The Mac's market share is not 7.57 percent, sorry

I love the way the Mac enthusiast world works: It's a fantasy land where only positive news is acceptable, and the more fanciful the better. The most obvious example is market share, where Apple has done a commendable job over the past few years of inching higher and higher against an entrenched PC market. But that's not good enough for the Apple freaks, obviously. Instead, they need to believe that the Mac's market share is twice what it really is. What's humorous about this, of course, is that the same people who wonder why I focus on market share so much (Answer: You can actually measure it, so it's interesting) are the same who will tout baloney market share statistics themselves.

Anyway. As I demonstrated recently, the Mac's market share in Q4 2007 was 3.1 percent. For all of 2007, it was 2.9 percent. These represent real world improvements year over year, as you'd expect, given Apple's recent sales successes: In 2006, the Mac controlled 2.4 percent of the market. In 2005, it was 2.3 percent. It's hard to grow more quickly than that, as I've explained again and again on my previous Nexus blog. But they are growing. No doubt about it.

And then there's baloney like this: Net Applications, which measures people browsing the Web online, claims that Apple's Mac had 7.57 percent market share in January 2008. And needless to say, the Mac fanatics (you know, the real freaks) jumped all over this number. After all, 7.57 is way higher than 3.1. Way higher. It must be true. (Oddly, these guys never reported my own more realistic numbers, which are based on actual PC sales. Huh.)

But what is Net Applications measuring exactly? Could they possibly be measuring "market share"--which, by the way, is defined as unit sales in a given period, typically quarterly or yearly? No, they're measuring usage share. This is the percentage of people actually using a particular product in a given time period. It's much harder to measure in some markets (PCs) and much easier to measure in others (Web browsers) for reasons that I hope are obvious. Net Applications is not measuring market share, though they use language that insists they are: "This report lists the market share of the top operating systems in use for browsing," the company writes. In other words, they're measuring usage share. You can't obtain sales data by parsing Web site hits. You can, however, measure usage share. For browsers.

Another question one might logically ask is, "where are these users coming from?" While we know, for example, that Apple's market share is higher in rich countries like the United States, it's much lower elsewhere, which explains why their overall market share--i.e. "worldwide market share"--is much lower than it is, say, in the US. (My guess is that Apple's US market share is about double their worldwide figure, but there's no way to accurately measure that because Apple doesn't release US-only sales figures.) Net Applications has a "Geo Filter" tool that lets you specify by-country statistics, but it costs $99 a month. Anyone care to guess how close the US figures are to the worldwide figures?

In short, the Mac does not have 7.57 percent market share, sorry. But that's because I'm being realistic and not seeing the world through Apple-colored glasses. The realistic view is that Apple is doing absolutely wonderfully in the PC market and growing year over a year at a rate that greatly surpasses most (all?) PC companies. As long as they do this, they will continue to grow their market share. Maybe they'll even hit 7.57 percent some day. The funny thing is, I hope they do: A strong Apple is the best thing that could ever happen to the PC market.

Discuss this Article 38

DRWAM
on Feb 3, 2008
Paul [and others], these figures can show trends, but that's about it. There is no 'conversion factor' for actual number of computers or even market share. That is because not all PC's ar used for browsing the WWW. Quite a few are blocked [security and other reasons]. We now that market shares are up by virtue of known computer sales, but Net App numbers do not directly relate to market shares, for 'obvious reasons'. Again, since there is no definable proportion, you can show a trend in the specifc catagory defined, which is web browsing. Yes it has meaning, which we already knew, but no, it cannot give an accurate number/ratio for user base. I too am glad that Apple is doing well, especially since I own one [for future support, software and parts], but it would be difficult to reliably calculate the user base of Windows to Mac OS in practically any type of study. That's why I just don't believe any published 'assumption'. There is just too much room for error. My company has plenty of PC's that are blocked from the WWW, as I am sure that other businesses have as well.
cesjr
on Feb 3, 2008
"I love the way the Mac enthusiast world works: It's a fantasy land where only positive news is acceptable" That's complete BS, Paul. Mac enthusiasts report the bad news and criticize Apple all the time. So stop lying about this. Also, the marketshare figures are simply flawed. That's why people are looking at other metrics like browser us. We all know what the issue with the market share numbers is - they include sales of PCs for corporate use (you know, stuck in some cubicle or running as a cash register). Apple doesn't sell in that market. So the PC market share numbers are like looking at the market share of Volvos combined with Mack trucks. It's simply a crude tool that doesn't work very well to explain how well apple is doing (or not doing) in the market segments it actually sells into.
clindhartsen
on Feb 3, 2008
cesjr, really, the apple nuts report the bad news of Apple? What world do you live in? It's commonly always some "second coming of Christ" garbage we hear out of quite a few of them, screaming how sales are up and that Apple will take over the world , blah blah blah. Apple still doesn't account for much, odd figures like this don't help in gaining a true understanding, and most of Apples sales could be Apple people upgrading since their older lines are aging at this point.
