Windows 10 now on more than 200 million devices, Microsoft says

Posted:
in General Discussion
A little over five months since its official release date, Windows 10 is now installed on over 200 million devices worldwide, Microsoft said in a Monday announcement.




Adoption of the OS is easily outpacing both Windows 7 and 8, the company added. Its growth has been just under 140 percent faster than Windows 7, and more almost four times faster than Windows 8. Over 40 percent of new Windows 10 devices have been activated since Black Friday.

Windows 8 was a deeply unpopular release for many PC owners, as it defaulted to a touch-oriented homescreen interface regardless of what device it was installed on. Windows 10 boots to a traditional desktop view in most cases, and adds more features such as Cortana voice assistance and the Edge web browser. People have complained, however, about behind-the-scenes data collection that must be manually disabled.

The speed of Windows 10 adoption is most likely linked to Microsoft making it a free upgrade for the first year, combined with it being included on new laptop, desktop, and tablet PCs. Although Macs have gained marketshare, Windows is still by far the world's most popular computer platform.

The free upgrade strategy in fact mimics Apple's approach with OS X, and will likely be necessary to meet Microsoft's goal of having Windows 10 on a billion devices in 2018. That includes not just PCs but smartphones, although Windows phones have largely failed to catch on so far.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 29
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,586member
    ???? "...Windows is still by far the world's most popular computer platform."

    CORRECTION: Windows has the world's largest installed desktop computer base by far, but Apple OS X remains the world's most popular desktop platform based on overall consumer satisfaction levels. Further, when looking at all computing platforms vs desktop, one needs to include Apple's mobile OS, which changes the picture dramatically for computing OS market share. For MSFT and their mobile offerings, not so much. (After all, our mobile devices are now advanced computers!)
    edited January 2016 cornchipmagman1979SpamSandwichcincyteeschlacknolamacguybrakkenbestkeptsecret
  • Reply 2 of 29
    Define "computer platform". Windows is only on about 13% of electronic devices today. UNIX based systems dominate computing.
    edited January 2016 schlackafrodri
  • Reply 3 of 29
    magman1979magman1979 Posts: 1,122member
    It's nice for them to leave out the fact that many people were duped into installing Windows 10 because of that lovely Trojan horse Microshit shoved onto our Windows machines via Windows Updates! That constantly uses our machines as non-sanctioned BitTorrent distro machines for Windows 10 installers, and how people can't get rid of it! Of course adoption numbers are this high when they are conning people into upgrading! Microshit has now become the biggest bunch of crooks out there, and as expected, Wall Street is loving them for it and rewarding them.
    cornchipbrakken
  • Reply 4 of 29
    sog35 said:
    Its pathetic that the Microsoft CEO is able to twist numbers like this and receive Wall Street praise. This is despite Microsoft having a horrible product in Windows and having virtually no foothold in mobile.

    The Microsoft CEO who came on board in April 2014 has increased the stock price 55% despite showing revenue and profit declines.

    While Tim Cook has allowed Wall Street bullshiters to overtake the stock and showed the first annual stock price decline since 2008. 

    Its a fucking joke that the Microsoft CEO can show stock gains with a total crap product like Windows while the Apple CEO can't even show stock gains while selling the most lucritive product in the history of man.

    Under Steve Jobs Apple's PE was an average 20.
    Since Cook has taken over the PE average is 12.  And now its close to 10.
    If Apple was valued like a mediocre company (like Chlorox) it would be worth close to a TRILLION. 
    This falls 100% on Cook because:

    1. He allows Wall Street liars to continue to spew absolute BULLSHIT about the company
    2. He constantly posts awesome earnings and then post weak as shit guidance for the next quarter
    3. He wastes his time on issues that shareholders don't give a shit about: gay rights, kid's coding, and tax evasion.  Yet he spends no time articulating the vision of the company. He spends no time trying to convence investors that Apple is much more than just iPhone Inc.

    4. He has dragged his feet to many times. Constantly reacting instead of being proactive.  He was late in bringing out a large iPhone. He was late in releasing a legit music streaming service. He is dragging his feet again regarding closing a live TV deal. Dragging his feet in releasing a new iPadAir and updated Macbooks. Dragging his feet with sticking to 16GB phones.
    The price of Apple stock would obviously be important to you if you wanted to sell but not so much if you wanted to buy or hold the stock. If you plan to hold the stock, aren’t you better off with a CEO that is focussed on profitability and growing the business rather than a CEO that has one eye on the stock price?
    nolamacguy
  • Reply 5 of 29
    @sog35 - Your "copy" and "paste" keys have been taking a hell of a beating recently... you should try the "cut" one more often!
    SpamSandwichmagman1979crowleylord amhrannolamacguyafrodrisingularity
  • Reply 6 of 29
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,545member
    sog35 said:

    4. He has dragged his feet to many times. Constantly reacting instead of being proactive.  He was late in bringing out a large iPhone. He was late in releasing a legit music streaming service. He is dragging his feet again regarding closing a live TV deal. Dragging his feet in releasing a new iPadAir and updated Macbooks. Dragging his feet with sticking to 16GB phones.

