are. It would seem to be pretty specialized circumstances given that they're not even the same form of machine.
I didn't realize Linux was so small. We (Mac) are the same size relative to them as Windows is to us.
Linux is huge in server space but desktop not so much. The stats represent people who are surfing the web from a linux box. Not that many people use a server as a browser machine. In comparison Mac used as servers is minimal but desktop/mobile/notebook use is growing significantly.
m
The iphone and ipod. There you go. At $300 price point they offer, in some circumstances, MORE functionality than windows.
You might as well say that a $2 toothbrush, in some circumstances, offers MORE functionality that an iPod Touch. Well, that is if you wanted to clean your teeth with it that is.
An iPod Touch is not a replacement for a personal computer.
You might as well say that a $2 toothbrush, in some circumstances, offers MORE functionality that an iPod Touch. Well, that is if you wanted to clean your teeth with it that is.
An iPod Touch is not a replacement for a personal computer.
Nope, but for a lot of tasks it is better than any PC. For email, photo, music, and simple texting it beats the PC in practicality since in a PC you have to deal with 10 updates a day and 100 virus attacks a day, defragging, booting up, eventual catastrophic failures (twice a year), file corruption, and other windows "nuiscances", like complete failure to boot up for no apparent reason and yes, the occasional spontaneous reboot while you are working making you lose all your data.
Web browsing is slower and the small screen makes it even slower in the ipod but on the other hand you have complete mobility. In PC laptops half of the time it can't connect even if it finds a network thanks to the 100 security protocol settings and the 100 other unknown reasons that makes it "just not work".
So I would say the ipod is MORE functional than any PC 50% of the time. When using more computer intensive applications you lose of course but the ipod is going to be better and faster in the future and hopefully squeeze some PC marketshare out.
I have a co worker who told me he needed a new computer. I suggested a Mac and got the usual "No way! They're too expensive! I'm going to get a four hundered dollar Vista computer from Best Buy."
Sadly, the ads do work sometimes.
I shudder to think what your friend will get for his 4oo. bucks. I mean he could go to e bay and spend around the same for a fine used mac.
I shudder to think what your friend will get for his 4oo. bucks. I mean he could go to e bay and spend around the same for a fine used mac.
How old is that going to be? Don't Macs hold their value a little too well? Last I looked, that's about the asking price for a G4 iMac.
Nope, but for a lot of tasks it is better than any PC. For email, photo, music, and simple texting it beats the PC in practicality since in a PC you have to deal with 10 updates a day and 100 virus attacks a day, defragging, booting up, eventual catastrophic failures (twice a year), file corruption, and other windows "nuiscances", like complete failure to boot up for no apparent reason and yes, the occasional spontaneous reboot while you are working making you lose all your data.
Web browsing is slower and the small screen makes it even slower in the ipod but on the other hand you have complete mobility. In PC laptops half of the time it can't connect even if it finds a network thanks to the 100 security protocol settings and the 100 other unknown reasons that makes it "just not work".
So I would say the ipod is MORE functional than any PC 50% of the time. When using more computer intensive applications you lose of course but the ipod is going to be better and faster in the future and hopefully squeeze some PC marketshare out.
Complete and utter crap, what world do you live in?
I have both a MBP and a DELL XPS, my Dell has never experienced any of these issues you claim effect windows computers. I promise you this, 100% true, I press "option, command, esc" far more often than I need "Control, alt, delete".
Where do you people get this garbage from? It is amazing really. If only my MBP had the battery life of my DELL (now down to about 30mins), if only my MBP had the wireless functionality of my DELL instead of the awful, and very common issues i experience now on wifi.
All these issues that you guys use against windows just do not exist in the real world, you are kidding yourselves.
Nope, but for a lot of tasks it is better than any PC. For email, photo, music, and simple texting it beats the PC in practicality since in a PC you have to deal with 10 updates a day and 100 virus attacks a day, defragging, booting up, eventual catastrophic failures (twice a year), file corruption, and other windows "nuiscances", like complete failure to boot up for no apparent reason and yes, the occasional spontaneous reboot while you are working making you lose all your data.
Web browsing is slower and the small screen makes it even slower in the ipod but on the other hand you have complete mobility. In PC laptops half of the time it can't connect even if it finds a network thanks to the 100 security protocol settings and the 100 other unknown reasons that makes it "just not work".
So I would say the ipod is MORE functional than any PC 50% of the time. When using more computer intensive applications you lose of course but the ipod is going to be better and faster in the future and hopefully squeeze some PC marketshare out.
Congrats, you've won the 'dumb post of the day' award. Even Apple doesn't make such stupid generalizations in their ads, and I consider myself relatively OS agnostic (running Ubuntu 9.04 x64 on my laptop the last couple days, while my Vista PC and Leopard Mini have been off).
I have a Touch, and it's only really useful, if you're near a wifi connection, otherwise, it's a video iPod with a bigger screen, as most of the apps I have for it, require an internet connection. An iPhone is better, as that at least gives you alternative connectivity options.