DRWAM
on Feb 3, 2008
I once saw figures of 'new' Mac owners, but have not seen them in a while, or have not looked, since I don't really care about them. But there may be some interesting numbers. What I do know is that there are 8 new Mac owners in my group of 27 doctors. There are two old ones as well. But still, all but two of us run Windows on their new Mac as well. Vista and XP, both. I am curiuos to see how fast Vista runs on my Pro Tower, and geek it up a little as well by test driving. It sure did look interesting on the new Dell XPS 410 that I setup for a friend. Also, Office 2007 is kinda cool...from and average user perspective, of course.:)
lilserenity
on Feb 3, 2008
FWIW, I help run 11 big websites that regularly attract between them about 50,000 page views a week, maybe more in busy periods. This is in the UK and Mac OS X market share on a worldwide basis (per operating system) of these sites visited was 2.5%. I'm not making this up and I used to be a Mac user. I'm not trying to say somehow Apple is bad because of this. But it's a figure that for the whole of 2007 that isn't 7.57%. In the same period, Windows XP was 83.2%, Windows Vista 4.2% and Windows 2000 was 6.8%. Linux was 0.2%. I use Windows 2000 and XP on the desktop and Xubuntu on my notebook. In the first month of 2008, worldwide we took the following: Windows XP - 77.1% Windows Vista - 13.6% Mac OS X - 4% Windows 2000 - 1.9% Linux - 0.4% Is the Mac on the up? Certainly. What this does confirm is that Vista usage has grown massively mostly at the expense of Windows XP and I am guessing Windows 2000 even (old home PCs and notebooks being retired rather than corporate migrations I would guess.) Conclusions? I'm still using Windows 2000 and XP on the desktop and Xubuntu on my ThinkPad T40. :) But the Mac's usage share does seem to have grown on the websites I manage in Jan 2008. Vista has tripled over 2007 as a whole in Jan 2008.
weedmonk
on Feb 3, 2008
The Macboi onslaught on this one should be spectacular. No matter how they cut it....Apple is a fart in the wind in the scheme of things.
subzerohitman721
on Feb 3, 2008
Apple's best bet is to just leave the computer business and leave the OS making to the professionals. Every year we hear from Apple fans the same old crap. The new Mac, the new OS-X, the new Macbook..... blah, blah, blah, blah.... The only dent that Apple is making is Linux-based OSes and other non Microsoft Windows OSes. Apple wants to be a consumer electronics company. Finish the transition and move on. Make iPods and iPhones that the majority of their customers buy... Their base - Windows users. Not the 3% world wide Fan boys.
johnpapola
on Feb 3, 2008
Paul is right about the definition of market share and the fact that these Net stats reflect usage share. I have two comments. #1. This post could have been one sentence explaining the terminology difference. Instead, it is a bitter ranting screed in which Paul calls out users as "freaks" more than once. Is it just me, or is Paul becoming more unhinged with every post? Posts like these are just obnoxious. #2. While Paul seems to at last acknowledge the market-share vs. usage-share difference... he fails to point out that usage share is actually dramatically more important than market share. Usage share is what software and web developers look to when determining the viability of a platform. So the fact that mac users are repeating these numbers is understandable, even if they're getting their terminology wrong. And I think it's fair to say that calling people "freaks" for misusing market terminology is pretty ludicrous, obviously. Go to that link by the "freaks" that "jumped all over" the net stats and you'll find a commentary free, dry recounting of the numbers. No rah rah rah. Nothing at all to constitute the over-the-top name calling in the body of the post. And for those of you calling for Apple to leave the computer business... are you nuts. Even if you cut Apple's market cap in HALF (leaving it just to their mac business), it's still 30% more than Dell's. Only morons wish away choice from the market. As paul rightfully points out, a healthy Mac market is the best thing for Windows users as it keeps MS on it's toes.
pthurrott
on Feb 3, 2008
I like the notion that I'm becoming "unhinged," BTW. That's good stuff. It's a nice way of making what I say sound pointless because, after all, I'm nuts. Seriously, bravo. But on to the debatable points made here. Regarding usage share: it would be more important than market share, in the PC market, if we could actually measure it accurately. But we can't. I focus on market share because it's measurable, and accurate. But hey, I'm unhinged. My comment about "freaks" stands and was made purposefully. There are Mac fans and then there are freaks. Ignoring this vocal minority is difficult, but I'm trying to call out the crazies here, not mischaracterize the entire Mac user base. Clearly most Mac users are quite normal. They're just not the vocal ones. BTW. The instigator for this post? A friend who heard, somehow, somewhere, that the Mac had "about 8 percent market share now." She was quite impressed with that. What bugged me about this comment was that she's not into computers at all. I should have asked how this tidbit came into her consciousness, but this speaks to how untruths are easily propagated to mainstream people. Finally, let's not lose sight of the actual trends here: The Mac is gaining market share on a regular basis. There is no reason to believe this will stop any time soon, though I suppose there is evidence to suggest that it can plateau at some point. No matter: Even at 3 percent worldwide, the Mac market is very, very healthy. Again, another metric that's hard to measure, but it's important too. Paul
johnpapola
on Feb 3, 2008
Paul, Thanks for replying. By "unhinged", I mean that since you've moved your blogging to this site, your criticism of mac users has become much harsher and less focused. This post clearly seems to call Jason O'Grady & David Morgenstern at ZDNet "freaks" for a post that is a basic recounting of the netstats. I find that over-the-top since the only thing they did was use the wrong term. There are sites out there that maniacally defend Apple in a zealous way, but this one isn't even close to earning the "freak" insult. My crucial criticism of your market share posts remains pretty simple. You are so "interested" solely in worldwide market share because it is "measurable"... yet you remain absolutely uninterested in the meaning or context of these numbers or any other metrics. How is that interesting? It's meaningless numbers unless you give it meaning with context. Unless you break it down into market segments that matter to developers or customers. Again, for example, since I work in TV, the Mac's 70%+ marketshare in creative production makes it highly relevant to our work and completely negates the worldwide number for us and the developers targeting us. I'm forced to one of two conclusions: #1. You ultimately are trying to marginalize the Mac platform by focusing on Worldwide share since it is the smallest number of all the useful stats (and it's the least useful since it's not targeted at all). #2. You really have some kind of rain-man-like obsession with this number and calculating it, yet don't care at all about what it means (beyond the simplistic trend line). Which one is it? Is there a third option? Are you seriously going to answer this question, again, with "I just like market share"??