    Sog... it's 2016, not 2015.  Already decided to cancel your $150/price self-ban promise?
    magman1979derrickdoingiticoco3SpamSandwichnolamacguyafrodrisingularity
  • Reply 7 of 29
    cornchipcornchip Posts: 1,289member
    sog35 said:

    Under Steve Jobs Apple's PE was an average 20.
    Since Cook has taken over the PE average is 12.  And now its close to 10.
    If Apple was valued like a mediocre company (like Chlorox) it would be worth close to a TRILLION. 
    This falls 100% on Cook because:


    I'm not so sure. Apple moves slow. Always has. You of all people should know that. I think what's going on with the stock price is a little more sinister. I actually worry about Apple after Cook. I think there is real contempt on Wall St. and in other parts of the global elite (Wall St being a front for) that truly resent Apple's humble beginnings and I don't think AAPL will ever gain by any impressive measure because of that sentiment. Laughably, Gates is made out to have come from humble beginnings (like Steve Jobs!) but of course, that couldn't be further from the truth. I even find the IBM deal to be a little creepy. I also think Icahn is bad news. I know I'm going to get harangued for saying that, and I'll freely admit I know next to nothing about how stocks & options & bonds & securities or any of that stuff works. I just hope nobody thinks it's a good idea to appoint him as a board member. 

    The day a CEO is appointed to make Wall St. happy will be the true beginning of the end of Apple as we know and love it. And I, for one, don't think that will be a good day.
  • Reply 8 of 29
    cincyteecincytee Posts: 260member
    sog35 said:
    Its pathetic that the Microsoft CEO is able to twist numbers like this and receive Wall Street praise. This is despite Microsoft having a horrible product in Windows and having virtually no foothold in mobile.

    While Tim Cook has allowed Wall Street bullshiters to overtake the stock and showed the first annual stock price decline since 2008.
    OK, OK, we get it. You're dissatisfied with Tim Cook's performance.

    One does wonder, though, what's in it for Microsoft when it, as a software company, is giving away its software. That's a very different dynamic from Apple giving away OS updates to increase the value of hardware it sells.
    cornchipicoco3lord amhrannolamacguy
  • Reply 9 of 29
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,545member
    Of all the Windows-X flavors out there, I actually like Windows 10 the best.  It dumped a lot of the old stuff in favor of embracing all the new tech.  That being said, it's still far from being properly baked-in like Windows 7 is/was in terms of usability/stability.

    Windows 8.1 is a close second as it's been pretty solid for a while now.  If it weren't for that cursed Metro interface, I'd be recommending it more.  It is what we are using on many workstations.  Windows 10 (as of September) was still not ready for prime-time enterprise-level computing as we were having AD/Domain issues with it during our testing so we decided to upgrade to go all Windows 8.1 instead.

    I use Windows 10 as a virtual-machine on my Mac.  I'm looking forward for Windows 10 to have a few Service-Packs under its hood so we can get off of Windows 8 altogether.  Dumping Internet Explorer is a big reason for that.  Its Edge browser is definitely a refreshing thing to see.
  • Reply 10 of 29
    bsimpsenbsimpsen Posts: 272member
    Microsoft isn't giving away Win 10. It's giving away the first year, after which users will be locked into an annual upgrade cycle... for money.
  • Reply 11 of 29
    xbitxbit Posts: 234member
    It's good to see Microsoft follow Apple's lead on pushing people to upgrade their OS. Old operating systems are a hacker's best friend.
  • Reply 12 of 29
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 1,939member
    Microsoft windows strategy is now similar to Google's android like give away OS free so users stay engaged in echo-platform and than make money off applications,advertisements,data mining services like that. Windows 10 on $200M machines because, windows 8.x was crappy so people jumped on win 10 out of frustration, and the new windows machines are sold with win 10, 3rd, microsoft added without user's permission win 10 upgrade icon on previous windows machines to lure them into free upgrade..Last, understand that microsoft provided windows to any PC manufacturers vs Apple to create a large base to start with so $200M is not impressive.
    brakken
  • Reply 13 of 29
    schlackschlack Posts: 688member
    With every $100 tablet/phone/netbook running Windows 10 it's going to have massive numbers...whereas you can't get into OS X for less than $600...and the most likely entry point is more than $1,000.
    magman1979
  • Reply 14 of 29
    @sog35 - Your "copy" and "paste" keys have been taking a hell of a beating recently... you should try the "cut" one more often!
    Delete key works too.
    nolamacguy
  • Reply 15 of 29
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 2,310member
    bsimpsen said:
    Microsoft isn't giving away Win 10. It's giving away the first year, after which users will be locked into an annual upgrade cycle... for money.
    I'm kinda curious about this detail too. Having never bought a windoze machine, I'm not sure how this works. So...you buy a generic PC with Win10 installed...then after a year, the updates all stop, and you no longer get security patches, unless you sign up for a subscription? 

