Linux now at 1.77%
bbgruff
I am quoting the Median value of 8 sources of web stats, which show Linux up
from 1.66% in February to 1.77% in March.
If we take the more usual sources used by this group, we find:-
Hitslink .... up from 1.44% in February to 1.52% in March
Statcounter.. up from 1.41% in February to 1.48% in March.
I wonder what became of that mythical "less than 1%"? :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems
Big Steel
Ooo wee --- a big old whopping 1.77 wonderful I tell you just wonderful.
<VBG>
amicus_curious
"bbgruff" <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8vsdt3...@mid.individual.net...
I don't think that you have a very authoritative source for your factoids,
bb. And you seem to be adding apples to oranges when you take the rather
questionable to begin with value of 1.08% for Linux and just add it to
Android to get your total. What is being used for phones is hardly
comparable to what is used for computers. Also the value comes from some
straight line averaging of a bunch of statistical sources that your own
fellows commonly dismiss as inaccurate.
Finally the ultimate conclusion is sort of silly anyway. 1.77% is just as
poor of a showing as 1.08%. It is minor league and far from any mainstream.
Almost every computer sold in the world comes with either Windows or the
Apple OS X. What someone might put on a reclaimed machine in order to
extend its service life does not really matter much in commerce. Even that
does not seem to occur very often no matter what statistical source you want
to believe.
philo
1.77% is pretty respectable
I'd gladly take 1.77% of Bill Gates' money
Big Steel
Respectable? It's a joke after how many years? No on is using Linux at
the desktop is what I see here. You know, some guy gave his spill in
24Hoursupport.helpdesk about Linux many years ago. He said Linux was
picking up steam back then and it was (. -- point) something then, and
now it's at 1.77. It looks to me that Linux is never going to be
accepted at the desktop.
flatfish+++
And when you consider that Linux is free, it really puts into
perspective how people are just not interested in desktop Linux.
--
flatfish+++
Please visit our hall of Linux idiots.
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead
"By the time Microsoft released the Windows 7 beta
in January 2009, Linux had clearly lost its chance at desktop glory."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/207999/desktop_linux_the_dream_is_dead.html
Snit
I for one am happy to see it approach 2%... and I hope it goes higher. I
just do not make up stories to fit my wishes, as others in COLA do.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
flatfish+++
I'd like to see it at 10 percent and growing.
Competition is good for all users.
Ezekiel
Congrats.
I'd buy you a beer but since I wouldn't know you if I tripped over you I'll
have to drink it myself.
Snit
4/3/11 6:42 PM:
> On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 18:37:03 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> bbgruff stated in post 8vsdt3...@mid.individual.net on 4/3/11 4:24 PM:
>>
>>>
>>> I am quoting the Median value of 8 sources of web stats, which show Linux up
>>> from 1.66% in February to 1.77% in March.
>>>
>>> If we take the more usual sources used by this group, we find:-
>>>
>>> Hitslink .... up from 1.44% in February to 1.52% in March
>>>
>>> Statcounter.. up from 1.41% in February to 1.48% in March.
>>>
>>> I wonder what became of that mythical "less than 1%"? :-)
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems
>>>
>> I for one am happy to see it approach 2%... and I hope it goes higher. I
>> just do not make up stories to fit my wishes, as others in COLA do.
>
> I'd like to see it at 10 percent and growing.
> Competition is good for all users.
>
Absolutely. I would love to see desktop Linux get to the point where it can
really compete. And it keeps getting better and better.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Gregory Shearman
These are only the *desktop* stats... Linux rules in the server and
mobile realms.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
High Plains Thumper
> philo wrote:
>> Big Steel wrote:
>>> bbgruff wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am quoting the Median value of 8 sources of web stats, which show
>>>> Linux up from 1.66% in February to 1.77% in March. If we take the
>>>> more usual sources used by this group, we find:-
>>>>
>>>> Hitslink .... up from 1.44% in February to 1.52% in March
>>>> Statcounter.. up from 1.41% in February to 1.48% in March.
>>>> I wonder what became of that mythical "less than 1%"? :-)
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems
>>>
>>> Ooo wee --- a big old whopping 1.77 wonderful I tell you just
>>> wonderful. <VBG>
>>
>> 1.77% is pretty respectable
>>
>> I'd gladly take 1.77% of Bill Gates' money
>
> These are only the *desktop* stats... Linux rules in the server and
> mobile realms.
The Wintrolls herein have been pushing their nonsense for the past decade
that Linux is still below 1%, which even is counter to Microsoft
leadership estimations, which are quite higher.
Remember, the importance is DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS! (as one
hears the sound of flying chairs crashing).
http://w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
Latest tally:
2011 WinXP W2000 Win7 Vista W2003 Windows Linux Mac *nix
Feb 44.2% 0.2% 32.2% 8.3% 1.0% 84.9% 5.1% 8.1% 13.2%
Here are the tallies for November from 2003 to 2010:
November OS Platform Statistics:
WinXP W2000 Win7 Vista W2003 Windows Linux Mac *nix
2010 47.0% 0.2% 28.5% 9.5% 1.1% 86.3% 5.0% 7.7% 12.5%
2009 62.2% 0.7% 6.7% 17.5% 1.4% 88.6% 4.3% 6.7% 11.0%
2008 72.0% 1.8% 0.1% 15.1% 1.6% 90.6% 3.8% 5.3% 9.1%
WinXP W2000 Win98 Vista W2003 Windows Linux Mac *nix
2007 73.8% 5.1% 1.0% 6.3% 2.0% 88.2% 3.3% 3.9% 7.2%
WinXP W2000 Win98 WinNT W2003 Windows Linux Mac *nix
2006 74.9% 8.0% 1.0% 0.3% 1.9% 90.4% 3.5% 3.6% 7.1%
2005 71.0% 14.6% 2.7% 0.4% 1.7% 90.4% 3.3% 3.3% 6.6%
WinXP W2000 Win98 WinNT Win95 Windows Linux Mac *nix
2004 59.1% 23.7% 5.6% 1.2% 0.1% 89.7% 3.1% 2.7% 5.8%
2003 42.6% 36.3% 10.9% 3.5% 0.4% 93.7% 2.6% 2.2% 4.8%
Note that both Linux and Mac are on the rise consistently every year. *nix
was 4.8% in 2003, in 2010 it is 12.5%, an increase of 8%.
Windows was at 94% in 2003, in 2011 it is 85%, a decline of 9%. Whatever
gains the newer version of Windows received was at the cost of other
Windows versions. Windows is in decline.
Therefore Linux *IS* on the rise. We mustn't also forget that Google is
granting a good assurance of a future for *nix through Android. Use of
intelligent cell phones and tablets for browsing the 'net and messaging
others (E-mail and text) are slowly replacing the traditional PC desktop.
--
HPT
Homer
> I'd gladly take 1.77% of Bill Gates' money
Make sure you wash it first.
--
K. | "Do you have a dot on your head
http://slated.org | and are you based in Bangalore?"
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky | ~ flatfish+++ the racist scum.
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 48 days | http://tinyurl.com/flattyracistscum
bbgruff
> I don't think that you have a very authoritative source for your
factoids,
> bb. And you seem to be adding apples to oranges when you take the rather
> questionable to begin with value of 1.08% for Linux and just add it to
> Android to get your total. What is being used for phones is hardly
> comparable to what is used for computers. Also the value comes from some
> straight line averaging of a bunch of statistical sources that your own
> fellows commonly dismiss as inaccurate.