reunson
on Feb 3, 2008
I'm a long time Mac user and never really used Windows. Recently after buying an Intel Mac, I bought Windows XP Pro. In doing so haven't I just increased the Windows market /usage share by a very small amount? Even though I only occasionally use it. How many Mac owners have done the same? Does this keep the market share of Windows artificially high by a small amount and the Mac OS X lower? Now given that Windows market/usage share has decreased by fractions of a percentage, and what if all Intel Mac owners removed Windows then wouldn't the OS X market/usage share be suddenly higher?
cesjr
on Feb 4, 2008
"Regarding usage share: it would be more important than market share, in the PC market, if we could actually measure it accurately. But we can't. I focus on market share because it's measurable, and accurate." And has the flaw of lumping sales into different segments together (consumer and corporate). Net usage share is not perfect. Market share based on sales is not perfect. NONE OF THIS data is perfect. That's why you look at multiple metrics and keep the context in mind. "BTW. The instigator for this post? A friend who heard, somehow, somewhere, that the Mac had "about 8 percent market share now." She was quite impressed with that. " But then of course you have no problem with similar people hearing about the mac's teeny tiny worldwide market share and thinking "why would anyone want a mac"? Because that's what those statistics suggest, to most people. In reality, either statistic - net usage or worldwide sales market share - is going to be misunderstood by this type of user. But the impression left by the net usage number - that the mac is a viable (although minority) choice - is actually the more accurate one. Paul - You seem to prefer the data that leaves the less accurate impression with average users. Why is that?
johnpapola
on Feb 4, 2008
cesjr, I absolutely agree. What people care about is "can this computer do what I need". For them, the only share metric that matters is "what percentage of people with my needs are well served by this computer". That would break down to market-segment usage share. So, if consumers interested in digital media are 20% on Macs (which I think may be close), that makes the platform highly viable for that user/market. But again, Paul isn't interested in useful analysis on these numbers. He "just likes market-share". Yeah, definitely worldwide share, definitely worldwide share.
ibarskiy
on Feb 4, 2008
The morons at ZDNet are clearly Freaks like Paul identified, just look at "why does MBA make so many so dumb." That was posted while pretty much everybody, even your usual Apple fans were questioning a number of design decisions that went into it. And, frankly, that whole article was a little on the crazy side, with what seemed to be impressions of an excited teenager on how the (business) world runs. By the way, cesjr, why should we exclude business sales from the equation? Apple doesn't sell there not because they don't want to, but because they can't. And to somebody who asked me to point out clear lies in the Mac vs. PC commercials, how about the statement that "Macs are better and faster than Vista?" It starts out as a quote (and a dumb one, no one can really make any unequivocal statements like that), and then becomes an absolute statement by the end of the commercial... Mac users, for whatever reason, are 99% fanboys.
daveinla
on Feb 4, 2008
"Apple doesn't sell there not because they don't want to, but because they can't." Actually it's both, they can't penetrate the corporate market and anyway they don't want to, because it's the less lucrative one !! They prefer to focus on vertical markets by offering solution like they SAN for digital video production along their Xserves. They don't sell a lot but make big $ on that. They make big $ on personal computers and make perfect vertical solution for them with iLife, the iPod, iTunes and the Apple TV. Apple doesn't give a damn about the base workstation in the standard office. I have to agree with posts up there, again that stupid obsession with worldwide market share from which you can actually make NO conclusion AT ALL... Simply because Apple doesn't cater to corporate computers, because the average Mac user keeps his Mac 2 times longer before buying a new one VS. PC user, and lastly because the Mac is not available to the vast majority of emerging countries. Even the Net usage, which is the most accurate metrics of the % of user base in any given country is skewed towards PC. Why ? because I'm a Mac user but everyday I surf the web just like right now on a Win PC. 90% of workers browse the web daily on their corporate PCs... including me... But I'm a Mac user ! So to clarify that simple arithmetic, when the Mac has a 7% usage share in a certain slice of time, in that very same slice of time the Mac will actually have a 3.5% sale share because these Mac users keep their Macs 2 times longer... It's simple mathematics... There you go, you have you 2 numbers and the explanation in between ! It should dispel any of your headaches it seems to be giving you as you seem to struggle understanding the origin of that descrepancy. And that is not dramatization, it's a well-known and documented fact that the average life of a Mac is twice that of a PC. A 4 yr. old Mac will still be a screamer with Leopard... And lastly, only Win. zealots seem to be obsessed with these numbers. The average Mac user doesn't give a damn about these numbers and are actually happy to be that way. It good to be the underdog that kicks ass an remain under the radar ! And please Paul do us a favor, next time just mention the number if it pleases you but that's it. Spare us the stupid analysis and comments along...