    I think there is an analog on the Apple side. I'm not positive, but I think Apple periodically stops supporting certain OSX (and iOS) releases as well. e.g. someone exploits something in OSX 10.6.8 (the last update) I don't think Apple would be pushing a 10.6.9 update. Their policy would be "buy a new mac that supports El Cap so you're up to date. And oh there's a migration assistant allowing you to set up in a snap, and we'll recycle your old machine for free."
    cornchip
  • Reply 16 of 29
    applejeff said:
    sog35 said:
    Its pathetic that the Microsoft CEO is able to twist numbers like this and receive Wall Street praise. This is despite Microsoft having a horrible product in Windows and having virtually no foothold in mobile.

    The Microsoft CEO who came on board in April 2014 has increased the stock price 55% despite showing revenue and profit declines.

    While Tim Cook has allowed Wall Street bullshiters to overtake the stock and showed the first annual stock price decline since 2008. 

    Its a fucking joke that the Microsoft CEO can show stock gains with a total crap product like Windows while the Apple CEO can't even show stock gains while selling the most lucritive product in the history of man.

    Under Steve Jobs Apple's PE was an average 20.
    Since Cook has taken over the PE average is 12.  And now its close to 10.
    If Apple was valued like a mediocre company (like Chlorox) it would be worth close to a TRILLION. 
    This falls 100% on Cook because:

    1. He allows Wall Street liars to continue to spew absolute BULLSHIT about the company
    2. He constantly posts awesome earnings and then post weak as shit guidance for the next quarter
    3. He wastes his time on issues that shareholders don't give a shit about: gay rights, kid's coding, and tax evasion.  Yet he spends no time articulating the vision of the company. He spends no time trying to convence investors that Apple is much more than just iPhone Inc.

    4. He has dragged his feet to many times. Constantly reacting instead of being proactive.  He was late in bringing out a large iPhone. He was late in releasing a legit music streaming service. He is dragging his feet again regarding closing a live TV deal. Dragging his feet in releasing a new iPadAir and updated Macbooks. Dragging his feet with sticking to 16GB phones.
    The price of Apple stock would obviously be important to you if you wanted to sell but not so much if you wanted to buy or hold the stock. If you plan to hold the stock, aren’t you better off with a CEO that is focussed on profitability and growing the business rather than a CEO that has one eye on the stock price?
    I'm a fan of this notion. I dislike mixing interests and investments; the two rarely go hand in hand. It's nice when they do, but all too often what would make an investment more valuable isn't what I'm personally interested in with a company.
    cornchip
  • Reply 17 of 29
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,078member
    I couldn't stand Window 8/8.1 and so refused to install it on my own custom built Desktop PC at home and kept running Windows 7 Pro.  It just sucked on so many levels and the whole Start Menu thing was just one of many issues.  But I kept a open mind and went out and got a cheap Winbook TW700 Windows 8.1 tablet.  It's 7" and only 16 gig's.  It sucked WORSE.  The Metro interface is not bad, but it's been you're booted out of that onto the normal Windows Desktop and trying to use the file system on a 7" screen making it almost impossible.  It had a number of things they just made it BAD.    If for example I didn't go into settings and then power it down and instead just push the power button to turn it off, it would drain the battery down to nothing in no time flat.  

    I was able to Upgrade it to Windows 10 wiping it completely clean to do it.  It's  much better now then before and takes up less space.  I still rarely use it and instead just use my iPad 3 which is really SSLLLLOOOOOWWW with iOS9 on it!!!   I have the free Windows 10 on my Desktop now and it's not BAD, but I'm having issues with my mouse pointer at times being really  SSLLLOOW and the CPU is not working hard. It's a High end PC with 32 gig's of ram and GIG's and gig's of stroage space.  I havn't figured out what is going on with the mouse.  I didn't have this problem with Windows 7.

    Microsoft is not going Windows away for FREE like Apple gives away iOS or Mac OSX.   It's FREE for a year on a Windows 7 or 8 PC you already paid for.  If you buy a new PC, you're still paying for Windows that's part of the PC price unless you buy a Surface, this own hardware.