Then please point me to your "authoritative" source.
I was quoting the Median value of 8 sources, several of which are often
quoted here as "authoritative". In other words, the point where "there are
as many above as below".
Your "phones" comment doesn't apply. These are WebClient stats.
WebClient statistics are what are always quoted here.
If you find that WebClient statitstics are no longer serving your purpose,
do please find an "authoritative" source of other statistics.
For example, a few weeks ago, hadron was quoting 0.6% or 0.8% for access to
the BBC websites, and IIRC you were implicitly agreeing with him.
I'm telling you that these figures show that you are both wrong by a factor
of 2 or 3, and growing.
You have better stats? Let's see them.
bbgruff
NO! These are *not* desktop stats.
These are WebClient stats.
WebClient stats are all we have in this group, and all we have ever had.
Nobody *has* desktop stats.
In fact, I've never seen a definition here of Desktop in relation to stats.
Other than WebClients, yes, you are right - Linux rules :-)
bbgruff
That's very true. and very kind and civil of you.
How will it be if I reciprocate by buying *you* a beer in return, and
similarly drinking that myself?
That way, we are both happy, and we have each "stood our round" :-)
Ezekiel
Well done sir. I hope that you enjoyed drinking my beer as much as enjoyed
yours.
amicus_curious
"bbgruff" <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8vte3s...@mid.individual.net...
> On Monday 04 April 2011 01:21 amicus_curious wrote:
>
>> I don't think that you have a very authoritative source for your
> factoids,
>> bb. And you seem to be adding apples to oranges when you take the rather
>> questionable to begin with value of 1.08% for Linux and just add it to
>> Android to get your total. What is being used for phones is hardly
>> comparable to what is used for computers. Also the value comes from some
>> straight line averaging of a bunch of statistical sources that your own
>> fellows commonly dismiss as inaccurate.
>
> Then please point me to your "authoritative" source.
>
Well, bb, I am frequently disrespected here for focusing on the money
involved in PC software, but that is what my education says is the key
metric for anything that wants to be termed "market share". When you look
at the money that is being paid for Windows versus the money that is being
paid for any other desktop OS, the result is a 99+% vote for Windows, the
balance being odds and ends for Apple customers to buy upgrades and the very
occasional sale, if they even still exist, for boxed sets of Linux.
The better question is "If a user chooses to us something other than
Windows, what effect does this have on the Windows "market"?" In the case
of the purchase of an Apple computer, it has a measurable effect since we
can count how many Wintel sales are lost if we equate a sale lost for
Windows for each Macintosh sold. In the case of Linux, though, the
relationship is not so clear. For the most part, computers running Linux
were originally sold with a Windows license and so putting Linux on the
machine doesn't really impact potential Windows revenues. The last time
that I had the opportunity to see real market data, the number of computers
being sold annually with Linux pre-installed was, under 0.1% and, at that
time, mostly represented the shipping of early versions of netbooks. I am
out of that loop these days, but I do not see any evidence that there is any
surge of retail acceptance and sales for these machines, so I postulate that
the situation is the same.
All of which brings us to the bare-bones, roll your own PC world where it is
entirely likely that computers are built from scratch by individuals who
install Linux and eschew Windows. The bulk of this market, apparently, is
actually serviced by the warez folk who pirate Windows for these machines.
Certainly there are enough criminal copyright infringement cases filed each
year to reveal a significant business along these lines. The balance of
this channel can be said to affect Windows sales negatively, but I don't
know where anyone is actually counting them. In my own experience, I rarely
run across any of these, so I can only believe that the number is very, very
small.
> I was quoting the Median value of 8 sources, several of which are often
> quoted here as "authoritative". In other words, the point where "there
> are
> as many above as below".
>
> Your "phones" comment doesn't apply. These are WebClient stats.
> WebClient statistics are what are always quoted here.
> If you find that WebClient statitstics are no longer serving your purpose,
> do please find an "authoritative" source of other statistics.
>
Well, even if you dismiss the value of the web counters, you have to agree
that any counts for "Android" are coming from use of a smart phone, eh?
That is not a desktop computer and that is what the discussion is all about.
Counts of visits for smart phones and tablets may distort the reality by
inflating the base, but that only means that all values have to be adjusted
by some distortion coefficient.
> For example, a few weeks ago, hadron was quoting 0.6% or 0.8% for access
> to
> the BBC websites, and IIRC you were implicitly agreeing with him.
> I'm telling you that these figures show that you are both wrong by a
> factor
> of 2 or 3, and growing.
> You have better stats? Let's see them.
>
I think you are missing the quintessential point here, bb. Market
statistics are truly useful only in their application to a company's product
market strategy. In the case of Microsoft, they are not going to change
their way of doing business whether Linux has 1%, 2%, 10%, or even 0% of the
market. Once their share crossed the 60% or so line, they only have one
product strategy as a dominant market leader. All they have to do to keep
share at that level is alter their product to match any revolutionary change
to customer's tastes. There is nothing else for them to do in terms of
share protection. What they do instead is to think of ways to motivate
their existing customers to re-buy Windows as an upgrade or, even better for
all involved, get a new computer to replace an existing one in order to get
the increased user satisfaction that they promise in their ads.
In the case of Linux product suppliers, the market statistics are useful in
establishing some niche strategy wherein the Linux supplier can dominate a
market segment that has adequate revenues to sustain a business. That is
what happens in the server market where Red Hat and Novell operate
relatively successfully. Note, though, that Red Hat and Novell get a fair
amount of money from their customers who have to pay for "support" in order
to keep access to the effectively proprietary software supplied in these
"executive Linux" distributions. Their prices are actually higher than
Microsoft's prices for Windows Server versions if the subscription renewal
costs are included.
Big Steel
Linux only rules the Web server world. Linux doesn't dominate the server
world, and there are plenty of other usage for a server other than a Web
server and MS dominates it.
Michael B. Trausch
> Linux only rules the Web server world. Linux doesn't dominate the
> server
> world, and there are plenty of other usage for a server other than a
> Web
> server and MS dominates it.
Oh? Such as?
I've never seen Windows power core infrastructure on the Internet. For
a single leaf network, perhaps, and usually with great trouble. (And
before someone attacks me and says that I don't know what I am talking
about, I'm talking about my observations of a typical Windows
administrator. I've seen several of them in several businesses, and
they all seem to have the same way of approaching things... and that
involves significant amounts of downtime for stuff. Plain
unacceptable.)
--- Mike
-hh
>
> The Wintrolls herein have been pushing their nonsense for the past decade
> that Linux is still below 1%, which even is counter to Microsoft
> leadership estimations, which are quite higher.
Except that the averaged value of 1.77% that BB provides are ~2/3rds
based upon Android, which is not a desktop OS. As such and from the
same data, we can effectively conclude that no more than 1.09% of this
1.77% marketshare total can plausibly come from Linux desktops.
And while 1.09% is indeed greater than 1%, "so what?". Afterall, this
is an aggregate metric, plus that it is only a 10% variance, it is
pragmatically close enough to be a rounding error and thus validates
the basic point.
> Remember, the importance is DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS!