joe-dokes
on Feb 4, 2008
Numbers, Numbers, Numbers. Why net usage matters. Let's say you are a software developer. You are considering developing for the Mac OS. The worldwide market share numbers might lead you to conclusions like those of weedmonk "a fart in the wind." or subzerohitman721 who argues that, "Apple's best bet is to just leave the computer business and leave the OS making to the professionals. " Yet those numbers fail to represent the true potential for Mac Software Development. If you don't factor in installed base, US vs world market share, dumb terminals vs actual Personal Computers, you fail to understand the true market for Mac software. To put this in perspective, MS makes about 20% of its office profits from Office for the Mac. That number is much larger than the 3% world market share would suggest. Thus, Weedmonk and Subzero if you are willing to reduce MS Office Profits by 20% than perhaps you are correct Apple is nothing. Considering Office is about 40% of MS profits of 16 Billion last quarter that would be 1.28 Billion Dollars in PROFIT just from Office for the Mac. If that is a fart in the wind let me get a whiff of THAT. Paul who likes to focus on "facts" leaves out little facts like this when discussing mac market share. It is this and that fact that he fails to even acknowledge the problem with world PC shipments, that infuriates mac users. Regards Joe Dokes
johnpapola
on Feb 4, 2008
First of all, to call all mac users lunatic fanboys is bigoted and ignorant. Most mac users don't know or care about any of this discussion, as is the case with most PC users. They are normal consumers that go into an Apple store, see a computer they like, are open to the fact it's OS is different, and buy it. They do happen to enjoy that purchase FAR more than the people that buy a PC as every customer satisfaction survey ever done concludes. So, in that sense, they are more of a "fan" of their computer than the average PC user... which is to say... they ACTUALLY LIKE their computer instead of simply TOLERATING it as most PC users do (or being frustrated by it as apparently most Vista users are). And who can blame PC users for being frustrated, given the adware garbage is legacy nonsense that saddles most PCs on the shelves. PS2 ports? Seriously? VGA-only in 2007? Are you kidding? I see more zealotry and loony fanboy behavior in the mac-bashing comments here (and elsewhere on the web) than anything Paul is pointing to. Paul seems to think that PC users can't ignore Apple and have a justification for being so negative toward them... He's wrong and so are all the mac-bashing Windows zealots. If you don't like the Mac or iPod, don't buy them. That's it. There's no rational justification for seeking out a minority platform and being frustrated by it's existence or it's marketing. And even though the iPod is ubiquitous, that sure doesn't prevent the functioning of any of the alternatives. Hating Apple is the hallmark of nerd zealotry. As for corporate sales and their uselessness.... it's pretty simple. #1. Corporate desktops are locked down tight and most strictly running Office and a perhaps some internal applications. THEY'RE NOT A VIABLE MARKET FOR MOST THIRD PARTY DEVELOPERS. Third party software for corporate desktops is a tiny niche that is fundamentally irrelevant to the consumer. #2. Most corporate niche software is now moving to the web browser, which makes the platform concern even less relevant. Corporate desktops are increasingly just thin-client deadboxes. As we move more and more of our productive computing to web apps, the Mac will become MORE popular, since it excels and has strong brand recognition for what web-apps can't do: rich content creation. People think Macs are for media, and that will serve them very well as media creation continues to become the main reason for a powerful home computer. Need to read email and browse the web? Anything will work? Also, want to manage your home movies, photos and personal media? Get a mac. Even Paul will be the first to tell you that iLife has no equal in the Windows world. None. And Apple's pro apps are even more amazing. Market share is about ecosystem support and platform viability. On both fronts, the mac is FAR more healthy than these misleading worldwide numbers suggest. One more thing... Did you know that Mac software accounts for over 15% of commercial software sales? Kinda drives the final stake in the heart of this market-share number's relevance, doesn't it?
daveinla
on Feb 4, 2008
Actually I'm wrong, the only thing you can deduct from this number as Doc pointed out is trend. You can say their market share is increasing and that's it. All the rest is diluted in a mixed bag of corporate, first-time user, old user, US, other countries...
daveinla
on Feb 4, 2008
"One more thing..." Is it you Steve writing !!! ;-P just kidding.
Los Havros
on Feb 4, 2008
A certain Star Wars quote springs to mind: "I've never seen so much loyalty in a droid before." A perfect analogy for the Mac fanatics. Just step back a sec and think very carefully- you're arguing over the market share of an OS. Just think about it. Pretty sad, yes? I thought so. I happen to run a Vista machine and a couple of XP machines. I'm thinking of getting a Mac at some point in the future for web development, but I prefer using Windows as a gaming platform. I have balanced, rational opinions; pity there are these people out there who love argument and confrontation.
sttevo
on Feb 5, 2008
Wow I love seeing fanboys stir. I sometimes wonder what makes them tick and react the way they do. I can't believe anyone would ever, EVER look at Internet usage as a metric for market share in the first place. Looking at sales figures for any given time period is the only way to get a decent feel for that period, but overall I don't think there would be any possible way to measure realistically. Macheads don't you go plug in your funky little earplugs and listen to your music, open your unpractical thin little computers and sit in your cool little coffee shop and read about the iPhone... and watch the world go by... running on Windows ;) PS. I use Apple (4 of them), and all running Windows Vista and XP.
daveinla
on Feb 5, 2008
Yet another bitter insulting win zealot... ahhhh so long for the quality of the talk on this blog ! "I use Apple (4 of them), and all running Windows Vista and XP." So you must be pretty masochistic to use such an unpractically thin computer along with a funky white colored mp3 player !! ;-)
ibarskiy
on Feb 5, 2008
john, just denying that you are a fanboy with the amount of foam in your mouth evident in your last post exposes you as one. If you really weren't, "I am not a fanboy" would have been just fine. Who's hating Apple or iPods? I don't see anybody doing so. People do dislike Mac fans make the most ridiculous statements contradicting facts or at least opinions of the majority. (like ZDNet post I referred to earlier, etc). Or how about a handful of Apple faithful posting here showing up in the Vista works fine blog to dispute the validity of the statement or otherwise minimize its significance. Jesus. Give me an effing break.