    What I thought was really lame of MS more then anything is naming it Windows 10!!  Also being forever Windows 10, a Exact Copy of Apple and Mac OSX and it's forever X OS.   Microsoft could  have called it ANYTHING.  Call it Windows FOREVER for all I care.  Microsoft in the past has used NAME's like Vista.  It literally could have been called anything, but instead they skipped Windows 9, and just direct copied Apple with Windows 10.  It's really pretty lame.

    I'm a long time Windows user, since Windows 95.  There's to much the a Mac can't do for me at this time.  Windows 8 almost drove me to a Mac though.  Even being a Windows user, I still have my iPhone 6, iPad 3, 3 Apple TV 3's, a Apple TV4, and a Apple Watch, which I really like!!!!    I'm still going to call it how I see it, no matter if it's MS, Apple, Samesung  or someone else.  I plan to get a iPhone 7 maybe a 7 Plus and see what the Apple Watch 2 ends up being and if it's worth a upgrade or not.  

    MS only reason to giving away Windows 10 is because most users would not PAY to upgrade the OS on their computer.  They'd just get it buying a new Computer.  MS wants Windows 10 on as much stuff as possible to try and get Universal App's to take off, which would get more App's for their Windows phone and help expand that market.  Will it work?  Slim chance at best.   I'd buy a Windows phone with the right hardware and the App's I needed, but I just don't ever see that happening.  



    cornchipigroucho
  • Reply 18 of 29
    Yup, I have it on my 17" Macbook Pro, and also have 8.1, but only use them rarely. Microsoft still gets to count them, of course. I use them to test web pages in Edge and IE, so I can suggest to PC complainers how much software to download to bring their "Internet ready" PC's up to current Internet standards. That said, I find Edge a MAJOR improvement that is finally moving away from Balmer's "own-the-Internet" strategy of the 90's. I still worry about Cortana and her rampancy issue, though…
  • Reply 19 of 29
    sog35 said:
    tele1234 said:
    I'm a fan of this notion. I dislike mixing interests and investments; the two rarely go hand in hand. It's nice when they do, but all too often what would make an investment more valuable isn't what I'm personally interested in with a company.
    except with a weak stock price you lose talent. Most of the top executives get 90% of their compensation from stock plans.

    With a weak stock price you also get a ton of bad press such as:

    Apple is doomed.
    Tim Cook should be fired.
    Apple is no longer innovative.

    Like it or not any CEO of a public company needs to manage and protect the stock price.

    I don't understand the logic you're applying here. As an investor, what interest do you have in Apple retaining talent, reputation or innovation? Look how much bad press and hate the likes of the Pharma of Insurance industries get; they're some of my best performing stocks and some of the best performing stocks overall.

    If you think those three things, why would you hang onto the stock and not just panic sell?

    Apple is, to me (and I'm sure millions more) a very stable, healthy stock. They've already got more than a half-trillion market cap, they're realistically not going to do a huge percentage more because the economy literally wouldn't support them making massive gains. Yes, I know there's been bigger companies in history but you have to compare the existing market cap with the limitations of what a market cap can be. I personally think $150 is a reasonable estimation on value which is why I'm hanging onto it; once the economy improves itself a little (yes, I'm optimistic about it) I can see Apple's stock being one of the fastest climbing back up. I doubt I'll be short term, but I care little for that - I'm thinking in a decade or so.

    Look at the list of market caps: we have Apple, a seller of luxury goods. Microsoft, a business software provider and Google, a data collection/advertising agency. The rest of the list is a scattering of Mobile service providers, petrochemical consortia, retail outlets, banks, insurance companies and the likes. Do you think any of these companies are 'liked' for their products? No, they're money making enterprises with CEOs that protect the stock price by screwing over their customers just to make money. Apple is one of the very few companies out there that is both profitable and actually seems to give a damn about customers.

    Apple's money-spinning is a product of locking people into a dependent ecosystem and keeping huge profit margins, and it works. I'd say Cook has done a fantastic job of protecting this and the stock price. I know we've seen the stock fall from 130-highs (pre-split) of 2010, but it's still the largest market cap out there.
    cornchip
  • Reply 20 of 29
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    sog35 said:
    tele1234 said:
    I'm a fan of this notion. I dislike mixing interests and investments; the two rarely go hand in hand. It's nice when they do, but all too often what would make an investment more valuable isn't what I'm personally interested in with a company.
    except with a weak stock price you lose talent. Most of the top executives get 90% of their compensation from stock plans.

    With a weak stock price you also get a ton of bad press such as:

    Apple is doomed.
    Tim Cook should be fired.
    Apple is no longer innovative.

    Like it or not any CEO of a public company needs to manage and protect the stock price.
    im not aware of Apple having a problem attracting talent or an inability to grant stocks to executives.

    also -- what happened to your ban? you already said goodbye in December...yet here you are?
Sign In or Register to comment.