> (as one hears the sound of flying chairs crashing).
True, although even having a big wad of cash to help motivate doesn't
necessarily assure marketplace success ... the slow motion train wreck
of Windows Phone 7 is an ongoing case study.
> http://w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
>
> Latest tally:
Sure, but it is still only one source (vs an aggregate) and because
the audience is towards web development, where we know that Linux has
greater representation than the general user desktop, the sampling
isn't random, but doomed to a self-selection based statistical
sampling bias. It would be just as invalid to go to a Porsche event
and, upon finding a disproportionately greater percentage of german
automobiles present, claim that the observation was somehow
representative of the larger (non-self-selected) population.
> Windows was at 94% in 2003, in 2011 it is 85%, a decline of 9%. Whatever
> gains the newer version of Windows received was at the cost of other
> Windows versions. Windows is in decline.
Fair enough, but from what source(s)?
> Therefore Linux *IS* on the rise. We mustn't also forget that Google is
> granting a good assurance of a future for *nix through Android. Use of
> intelligent cell phones and tablets for browsing the 'net and messaging
> others (E-mail and text) are slowly replacing the traditional PC desktop.
IMO, the overall growth of the total pie due to sales mobile devices
is sure to be part of the answer. However, the real question is if
mobile alone is responsible for all of MS-Windows marketshare decline,
or if mobile is only a part of it (and if so, how much?) and what
other factors must thus also be present? Given that Linux desktop
might have grown to 1.09%, this is unlikely to be a major part of the
uptake: in general, it appears that Linux desktop has merely
maintained pace with the overall growth of the pie.
-hh
Snit
4d99c982$0$3370$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 4/4/11 6:35 AM:
>
>
> "bbgruff" <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:8vte3s...@mid.individual.net...
>> On Monday 04 April 2011 01:21 amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think that you have a very authoritative source for your
>> factoids,
>>> bb. And you seem to be adding apples to oranges when you take the rather
>>> questionable to begin with value of 1.08% for Linux and just add it to
>>> Android to get your total. What is being used for phones is hardly
>>> comparable to what is used for computers. Also the value comes from some
>>> straight line averaging of a bunch of statistical sources that your own
>>> fellows commonly dismiss as inaccurate.
>>
>> Then please point me to your "authoritative" source.
>>
> Well, bb, I am frequently disrespected here for focusing on the money
> involved in PC software, but that is what my education says is the key
> metric for anything that wants to be termed "market share". When you look
> at the money that is being paid for Windows versus the money that is being
> paid for any other desktop OS, the result is a 99+% vote for Windows, the
> balance being odds and ends for Apple customers to buy upgrades and the very
> occasional sale, if they even still exist, for boxed sets of Linux.
That is not likely to be true at all. Even if people only paid the same for
OS X machines, this would mean about 5% - 7% of the dollars go toward OS X
machines... but that is not the case. The average cost of a Mac is 2-3 x
that of the average cost of a Windows machine.... so if you sell 100
machines:
94 are Windows machines at $400 each (on average)
6 are Macs at $1200 each (on average)
Total amount for Windows machines: $37600
Total amount for Macs: $7200
Total of both: $44800
Percentage of dollar "votes" for Windows machines: ~84%
And that ignores "votes" for machines with no OS or Linux.
> The better question is "If a user chooses to us something other than
> Windows, what effect does this have on the Windows "market"?" In the case
> of the purchase of an Apple computer, it has a measurable effect since we
> can count how many Wintel sales are lost if we equate a sale lost for
> Windows for each Macintosh sold. In the case of Linux, though, the
> relationship is not so clear. For the most part, computers running Linux
> were originally sold with a Windows license and so putting Linux on the
> machine doesn't really impact potential Windows revenues. The last time
> that I had the opportunity to see real market data, the number of computers
> being sold annually with Linux pre-installed was, under 0.1% and, at that
> time, mostly represented the shipping of early versions of netbooks. I am
> out of that loop these days, but I do not see any evidence that there is any
> surge of retail acceptance and sales for these machines, so I postulate that
> the situation is the same.
According to some in COLA, MS somehow prevents that from happening. But not
with Android. Or WebOS. But with the traditional KDE/Gnome desktops.
Somehow MS has control there. It is bizarre.
...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
bbgruff
Just two points on what you wrote:-
1.
> Well, bb, I am frequently disrespected here for focusing on the money
> involved in PC software, but that is what my education says is the key
> metric for anything that wants to be termed "market share".
Well a_c, I'm discussing Usage Share, which is what the stats are showing.
2.
> Well, even if you dismiss the value of the web counters,
I'm certainly *not* dismissing them - I'm using them.
In fact, *you* were dismissing them when you claimed to talk about Market
Share (rather than Usage Share), and moved on to $ values.
> you have to agree
> that any counts for "Android" are coming from use of a smart phone, eh?
No.
I concede that many of them are at the moment.
However, Android is starting to be used now on Tablets, Netbooks and Net-
tops.
In addition to Android, there is also Meego and WebOS to consider, and....
> That is not a desktop computer and that is what the discussion is all
about.
... if you are trying to remove Tablets, Netbooks, Net-tops and even Android
etc, powered desktop replacements, you'd better start to think how you are
going to remove Windows-powered Tablets, Netbooks, Net-tops etc. from the
same equation. As I said, if you don't like "my" statistics, point me to
some that you do like.
All I ever see here is NetClient (web-access) statistics, and I can't help
but feel that those are starting to show what you would prefer for them
*not* to show :-)
> Counts of visits for smart phones and tablets may distort the reality by
> inflating the base, but that only means that all values have to be
adjusted by some distortion coefficient.
I think that you need to come to terms with the fact that these new devices
are not *distorting* reality, but rather that they *are* the reality.
Things are changing, and you are not changing with them.
".. all values have to be adjusted by some distortion coefficient"?
*p-e-r-lease* - let's do the sensible thing and change the theory to fit the
facts, rather than bending the facts to fit your theory, shall we?
You are entitled to your own opinion, but I rather draw the line at you
being entitled to your own facts!
Big Steel
> On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 09:42 -0400, Big Steel wrote:
>> Linux only rules the Web server world. Linux doesn't dominate the
>> server
>> world, and there are plenty of other usage for a server other than a
>> Web
>> server and MS dominates it.
>
> Oh? Such as?
Application, back-end and database servers. Not everything is a Web server.
>
> I've never seen Windows power core infrastructure on the Internet.
I see MS infrastructure all the time being a .NET developer contractor.
That's MS Web server farm front-end, using Web services Web server farm
back-eed and SQL server. The only thing that faces the Internet are the
front-end Web servers. A Windows powered core infrastructure facing the
Internet is what?
The whole world doesn't run on the Internet. You do know that there are
more than just a few Internets used by companies all over the world.
There is also middle tier and back-end processing off-line being done
too all over the world.
> For
> a single leaf network, perhaps, and usually with great trouble. (And
> before someone attacks me and says that I don't know what I am talking
> about, I'm talking about my observations of a typical Windows
> administrator.
I don't believe you and I could care less about what some admin is
talking about, as I have been on 24/7 support on solutions running on
the platform. Sure they have problems. But I have also been in one shop
that was using Linux and Oracle used by front-end Web applications with
MS and .NET. Those Linux servers where down often.