johnpapola
on Feb 5, 2008
ibarskiy, Look who's foaming at the "effing" mouth. So what you're saying is because I am actually willing to engage in a real debate with actual critical thinking, that makes me a "fanboy"? I don't deny that I'm a geek that really likes Apple's products and their overall design philosophy. But come on. We all know what a "fanboy" is. It's a rabid partisan that only sees the good in his side and only the bad in the other sides. Having an opinion alone does not make me or anyone else a "fanboy". If I disagree with the core logic and the tone and connotation of a post, and layout my rebuttal dispassionately... according to you, I'm a fanboy. But you and others like you make sweeping generalizations about tens of millions of people and wish away competition and diversity from the marketplace like pro-monopoly fascists and that's just fine? Here's a few of the ridiculous windows fanboy statements right from this comments thread: "Apple's best bet is to just leave the computer business and leave the OS making to the professionals." - subzero "Mac users, for whatever reason, are 99% fanboys." - that's you, mr. bigot. I think most shareholders (and users) are happy that subzero doesn't have a roll in Apple's strategy, given the billions in profits coming from selling millions of Macs. Most windows users should be happy too, since OS competition is healthy for the market. Notice that in none of my posts have I bashed anything or anyone personally. I've made no, ignorant, unsubstantiated generalizations about millions of users... as you have about mac users. I'm not so arrogant and ignorant as to claim anything about "all windows users" or "all windows fans". Apple-bashing Windows fanboys are another matter... Why is it that the Windows fanboys seem to swarm any article or post about Apple on the net while Apple fanboys seem to general stay in the world of the platform they use and defend it? Why do you care so much about a platform you obviously don't use? I could frankly care less about Linux, and yet I know there are a ton of linux fanboys out there that think OSX sucks and that OSS is the only way. Do I waste my time in forums about Linux? no. Because I don't use it. Their existence has no impact on me in any way. Apple's existence has no negative impact on the windows world or windows users in any way, shape, or form. If you choose to be insulted or affected by the Mac community, that means you're seeking them out... which points to a kind of unhealthy and irrational obsession. I don't know why windows fanboys are so obsessed with a platform they claim is irrelevant, but you seem to continue that fine tradition. Paul, I believe, wants Apple to succeed for the health of the market. But, so long as Paul continues to blog about Apple, Apple users and fans like myself are going to read the articles and comment, rightfully. If you Apple-bashers want to get off on trashing our "irrelevant" platform... be my guest. It just makes you look stupid. But hey. Look at me. I posted another long comment. I guess that makes me a fanboy.
poothedrew
on Feb 5, 2008
As someone who has done development, consulting and computer sales for 18 years the comment freak is quite accurate. Its just an observation not an insult. The freaks are the ones that don’t believe in the reality distortion field they live in it. They believe IN Mac guy in the adds. Not all or even a majority of Mac people are freaks but the platform seems to attract them much akin to the Linux guys who dress like Tron. Yes I’m a judgmental jerk but hey that’s me, and I’M WERKEN ON IT ..K!  I think what is really being lost in the mud is; statistics like usage data are important but in this world of headlines it’s is being misrepresented as market data. That is intentional perversion of the truth designed to mislead people and as Paul pointed out it has. Regardless of the importance of the statistics we have to be mindful of how they are framed like “Mac OS X Hits Record Marketshare, Continues to Chip at Windows Lead” is misleading. Market data is market data, a market is where you BUY things see how people could get wrong impression here? When people see the word(s) market share they think they are talking about sales data. Perhaps more people surf the web on Mac because PC people actually have games they can play. Validity of the data is not in question it’s presentation should not jaundice the reader into thinking that it’s measuring something else. Personally, there is not lot Paul says that I don’t agree with and in the 8 or so years (probably more) that I have been following his work I have found that he promotes Mac’ much more than the majority of Windows writers and users do because he actually uses them and if he is coming unhinged I have lost the whole door.
daveinla
on Feb 5, 2008
Great post John. And yes it's always like that on this forum. We dual Mac-Win users and geek heads try to expose our point of view when we disagree with Paul's analysis of the things (or simplistic conclusions) without insulting anyone, and who comes with the "freaks" and "fanboys" moniker here ? Is it that hard to tolerate people who think that alternative platform are worthy and who are willing to express their point of view here ? I think Paul should start moderating more strictly the content of the post and Ban guys like weedmonk or stevo that constantly insult people other here and bring nothing constructive to the website.
ibarskiy
on Feb 5, 2008
john, it is not the length of your reply that prompted my foam at the mouth reply, it's the fact that your post was full of capitalized sentences that is generally interpreted as yelling. I didn't see anyone else yelling. How come you can take what other people say and turn it inside out? Nor would I say that Apple has to exit the PC market. But I do believe that their closed ecosystem model is a bad thing and something that really worked to their detriment historically. Jobs is a control freak, and that's an unequivocally bad thing. And again, the biggest problem with Apple fans is that they distort and misinterpret facts, or at the very least trumpet every bit of positive news while finding excuses for negative news. There is no objectivity in sight. For example (beyond the ones on these boards), one of my Apple-fan friends justifies his affinity to Apple with "Apple is awesome" argument (that's a literal quote), meanwhile using it to produce office documents. I'm sorry, while iLife and media-related apps are, indeed, good on Apple (although there's growing dissatisfaction with how bloated iTunes has become), office productivity on Windows is much, much superior. So yes, Apple users a lot of times use Apple for the sake of using Apple. And they are definitely ready to bash anything else. It's funny; there's no "Vista is better than Apple OS" commercial (although they could make several feature-based commercials like that), while Apple retorts to negative advertising-like campaigns. So, again, how is it fair and balanced and not fanboyish? And by the way, since it was you, I think, who called me out when I said that Apple uses lies in their commercials to attract uninformed customers, will you please admit that the "Mac is faster and better than Vista" commercial is perpetuating a lie? In the interest of fairness and balace. If you're not a fanboy, that shouldn't be a problem. Please prove me wrong.