> I've seen several of them in several businesses, and
> they all seem to have the same way of approaching things... and that
> involves significant amounts of downtime for stuff. Plain
> unacceptable.)
I have worked in MS .NET from the north, south, east and west boarders
in the US, with MS and .NET doing just fine in all the shops.
bbgruff
> According to some in COLA, MS somehow prevents that from happening. But
not
> with Android. Or WebOS. But with the traditional KDE/Gnome desktops.
> Somehow MS has control there. It is bizarre.
I really don't think it's bizarre at all, Snit.
Microsoft, by fair means or foul depending on your view, has managed over
the years to pretty-well "stitch-up" the market for the "traditional
desktop". They were able to continue this with the (then) new Netbook
market, by reviving and giving away XP, *and* pushing for increases in the
specs for Netbooks (ever-bigger HDs etc) to turn them into cheap notebooks
that *could* run a MS OS.
They have done a good job, business-wise. Apple apart, they hung on very
well, and for all practical purposes control that sector.
Now things have moved on, and I think that they have been caught on the
wrong foot. Their shareholders recognised this last year, in fact, and Mr.
Ballmer had his bonus severely reduced. No great loss to him financially,
but as near a vote of no confidence as I've seen.
It's in the areas where Microsoft has little or no presence that Linux is
flourishing in the consumer market. KDE and Gnome would be competing head-
on, not so much technically (where they are very capable), but with the MS
marketing machine. In short, MS can and do (imo) wield significant
influence in areas where they *do* have an offering, but scarcely at all in
areas where they have little or none.
What remains to be seen is how/if MS can even compete in the new markets.
So far they haven't done very well.
bbgruff
> Except that the averaged value of 1.77% that BB provides are ~2/3rds
> based upon Android, which is not a desktop OS. As such and from the
> same data, we can effectively conclude that no more than 1.09% of this
> 1.77% marketshare total can plausibly come from Linux desktops.
No!
I knew I'd have difficulty getting this point across, but I'll try.
You say "no more than 1.09%", but you fail to say "% of what"!
If you start removing things from the 100, you are talking of a figure
*less* than 100.
In what you say, you have removed (you claim) 0.68 per hundred, so your 1.09
is now 1.09/99.32, and *not* 109/100. With me so far?
*Then* - since you are removing Android, you must also remove iOS - and
MeeGo, and WebOS, and Java ME, and Windows CE.... etc.
.... and if it's desktops that you are talking, you would presumably need to
remove all those Windows powered Netbooks....
... but then (and especially in the future) you would need to put *back*
Android-etc. desktop-replacements.
What you are talking about is a very complicated and convoluted way of
getting at figures.
If you want to compare desktops with desktops, that's fine, but you will
need to find a source of desktop statistics.
All that I have, and all I've ever seen in cola, are WebClient statistics.
Granted, those WebClient statistics are now at last starting to show what
Linux Detractors would rather that they did *not* show, but it isn't *me*
who's trying to bend the facts to fit the theory - I'm just using what folks
around here have been using for years.
Michael B. Trausch
> On 4/4/2011 9:57 AM, Michael B. Trausch wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 09:42 -0400, Big Steel wrote:
> >> Linux only rules the Web server world. Linux doesn't dominate the
> >> server
> >> world, and there are plenty of other usage for a server other than a
> >> Web
> >> server and MS dominates it.
> >
> > Oh? Such as?
>
> Application, back-end and database servers. Not everything is a Web server.
I never said it was. I administer several servers with virtual
machines, database engines, instant messaging servers, mail servers,
Web servers, routers, firewalls, monitoring software, etc.
> >
> > I've never seen Windows power core infrastructure on the Internet.
>
> I see MS infrastructure all the time being a .NET developer contractor.
> That's MS Web server farm front-end, using Web services Web server farm
> back-eed and SQL server. The only thing that faces the Internet are the
> front-end Web servers. A Windows powered core infrastructure facing the
> Internet is what?
>
> The whole world doesn't run on the Internet. You do know that there are
> more than just a few Internets used by companies all over the world.
> There is also middle tier and back-end processing off-line being done
> too all over the world.
Perhaps I spoke ambiguously: I've never seen Windows used in core
_Internet_ infrastructure. Mostly it's Linux and BSD, though there are
things like Cisco's custom system, and dedicated pieces of hardware
that do not run any UNIX-like (or Windows-based) systems. Given that
you missed that point (probably my fault for being ambiguous, for that,
my apologies), the rest of your message is rather moot.
I will say, though, that administered *properly*, any operating system
can function robustly. Some operating systems require more
administrator time than others, though, and there is little that can be
done to get around that. While I am not a Windows administrator
myself, I happen to be in a position where I have to do a great deal of
administration on the Windows system. It takes me longer to do certain
tasks because I have to spend time learning about the things I'm doing
(I am _not_ the type of admin that will go read up on how to do
something and blindly follow directions---sadly, most Windows
administrators that I do know do just that). But, there are things on
Windows that just aren't possible (insofar as I am aware) which I
consider to be core functionality in the Linux land.
One such example: filesystem snapshots. On any Linux system I can use
LVM2 to have logical volumes, and any one of those logical volumes I
can snapshot in order to backup. If I want to take a consistent backup
of any of the systems running on it, I can just stop those dæmons,
snapshot the filesystem, and restart the dæmons. No more than about 45
seconds of downtime involved, any way you roll the dice, even for very
complex server setups. I am aware of no such filesystem-neutral system
in Windows. Admittedly, that could be due to my own ignorance---as
I've mentioned, I am far from an expert on the Windows family of
operating systems.
I don't know how Windows does virtualization, but with Xen (alright,
not exactly Linux, but the most common situation is Xen running Linux
systems) one can easily move VMs between hardware nodes, such that Xen
becomes an indispensable tool to the administrator who desires to
achieve as close as (s)he can to 100% uptime. Barring network
problems, it's possible to have no more than approximately 0.00007%
downtime in a month, assuming one runs a full system backup once per
week and monitors the hardware with all the diligence that an
administrator should (that is, being proactive instead of reactive).
--- Mike
Snit
> On Monday 04 April 2011 15:14 Snit wrote:
>
>> According to some in COLA, MS somehow prevents that from happening. But not
>> with Android. Or WebOS. But with the traditional KDE/Gnome desktops.
>> Somehow MS has control there. It is bizarre.
>>
> I really don't think it's bizarre at all, Snit.
> Microsoft, by fair means or foul depending on your view, has managed over
> the years to pretty-well "stitch-up" the market for the "traditional
> desktop".
Well, except for OS X, which globally has been able to grab around 7%
share... and in the US far more than that (which, yes, means elsewhere
somewhat less). If OS X was based on the Linux model of being free, then
this would be cool but not *that* big... but OS X is not free. OS X cannot
even be had in any supported way on machines anywhere but on the higher end.
In the price range Apple sells Macs, they have somewhere in the neighborhood
of 90% and up. Now, of course, if Apple also sold cheaper machines this
might not be the case - but Apple has managed to make a product people value
so highly that they *can* and do sell them like this.
Imagine if KDE/Gnome desktops were only supported on such high end hardware.
Their current ~1-2% share would drop to 1-2% *of that*. Most people simple
would not be willing to pay for desktop Linux. It has not *earned* that
place. Yet. It does keep getting better.
> They were able to continue this with the (then) new Netbook market, by
> reviving and giving away XP, *and* pushing for increases in the specs for
> Netbooks (ever-bigger HDs etc) to turn them into cheap notebooks that *could*
> run a MS OS.
MS does not control the hardware market. Sure, they can set what *their*
OSs run on, but this does not stop any company from selling machines with a
different set of specs with Linux.
> They have done a good job, business-wise. Apple apart, they hung on very
> well, and for all practical purposes control that sector.
Well, Apple has been doing *very* well over the last decade or so. Hard to
say MS really owns much of anything... other than maybe the Office market
(MS Office is very popular on the Mac, too... a large majority of the money
spend on Office software goes to MS).
> Now things have moved on, and I think that they have been caught on the wrong
> foot. Their shareholders recognised this last year, in fact, and Mr. Ballmer
> had his bonus severely reduced. No great loss to him financially, but as near
> a vote of no confidence as I've seen.
>
> It's in the areas where Microsoft has little or no presence that Linux is
> flourishing in the consumer market.
And yet the repeated "evidence" that Linux is doing so well on the desktop
is a slide produced by MS.
> KDE and Gnome would be competing head- on, not so much technically (where they
> are very capable), but with the MS marketing machine. In short, MS can and do
> (imo) wield significant influence in areas where they *do* have an offering,
> but scarcely at all in areas where they have little or none.
MS holds influence in areas where there is little competition - low / mid
range computers and Office software. They have products that serve these
markets significantly better than any competition... and even as this
changes, or when it changes, it will take time for the market to shift.
Heck, even on Macs, where there is iWork, MS Office is still the big player.
There is reason for this - while iWork has its advantages (esp. with
Keynote), MS Office still is a darn good suite (and has improved greatly
with the most recent Mac offering).
> What remains to be seen is how/if MS can even compete in the new markets. So
> far they haven't done very well.
Agreed.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
flatfish+++
> High Plains Thumper <h...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> The Wintrolls herein have been pushing their nonsense for the past decade
>> that Linux is still below 1%, which even is counter to Microsoft
>> leadership estimations, which are quite higher.
>
> Except that the averaged value of 1.77% that BB provides are ~2/3rds
> based upon Android, which is not a desktop OS. As such and from the
> same data, we can effectively conclude that no more than 1.09% of this
> 1.77% marketshare total can plausibly come from Linux desktops.
It's the latest tactic by the Linux loons to couple the success of
Android to the Linux desktop in order to boast about Linux's increasing
market share.
When speaking of the Linux desktop alone, it's going no place and hasn't
in 20 years.
Android is a great platform.
Let's hope the Linux community doesn't ruin it with their fragmentation
and other death blows.
> And while 1.09% is indeed greater than 1%, "so what?". Afterall, this
> is an aggregate metric, plus that it is only a 10% variance, it is
> pragmatically close enough to be a rounding error and thus validates
> the basic point.
HPT isn't one of our sharper Linux loons.
Chris Ahlstrom
> On Monday 04 April 2011 15:14 Snit wrote:
>
>> According to some in COLA, MS somehow prevents that from happening. But
> not
>> with Android. Or WebOS. But with the traditional KDE/Gnome desktops.
>> Somehow MS has control there. It is bizarre.
Nope. Phones versus desktops/laptops.
> I really don't think it's bizarre at all, Snit.
Snit, to put it bluntly, is an idiot.
> Microsoft, by fair means or foul depending on your view, has managed over
> the years to pretty-well "stitch-up" the market for the "traditional
> desktop". They were able to continue this with the (then) new Netbook
> market, by reviving and giving away XP, *and* pushing for increases in the
> specs for Netbooks (ever-bigger HDs etc) to turn them into cheap notebooks
> that *could* run a MS OS.
>
> They have done a good job, business-wise. Apple apart, they hung on very
> well, and for all practical purposes control that sector.
>
> Now things have moved on, and I think that they have been caught on the
> wrong foot. Their shareholders recognised this last year, in fact, and Mr.
> Ballmer had his bonus severely reduced. No great loss to him financially,
> but as near a vote of no confidence as I've seen.
>
> It's in the areas where Microsoft has little or no presence that Linux is
> flourishing in the consumer market. KDE and Gnome would be competing head-
> on, not so much technically (where they are very capable), but with the MS
> marketing machine. In short, MS can and do (imo) wield significant
> influence in areas where they *do* have an offering, but scarcely at all in
> areas where they have little or none.
>
> What remains to be seen is how/if MS can even compete in the new markets.
> So far they haven't done very well.
--
When the leaders speak of peace
The common folk know
That war is coming
When the leaders curse war
The mobilization order is already written out.
Every day, to earn my daily bread
I go to the market where lies are bought
Hopefully
I take my place among the sellers.
-- Bertolt Brecht, "Hollywood"
flatfish+++
> Snit, to put it bluntly, is an idiot.
Translation: Snit out debates you every time Liarmutt. Additionally,
Snit doesn't support a liar and a fraud, 7, like you do.
That pretty much says all there is to say about you Chris Ahlstrom.
Snit
> bbgruff wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On Monday 04 April 2011 15:14 Snit wrote:
>>
>>> According to some in COLA, MS somehow prevents that from happening. But
>> not
>>> with Android. Or WebOS. But with the traditional KDE/Gnome desktops.
>>> Somehow MS has control there. It is bizarre.
>
> Nope. Phones versus desktops/laptops.
>
>> I really don't think it's bizarre at all, Snit.
>
> Snit, to put it bluntly, is an idiot.
And yet you cannot find flaw with my comments. How sad of you to think of
yourself as someone who cannot show flaws with the reasoning of an "idiot".
I hope you learn to respect yourself enough to focus on people's views and
not just spew insults.
>> Microsoft, by fair means or foul depending on your view, has managed over
>> the years to pretty-well "stitch-up" the market for the "traditional
>> desktop". They were able to continue this with the (then) new Netbook
>> market, by reviving and giving away XP, *and* pushing for increases in the
>> specs for Netbooks (ever-bigger HDs etc) to turn them into cheap notebooks
>> that *could* run a MS OS.
>>
>> They have done a good job, business-wise. Apple apart, they hung on very
>> well, and for all practical purposes control that sector.
>>
>> Now things have moved on, and I think that they have been caught on the
>> wrong foot. Their shareholders recognised this last year, in fact, and Mr.
>> Ballmer had his bonus severely reduced. No great loss to him financially,
>> but as near a vote of no confidence as I've seen.
>>
>> It's in the areas where Microsoft has little or no presence that Linux is
>> flourishing in the consumer market. KDE and Gnome would be competing head-
>> on, not so much technically (where they are very capable), but with the MS
>> marketing machine. In short, MS can and do (imo) wield significant
>> influence in areas where they *do* have an offering, but scarcely at all in
>> areas where they have little or none.
>>
>> What remains to be seen is how/if MS can even compete in the new markets.
>> So far they haven't done very well.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
4/4/11 8:51 AM:
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 11:43:48 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>
>> Snit, to put it bluntly, is an idiot.
>
> Translation: Snit out debates you every time Liarmutt. Additionally,
> Snit doesn't support a liar and a fraud, 7, like you do.
>
> That pretty much says all there is to say about you Chris Ahlstrom.