johnpapola
on Feb 5, 2008
poothedrew, So which do you think is more important to joe consumer? The fact that Apple last year accounted 3% of all computer sold for all purposes. Or the fact that Apple represents 20% of the sales of Microsoft Office, the most important application suite in which most people do most of their work? Which of those two numbers, have more meaningful impact on a consumer or a software developer? This remains our core criticism. Paul continually holds up Worldwide share as this holier-than-holy mark of statistical purity and light, and lambasts all those who don't bow down before it. But the reality is that it's the least representative of the value proposition for the Mac platform. This isn't loony fanboy speak. It's really reasonable logic. This whole question regarding the term "market share" and it's willful misuse is just a red herring. What this all boils down to is an effort by Paul to promote his favorite numbers over the use of other more meaningful, if less precise, stats. He's obsessed for some reason. In many industries outside of media players/computers/game systems, usage share is meaningless and market share dominates the discussion. Cars and Colas are a great example. Computers, media players and game consoles are unique because their user base share has an enormous impact of the market for software and services, which has a network effect in reinforcing the viability and desirability of the platform.
sttevo
on Feb 6, 2008
daveinla: Ok sorry to all of the fanboys. I didn't mean to upset you. I really have trouble seeing why you get so emotional and find it personally amusing. But getting back to my point - which was actually about market share - I do think it would be an impossible task unless for a given period that was only based on sales. I agree with Paul completely on this - because his comments make sense. You could argue black and blue but in this case you'd be wrong wrong wrong - simple :) Also masochistic? I think not. I actually do like Apple hardware. Their minimalistic design is excellent as I hate messy cables and clutter. But I do love watching Apple fanboys erupt.
poothedrew
on Feb 6, 2008
John, I apologise for basing my arguments on the available data rather that what I have gleaned from the burtole rays and crystals. Your training must not be in science as mine is because your arguments are simply not fact based. This is not a slight it is just trying to bring some light into our vastly different world views. I am not saying how people use a product is not important but you can’t ignore the fact Macs are used for a lot of different tasks than PCs. Those differences make using internet usage data next to useless for determining market penetration. Your facts would be useful if both tools where the same but they are not and thankfully so. A Mac would not be useful for me not because I don’t like it or anything like that it’s the nature of how I use computers. (Media Center kills anything on the Mac) Trends and other usage are great facts but in reality any other data than actual sales is not market share data. Based on Paul has actually written I can only accurately come to one conclusion and it is conclusion that a lot come to watching all that is apple. The adds and press releases are misleading plain and simple and I have people all the time coming to me with “Hey Apple has 8% of computer market!” Regardless of that the heart of what really bothers is exactly what I wrote about, funny that.
johnpapola
on Feb 6, 2008
ibarsky, First, thanks for bringing your discourse back to a realm of real debate instead of generalizations. I'm not as sensitive to capitalization as a form of "yelling", I guess, as you are. I was just using it for visual emphasis. To your points: 1. Closed = inherently bad. I would agree that no licensing the OS during the development of the PC industry cost them the dominance they deserved. But that's long-since irrelevant history and no real impact on purchasing decisions today. What we've seen today is that internet standards have provided a cross-platform instruction set that makes you OS less and less important for what most people care about. Also, the PC industry has seen massive consolidation in the software market to the point where there are only three or four major software vendors for general computing and an ocean of tiny niche vendors. Most write applications for both platforms. Office, Quicken, Adobe's suite are all available for OSX. And the wealth of quality small-vendor software on OSX is amazing. Go to versiontracker.com and look for a solution to a problem. It's there. The only area outside of tiny market niches that isn't well served by the software available on OSX is gaming.. and that's become a niche too thanks to the power of the consoles. I own an xbox 360. it works great (aside from the loudness). It cost $299. Why would I want to spend two grand for a gaming PC? Is there more software available for Windows? Of course! But when you see surverys showing that 16% of all commercial software purchases are for the mac, that means the Apple platform has a noteworthy share of the third party software market. My point is simple. For 95% of consumers that aren't interested in the latest games, the Mac is a viable and (in my opinion), preferable platform. If you're interested in creating media, it's the superior platform. 2. Jobs is a control freak and that's bad. Sometimes it's bad, often it's great. I wish the guys that designed the Xbox 360 were as committed to reliable hardware as Jobs, because it's failure rate is class-action-lawsuit worthy. Apple computers are more reliable and have significantly higher user satisfaction than any other computer. Every survey done by PC Magazine and Consumer reports for the past 5 years+ has shown this by a wide margin. Job's control and commitment to quality is in part the reason. Now, sometimes Apple leaves things out that people want, like card readers on the iMac, in favor of sleek design. You can certainly argue the value of the Air's thinness given the ports it lost in the process (no firewire or ethernet sucks). But you don't get great design or great products from a committee. Any creative person knows that great design comes from singular vision. To paraphrase Cordell Ratzlaff of Frog Design... it comes from dictators, not democracies. 3. Us vs. them advertising. Apple is in the position of promoting a product that is an alternative to what 95% of people currently use. OF COURSE they're going to build their campaign around that comparison. Of course they're going to come out and say "OSX is better than Windows"... because Windows users are the people they're looking to convert. Windows doesn't need to do that. The #1 consumer Vista is trying to convert is a user of the previous versions of Windows. Getting offended by this is strange. It's called marketing and Apple just happens to be the best at it. Then again, I do work in promotion for Spike TV, so I'm used to this world. 4. Mac faster lie. I don't remember debating that and it's not in this thread, so you'll have to dig it up for my memory. As for the ad, I believe they were simply quoting from a PC World review, which seems pretty reasonable. I will admit that during the PowerPC era, Apple often made "fastest" claims that only held up during very specific tasks. I'm happy they're on Intel now, and it really eliminates this whole discussion. A Core 2 is a Core 2. I do think at this point that Leopard is less power-hungry then Vista and it obviously is able to deliver it's complete graphical UI on older machines than Vista can, which switches off it's bells and whistles on some fairly recent (and even currently shipping) computers. I've got Leopard running reasonably well on a 1ghz g4 notebook. All that said, I think Vista seems like a good Windows release. I'm not sure why so many users seem to hate it. I guess allot of Windows users are just really adverse to change (hence the dislike of the mac).