>
Exactly - if he *really* thought I was wrong he would focus on my arguments
and my comments - and not make such insults that only serve to show off his
insecurity.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
bbgruff
> It's the latest tactic
No, no tactic involved - merely statement of fact rather than your own
rhetoric.
If you have facts, please feel free to cite them.
> by the Linux loons
Well, it's a bit like calling people idiots and retards, isn't it?
- fine unless it shows *you* to be the idiot, retard or loon.
(How are you getting on with your claim that I'm Mark Kent, btw? :-))
> to couple the success of Android to the Linux desktop
I'm still waiting for somebody to DEcouple the two.
Nobody seems to be able to produce figures.
I've given you the figures from *eight* sources, and the median of them.
Those sources show "Netclient Usage Share".
Netclient Usage Share is all I've seen figures for in cola.
If you have a source of Desktop figures (AND a definition of "Desktop"),
please feel free to post.
> in order to boast
Boast? "State" perhaps, or "draw attention to". The boasting will be a
year or so down the road.
> about Linux's increasing market share.
I never mentioned Market Share.
I only gave figures for NetClient Usage Share.
Do try to follow the plot.
Is that enough criticism of *one* sentence of yours?
flatfish+++
Chris Ahlstrom is *the* poster child for insecurity.
He is so afraid of being ostracized by the other COLA Linux loons that
he refuses to acknowledge liars and frauds like 7 and Rex, amongst
others.
Hey, this is what Linux advocacy in COLA is all about.
It's called LIEing for LIEnux.
Big Steel
> On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 10:31 -0400, Big Steel wrote:
>> On 4/4/2011 9:57 AM, Michael B. Trausch wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 09:42 -0400, Big Steel wrote:
>>>> Linux only rules the Web server world. Linux doesn't dominate the
>>>> server
>>>> world, and there are plenty of other usage for a server other than a
>>>> Web
>>>> server and MS dominates it.
>>>
>>> Oh? Such as?
>>
>> Application, back-end and database servers. Not everything is a Web server.
>
> I never said it was. I administer several servers with virtual
> machines, database engines, instant messaging servers, mail servers,
> Web servers, routers, firewalls, monitoring software, etc.
>
firewall software and act as a gateway device both on the Linux and
Windows server O/S(s).
>>>
>>> I've never seen Windows power core infrastructure on the Internet.
>>
>> I see MS infrastructure all the time being a .NET developer contractor.
>> That's MS Web server farm front-end, using Web services Web server farm
>> back-eed and SQL server. The only thing that faces the Internet are the
>> front-end Web servers. A Windows powered core infrastructure facing the
>> Internet is what?
>>
>> The whole world doesn't run on the Internet. You do know that there are
>> more than just a few Internets used by companies all over the world.
>> There is also middle tier and back-end processing off-line being done
>> too all over the world.
>
> Perhaps I spoke ambiguously: I've never seen Windows used in core
> _Internet_ infrastructure. Mostly it's Linux and BSD, though there are
> things like Cisco's custom system, and dedicated pieces of hardware
> that do not run any UNIX-like (or Windows-based) systems.
Yeah OK?
> Given that
> you missed that point (probably my fault for being ambiguous, for that,
> my apologies), the rest of your message is rather moot.
>
> I will say, though, that administered *properly*, any operating system
> can function robustly. Some operating systems require more
> administrator time than others, though, and there is little that can be
> done to get around that. While I am not a Windows administrator
> myself, I happen to be in a position where I have to do a great deal of
> administration on the Windows system. It takes me longer to do certain
> tasks because I have to spend time learning about the things I'm doing
> (I am _not_ the type of admin that will go read up on how to do
> something and blindly follow directions---sadly, most Windows
> administrators that I do know do just that). But, there are things on
> Windows that just aren't possible (insofar as I am aware) which I
> consider to be core functionality in the Linux land.
I have worked with admins. And if it was all that you say it is about
Windows, I would have heard about it. I have not heard it.
<snipped the rest that I don't care about>
Michael B. Trausch
> <snipped the rest that I don't care about>
Yeah, I see what you did there. You couldn't retort, so you cut and
dodge.
Ahh, how I've missed being here...
--- Mike
Big Steel
What? You are an admin grease monkey. I didn't see the need to continue
on something I could care less about.
Michael B. Trausch
> What? You are an admin grease monkey. I didn't see the need to
> continue
> on something I could care less about.
LOL! "Grease monkey", that's funny!
--- Mike
Big Steel
the 70's, and in a Novel/Windows client server shop along with being a
programmer back in the 90's. I have been there and done that long ago.
philo
> On 4/3/2011 8:40 PM, philo wrote:
>> On 04/03/2011 06:28 PM, Big Steel wrote:
>>> On 4/3/2011 7:24 PM, bbgruff wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I am quoting the Median value of 8 sources of web stats, which show
>>>> Linux up
>>>> from 1.66% in February to 1.77% in March.
>>>>
>>>> If we take the more usual sources used by this group, we find:-
>>>>
>>>> Hitslink .... up from 1.44% in February to 1.52% in March
>>>>
>>>> Statcounter.. up from 1.41% in February to 1.48% in March.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder what became of that mythical "less than 1%"? :-)
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ooo wee --- a big old whopping 1.77 wonderful I tell you just wonderful.
>>>
>>> <VBG>
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.77% is pretty respectable
>>
>> I'd gladly take 1.77% of Bill Gates' money
>
> the desktop is what I see here. You know, some guy gave his spill in
> 24Hoursupport.helpdesk about Linux many years ago. He said Linux was
> picking up steam back then and it was (. -- point) something then, and
> now it's at 1.77. It looks to me that Linux is never going to be
> accepted at the desktop.
I don't really care how many people use Linux
it works for me
Big Steel
And Vista and Win 7 work for me.
amicus_curious
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C9BF2044.93F64%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
That is a totally controlled situation within Apple in regard to how they
may choose to do internal accounting. Apple sells very little OS software
that can be measured.
> 94 are Windows machines at $400 each (on average)
> 6 are Macs at $1200 each (on average)
>
> Total amount for Windows machines: $37600
> Total amount for Macs: $7200
> Total of both: $44800
>
> Percentage of dollar "votes" for Windows machines: ~84%
>
We are not talking about computers here, snit, we are talking about
Microsoft revenues. As a group, Dell, HP, and the others make a lot more
money than Apple selling computers and maybe that is not 96% and could be as
low as you claim if your grab-ass figures for average invoice were correct,
but so what? Apple doesn't make that money as profit either, they have a
very high cost of sales compared to selling software.
> And that ignores "votes" for machines with no OS or Linux.
>
>> The better question is "If a user chooses to us something other than
>> Windows, what effect does this have on the Windows "market"?" In the
>> case
>> of the purchase of an Apple computer, it has a measurable effect since we
>> can count how many Wintel sales are lost if we equate a sale lost for
>> Windows for each Macintosh sold. In the case of Linux, though, the
>> relationship is not so clear. For the most part, computers running Linux
>> were originally sold with a Windows license and so putting Linux on the
>> machine doesn't really impact potential Windows revenues. The last time
>> that I had the opportunity to see real market data, the number of
>> computers
>> being sold annually with Linux pre-installed was, under 0.1% and, at that
>> time, mostly represented the shipping of early versions of netbooks. I
>> am
>> out of that loop these days, but I do not see any evidence that there is
>> any
>> surge of retail acceptance and sales for these machines, so I postulate
>> that
>> the situation is the same.
>
> According to some in COLA, MS somehow prevents that from happening. But
> not
> with Android. Or WebOS. But with the traditional KDE/Gnome desktops.
> Somehow MS has control there. It is bizarre.
Not at all. Microsoft is the choice for OS when someone buys a computer,
namely a desktop, laptop, or netbook. What happens when someone buys a
phone is not at all material to that.
amicus_curious
"bbgruff" <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8vu2h5...@mid.individual.net...
> On Monday 04 April 2011 14:35 amicus_curious wrote:
>
> Just two points on what you wrote:-
>
> 1.
>> Well, bb, I am frequently disrespected here for focusing on the money
>> involved in PC software, but that is what my education says is the key
>> metric for anything that wants to be termed "market share".
>
> Well a_c, I'm discussing Usage Share, which is what the stats are showing.
>
That is true and that share is of no consequence when it comes to business
decisions. It is just a way of keeping score to show that Linux is running
so far behind.
> 2.
>> Well, even if you dismiss the value of the web counters,
>
> I'm certainly *not* dismissing them - I'm using them.
> In fact, *you* were dismissing them when you claimed to talk about Market
> Share (rather than Usage Share), and moved on to $ values.
>
>> you have to agree
>> that any counts for "Android" are coming from use of a smart phone, eh?
>
> No.
> I concede that many of them are at the moment.
> However, Android is starting to be used now on Tablets, Netbooks and Net-
> tops.
> In addition to Android, there is also Meego and WebOS to consider, and....
>
>> That is not a desktop computer and that is what the discussion is all
> about.
>
> ... if you are trying to remove Tablets, Netbooks, Net-tops and even
> Android
> etc, powered desktop replacements, you'd better start to think how you are
> going to remove Windows-powered Tablets, Netbooks, Net-tops etc. from the
> same equation. As I said, if you don't like "my" statistics, point me to
> some that you do like.
Well, argue about trivia, bb. Maybe you can win something. However the
lion's share of the money and the lion's share of public recognition is in
the computer market. Phones come with an OS, sure, but it is selected by
the phone maker. I really don't think that anyone makes much money from
phone OS, not Apple, not BlackBerry, not Microsoft, and not Android/Google.
The same is true, I believe, for tablets.
Meanwhile the traditional market for computers continues to grow and
continues to be dominated by Microsoft. Surrender if you want to and try to
pretend that the 30 billion bucks from OS sales don't matter anymore because
Android has more hype, but nothing is changed.
> All I ever see here is NetClient (web-access) statistics, and I can't help
> but feel that those are starting to show what you would prefer for them
> *not* to show :-)
>
Doesn't bother me a bit, bb. I know what they mean and they don't mean a
thing. Cheering for Android phones is a lot like the Afro-Americans hoping
for OJ Simpson to be acquitted years ago. "We won!" they cried, but no one
ever showed up to give them a prize.
>> Counts of visits for smart phones and tablets may distort the reality by
>> inflating the base, but that only means that all values have to be
> adjusted by some distortion coefficient.
>
> I think that you need to come to terms with the fact that these new
> devices
> are not *distorting* reality, but rather that they *are* the reality.
> Things are changing, and you are not changing with them.
> ".. all values have to be adjusted by some distortion coefficient"?
> *p-e-r-lease* - let's do the sensible thing and change the theory to fit
> the
> facts, rather than bending the facts to fit your theory, shall we?
> You are entitled to your own opinion, but I rather draw the line at you
> being entitled to your own facts!
>
They are the reality, but only within their own market, bb. Android figures
compared to iPhone figures have some meaning when trying to determine
Apple's success and future. With Nokia throwing in with Microsoft, the
figures may soon come to define the wisdom of that decision, by Nokia and
Microsoft both. Other than that, it doesn't say anything about Linux. They
don't even use the word "Linux" in the articles written about the phone
market. Or the tablet market.
>
philo
>>>>> <VBG>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1.77% is pretty respectable
>>>>
>>>> I'd gladly take 1.77% of Bill Gates' money
>>>
>>> Respectable? It's a joke after how many years? No on is using Linux at
>>> the desktop is what I see here. You know, some guy gave his spill in
>>> 24Hoursupport.helpdesk about Linux many years ago. He said Linux was
>>> picking up steam back then and it was (. -- point) something then, and
>>> now it's at 1.77. It looks to me that Linux is never going to be
>>> accepted at the desktop.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't really care how many people use Linux
>> it works for me
>
> And Vista and Win 7 work for me.
That's fine...I have no problems with folks who use Windows...
Linux for me is a personal choice
Snit
4d9a3093$0$8076$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 4/4/11 1:53 PM:
...
>>>>> I don't think that you have a very authoritative source for your factoids,
>>>>> bb. And you seem to be adding apples to oranges when you take the rather
>>>>> questionable to begin with value of 1.08% for Linux and just add it to
>>>>> Android to get your total. What is being used for phones is hardly
>>>>> comparable to what is used for computers. Also the value comes from some
>>>>> straight line averaging of a bunch of statistical sources that your own
>>>>> fellows commonly dismiss as inaccurate.
>>>>>
>>>> Then please point me to your "authoritative" source.
>>>>
>>> Well, bb, I am frequently disrespected here for focusing on the money
>>> involved in PC software, but that is what my education says is the key
>>> metric for anything that wants to be termed "market share". When you look
>>> at the money that is being paid for Windows versus the money that is being
>>> paid for any other desktop OS, the result is a 99+% vote for Windows, the
>>> balance being odds and ends for Apple customers to buy upgrades and the very
>>> occasional sale, if they even still exist, for boxed sets of Linux.
>>>
>> That is not likely to be true at all. Even if people only paid the same for
>> OS X machines, this would mean about 5% - 7% of the dollars go toward OS X
>> machines... but that is not the case. The average cost of a Mac is 2-3 x
>> that of the average cost of a Windows machine.... so if you sell 100
>> machines:
>>
> That is a totally controlled situation within Apple in regard to how they may
> choose to do internal accounting. Apple sells very little OS software that
> can be measured.
People do not use OSs by themselves - they are a part of a computer system.
>> 94 are Windows machines at $400 each (on average)
>> 6 are Macs at $1200 each (on average)
>>
>> Total amount for Windows machines: $37600
>> Total amount for Macs: $7200
>> Total of both: $44800
>>
>> Percentage of dollar "votes" for Windows machines: ~84%
>>
> We are not talking about computers here, snit, we are talking about
> Microsoft revenues. As a group, Dell, HP, and the others make a lot more
> money than Apple selling computers and maybe that is not 96% and could be as
> low as you claim if your grab-ass figures for average invoice were correct,
> but so what? Apple doesn't make that money as profit either, they have a
> very high cost of sales compared to selling software.
They are doing very well compared to Dell, HP, MS and pretty much any other
tech company.
>> And that ignores "votes" for machines with no OS or Linux.