johnpapola
on Feb 6, 2008
Poothedrew, Boy, talk about condescending. Since when does one need to be trained "in science" to be capable of analyzing statistics and market data? I don't believe Paul is. I spend two years in computer science at Penn State, before switching to film production, if that helps you out, and happened to be reasonably good at logic, statistics and calc. I like math and physics. Does that qualify enough for you? As for your scatter-shot half-arguments... Some macs are user for different things than other macs. Some macs are used for different things than PCs. Some PCs are used for different things than other PCs. A point-of-sale desktop PC has no relation in it's use to a hardcore gaming rig. A locked-down tablet PC used in the field for someone in pharmaceutical sales has no relation to a laptop used for on-site pro photography. And again, a corporate desktop that only will ever run office has no relation to a home computer meant to manage someone's personal media collection. Computers are general purpose devices. Their use breaks them down into specific market segments. Within those segments, the market share (quarterly sales) sold to those users and the installed base share vary wildly. If someone working on wall street uses a Windows PC at their trading desk running some sophisticated, proprietary stock trading application, that doesn't mean that a Mac won't serve their use at home. I know stock brokers with Macs. They use them for the same thing they'd be using a PC: browsing the internet, managing their music and videos with their iPod, email, chat, quicken, etc. Now, that locked down machine at their work is included in worldwide marketshare numbers, but its absolutely irrelevant to their home purchase. The work machine offers almost NO network effects with the home machine. Hell, the work admin would never let any home machine plug into the network. This really isn't hard stuff. You guys that bash Apple and wish them away constantly claim that because they have 3% worldwide market share, that nobody should bother with them. But that is simply illogical. There are many metrics that are more important, such as Apple's share in each market (creative pros, advertising, education, media consumers). Burtole rays and chrystals? This is called demographics, and it's very real and very important for anyone interested in developing products and services for a platform. Apple's share in the consumer market is large enough for a healthy ecosystem of consumer-oriented software and hardware products. Same goes for eduction, creative production, bio-science, etc. I work at Spike doing promotions and we focus our work on the people we believe to be interested in our programming. Advertisers buy on Spike to reach a specific demographic (18 to 34 year old men mostly). They are interested in targeted share far far more than overall share of all TV viewers. Same deal. `Targeting = relevance = meaning = buying decision. Again, THIS IS THE INTERESTING STUFF. This is the stuff that matters. This is the information that companies use to determine if they'll support the mac. So by trumpeting worldwide quarterly market share as the ONLY metric worth discussing, Paul and yourself are being stubborn, narrow-minded and rigidly ideological. This is my criticism and it's very fair to make. Paul is obsessed with market share and he willfully ignores or downplays all other metrics. As for media center... I agree completely. Microsoft really innovated in that space, and the media center client in Vista is the most rich and complete solution of it's kind. Apple's choice to ignore DVR and cable card is unfortunate, though I can understand it to some extend. Most people don't put their PCs in their living room, and the setup with digital cable is troublesome. That's a niche application. Still, bravo to MS for a quality product. If MS were really smart, they would have taken their time with the 360 and designed it to be silent like the PS3 (and not used carnival ticket-style Microsoft points as currency on the marketplace). Then I'd consider it a true do-it-all solution paired with a Vista PC as a media center extender. Instead, I'm faced with this great box that is unusable for watching movies because it sounds like a jet engine.
johnpapola
on Feb 6, 2008
That's it for me. I've laid it all out as best I can. Take it or leave it. p.s. Safari has a GREAT feature that allows you to resize this tiny comments field. Sure came in handy here. Thanks for reading.
poothedrew
on Feb 6, 2008
John, In response to your question what should matter to Joe consumer is really simple; what they want to get done and how they want to do it. If it be Mac or Windows should come secondary to this question and should be driven by what actually needs to be accomplished with the technology. As someone who has worked for software companies for well over a decade in the capacity of Programmer, QA Engineer, IT Architect etc, the main beef I have with most “users” is they don’t define the problem. I am always having conversations like: “I need this piece of technology!” I ask “Why” and get “To do my job!” I ask “Ok, I understand that, WE ARE AT WORK, so lets go back to what problem you are tying to solve ….” I think a lot of people would make very different buying decisions if they would focus on what they want to get done and how they get it done. It’s a mind-shift from what a device CAN achieve to what I am going to achieve and how I want to achieve it. How people work is very important, I found that people with little patience that really have no interest in technology I always steer to a Mac.
poothedrew
on Feb 6, 2008
John, I apologise there is no excuse to be condescending, I was only feeding my ever fragile ego. But, I am not saying that having a science background makes me better rather what colours my world view. I assumed you were in sales and marketing. There is so much FUD out there in the technology space and so much utter garbage with no basis in fact. It is one thing to use accurate data to indicate buying trends or usage but make conclusion based on data that does not support that fact is misrepresentation. This is like MacDonald’s making statements about vehicle market share based on their drive through business. You CAN NOT make a conclusion about number of purchased machines based on internet uses you just can’t do it and statements like that just drive me nuts. It has nothing to do with liking or disliking Apple. It has to do with liking ACCURACY. I do not disagree with your statement about buying trends, they are useful when determining the direction of a market but, blurring the line between trends and actuality is misleading. Yes, lots of people use PC's at work and Mac's at home and a lot of people buy Mac's because all they do is surf the web. Its ON or it’s OFF, I would have no problem with a headline that the Mac is growing and give me the sales data and marry that with usage data. Don’t give me one and then let me read a little further and find that it’s really another because I know that most people don’t give a rats butt enough to investigate further. BTW the crystal comments aren't directed to you but validitiy of using internet usage as a measure of marketshare.
johnpapola
on Feb 8, 2008
Poothedrew, Thanks for scaling back on the attack style. I appreciate the interest you and Paul have in accurate numbers. I acknowledge that many outlets misuse information to prop up or push down the influence and success of Apple in the marketplace. The press in virtually all forms, but especially regarding tech, is just clueless and often criminally ignorant. So we're on the same page with regard to the misuse of stats and the general FUD. But here's my problem with your line of thinking and connotations. #1. You are very much sounding like an IT-department elitist who has disdain for "users" and thinks he knows best about what tools are the most productive. This isn't an insult, it's just what I'm taking away from your response. #2. You appear to be pigeon-holing the Mac into the realm of "computer for the computer illiterate" when in fact the complete opposite is true. The Mac's greatest resurgence has been among the "alpha geeks" and technically literate. While it's true that Macs are very approachable and easy to use for the technologically impaired, they're also very flexible and powerful UNIX workstations that ship with a complete set of developer tools. This is a platform with very broad appeal. Only certain market niches aren't well served by the Mac. As a convert to the Mac, and former custom PC builder, I know both sides. And I know the tired put-downs and prejudices that exist about the mac. The common put-down was always "Mac are good for graphics" which was used to imply that only graphic designers would benefit from Mac OS's superior graphics power and design. This was a red herring to marginalize the platform. Most of these prejudices are long dead now. As of today, the Mac is a more pleasant environment in my opinion for doing what most people want to do with their personal computer... unless you're a hardcore gamer. The APIs and underpinnings of the OS along with strong design direction from Apple's own software seem to have enabled a superior collection of independent software on Mac OSX vs. Windows. Mac developers seem to put more thought, fit and finish into the UI of their apps. Apple's graphics APIs have enabled a whole new generation of photo/video applications that are very powerful with GPU-based rendering. All this leads back to a simple thing. Apple worldwide marketshare may be the easiest metric to accurately measure, but it's the least meaningful and least instructive one in determining the viability of the platform. It does show they're growing at three times the rate of the overall industry, but that's it. Numbers like Microsoft's Mac Office revenue share of total office sales are far more telling. So are metrics regarding commercial software purchases (which I've seen put Mac software at 15%+ of all software sold). These metrics may have larger margin for error, but they're more useful and deserve more attention. I haven't heard a single counter point that successfully rebuts this argument. I'm open to one, but none seem in sight.
poothedrew
on Feb 8, 2008
John, I do come across that way there is a difference with me, I know what I am talking about, I used to be much worse but as I mature I attempt to be more approachable. Most of the IT people I know don't have any clue about ANYTHING (I blame this on the Microsoft certification program) more specifically how to troubleshoot or how n-tier systems. I guess this comes from having performance optimization as a specialty. I spend hours weekly reading white papers and studying the inner workings of Windows so that I can tell the difference between a application issue and a platform issue. Mac is a UNIX machine and if I really liked UNIX I would be all over it. (I have built and worked with all major UNIX versions and love ksh) What I have found is that people with a strong UNIX background, from Universities mostly, prefer Macs. Developers I find are real Mac people. They think of the Mac as kind of a Alan Turing machine and in many ways is one. I am a server guy, until Windows XP I ran NT from 3.51 as my client OS. I GROC Windows NT, Cutler is cool! They don't make Exchange or SQL for the Mac and that’s what I work and build applications for. For me Mac's provide little or no value and I really have no interest in acquiring the level of competence that I have earned working on Windows. They are a tool that has no use for me. (This is not a criticism just a personal decision) So when my friends and family come to me with their Mac’s for computer help I don’t. I sometimes say something snotty like “It’s a Mac don’t they fix themselves?”  If you got to a point where there was essentially no Windows problem you could not solve and no professional reason to use a Mac would you want learn a new OS?
johnpapola
on Feb 9, 2008
ptd, Thanks for the background. Obviously, you know your stuff and without question, given what you do and work in, the Mac offers you nothing in your work. That's fine. There's plenty of users that fall into your camp. If all you do is work in AutoCAD all day, the Mac's not great (since AutoCAD doesn't have a native OSX version). I can't say that anything in your background makes you an expert on individual user productivity. I'm a federalist, which is to say, I believe that individuals are better suited to judge their own performance than some central command-and-control environment. My point is simply that the great majority of people aren't like you and it's not fair to judge the total value of a platform by it's utility to you alone. Most consumers needs are very well served by Mac OSX. I've switched over 30 people to the Mac and every single one is happier they did. I used to be tech support for my whole family on Windows. I still am support, but hardly get a call anymore with everyone on the Mac. And when I do, I can launch screen sharing through iChat and easily take control in an interface that even my mother-in-law can understand. The video-chat feature alone has converted some of my family to the mac. Now, Windows guys will scream that all of this is possible on Windows. True. But UI and polish is what makes the difference between a feature checklist on a box and a happy user of those features. The Office team at MS could tell that story better than I. Office 2007 is a perfect demonstration of the core benefit of UI design exposing features that are already there. In any event, we could get into a very long and detailed discussion on why I prefer Mac OSX over Windows on everything from my preference for OSX's multi-monitor approach to the fact that you can boot any mac (besides the Air) into Firewire Target mode and access it's drive on another computer like an external hard drive. I don't fault anyone that likes/prefers Windows. I simply argue why OSX is a strong alternative that in my experience (and in survey after survey) makes users happier and more productive. Your mileage may vary and open-mindedness is a requirement. Now, back to the root argument... would you like to weigh in on the value of these other metrics? I don't like accusing you of dodging the debate, since this is a civil discussion, but you haven't addressed my core argument head on.

Please or Register to post comments.

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use