>>
>>> The better question is "If a user chooses to us something other than
>>> Windows, what effect does this have on the Windows "market"?" In the case
>>> of the purchase of an Apple computer, it has a measurable effect since we
>>> can count how many Wintel sales are lost if we equate a sale lost for
>>> Windows for each Macintosh sold. In the case of Linux, though, the
>>> relationship is not so clear. For the most part, computers running Linux
>>> were originally sold with a Windows license and so putting Linux on the
>>> machine doesn't really impact potential Windows revenues. The last time
>>> that I had the opportunity to see real market data, the number of computers
>>> being sold annually with Linux pre-installed was, under 0.1% and, at that
>>> time, mostly represented the shipping of early versions of netbooks. I am
>>> out of that loop these days, but I do not see any evidence that there is any
>>> surge of retail acceptance and sales for these machines, so I postulate that
>>> the situation is the same.
>>>
>> According to some in COLA, MS somehow prevents that from happening. But not
>> with Android. Or WebOS. But with the traditional KDE/Gnome desktops.
>> Somehow MS has control there. It is bizarre.
>
> Not at all. Microsoft is the choice for OS when someone buys a computer,
> namely a desktop, laptop, or netbook. What happens when someone buys a
> phone is not at all material to that.
Which is pretty much my point.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
William Poaster
Duh-Inane Arnold (Big Steel) still trolling his idiocy, I suppose.
William Poaster
>
>>>>>> <VBG>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.77% is pretty respectable
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd gladly take 1.77% of Bill Gates' money
>>>>
>>>> Respectable? It's a joke after how many years? No on is using Linux at
>>>> the desktop is what I see here. You know, some guy gave his spill in
>>>> 24Hoursupport.helpdesk about Linux many years ago. He said Linux was
>>>> picking up steam back then and it was (. -- point) something then, and
>>>> now it's at 1.77. It looks to me that Linux is never going to be
>>>> accepted at the desktop.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't really care how many people use Linux it works for me
>>
>> And Vista and Win 7 work for me.
Then there's no need for the trolling Duh-Inane Arnold to be in this Linux
group, is there. :-)
>
> That's fine...I have no problems with folks who use Windows...
>
> Linux for me is a personal choice
Yup, & for many others.
Big Steel
<snipped>
<yawn>
It's just old Willie-Kiss-em-Butt Boaster making his rounds.
Big Steel
<snipped>
<yawn>
It's just old Willie-Kiss-em-Butt Boaster nothing new here.
-hh
> On Monday 04 April 2011 15:13 -hh wrote:
>
> > Except that the averaged value of 1.77% that BB provides are ~2/3rds
> > based upon Android, which is not a desktop OS. As such and from the
> > same data, we can effectively conclude that no more than 1.09% of this
> > 1.77% marketshare total can plausibly come from Linux desktops.
>
> No!
Maybe!!
> I knew I'd have difficulty getting this point across, but I'll try.
>
> You say "no more than 1.09%", but you fail to say "% of what"!
>
> If you start removing things from the 100, you are talking of a figure
> *less* than 100.
>
> In what you say, you have removed (you claim) 0.68 per hundred, so your 1.09
> is now 1.09/99.32, and *not* 109/100. With me so far?
>
> *Then* - since you are removing Android, you must also remove iOS - and
> MeeGo, and WebOS, and Java ME, and Windows CE.... etc.
Yes, that would be a valid analysis *IF* that the specific metric
you're looking for was to exclude all mobile applications. However,
that isn't necessarily a forgone conclusion ... particularly since
*you* already tried to lump Android in with Linux to try to take
"credit" for it.
> .... and if it's desktops that you are talking, you would presumably need to
> remove all those Windows powered Netbooks....
Debatable tactic.
> ... but then (and especially in the future) you would need to put *back*
> Android-etc. desktop-replacements.
See, it is a mess ... and highly subject to abuse.
> What you are talking about is a very complicated and convoluted way of
> getting at figures.
> If you want to compare desktops with desktops, that's fine, but you will
> need to find a source of desktop statistics.
Whereas the original premise was the much simpler "percent of the
whole". The good news for Linux [desktop] is that it has stayed at
roughly ~1% despite the entire pie growing in size.
> All that I have, and all I've ever seen in cola, are WebClient statistics.
> Granted, those WebClient statistics are now at last starting to show what
> Linux Detractors would rather that they did *not* show, but it isn't *me*
> who's trying to bend the facts to fit the theory - I'm just using what folks
> around here have been using for years.
Agreed, although the Wiki page that lists so many webclient trackers
was new to me; found it to be interesting; I should go do a variance
analysis on it :-)
-hh
Hadron
And did you notice he didn't condemn Koehlmann et al even once when they
started targeting your business and family. Chris Ahlstrom is a nasty
piece of work it seems ...
Peter Köhlmann
Snot Michael Glassers phony "business" has not yet been "targeted" at all.
What has been targeted was his claim of actually running a business. He does
not, he is a parasitec leech living off his wifes income
William Poaster
> Hadron wrote:
>
>> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>>
>>> flatfish+++ stated in post 10ay4j9z8czzp.1...@40tude.net
>>> on 4/4/11 8:51 AM:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2011 11:43:48 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Snit, to put it bluntly, is an idiot.
>>>>
>>>> Translation: Snit out debates you every time Liarmutt. Additionally,
>>>> Snit doesn't support a liar and a fraud, 7, like you do.
>>>>
>>>> That pretty much says all there is to say about you Chris Ahlstrom.
>>>>
>>> Exactly - if he *really* thought I was wrong he would focus on my
>>> arguments and my comments - and not make such insults that only serve
>>> to show off his insecurity.
>>
>> And did you notice he didn't condemn Koehlmann et al even once when they
>> started targeting your business and family. Chris Ahlstrom is a nasty
>> piece of work it seems ...
Coming from the Hadron M$ zealot, that's ironic.
"I didn't see his post because I have him killfiled over being a rabid
Win-troll in a number of groups whenever his C.O.L.A. buddies are on a
trolling spree again, in addition to the fact that he's simply an
ill-mannered, ill-educated, arrogant and shamelessly lying character. I
see him being cocky and abusive to other people as well in what they quote
from his posts, so I'm apparently not the only one who doesn't like Hadron.
He has already quite abundantly expressed his frustration with his being
killfiled...."
Aragorn - alt.os.linux.ubuntu
Message-ID: <id18t3$k1i$1...@news.eternal-september.org>
"I've decided to put Hadron in the ole killfile as well - his constant
blathering on and self pontificating have finally worn me out.
I'm tired of Hadron's pompous ass - I can't believe that I've not
seen a single helpful post from him since I had the misfortune of reading
both his posts.
Message-ID: <ie48ih$qtf$1...@news.eternal-september.org> "jeff.g" ~
alt.os.linux.ubuntu
amicus_curious
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C9BF8FE6.93FE5%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> amicus_curious stated in post
>> That is a totally controlled situation within Apple in regard to how they
>> may
>> choose to do internal accounting. Apple sells very little OS software
>> that
>> can be measured.
>
> People do not use OSs by themselves - they are a part of a computer
> system.
The same may be said for truck tires, snit, but there is a measurable truck
tire market and there is a measurable PC OS platform market. The major
supplier in the latter is Microsoft. As an extension of the analogy, Ford
and other makers came to a conclusion a decade ago that Firestone tires were
a liability when it came to selling an SUV and so the entire brand was
almost erased on that simple perception. A Firestone tire on an Explorer
was like a Linux OS on a netbook in that it blocked sales of the item.
>
>>> 94 are Windows machines at $400 each (on average)
>>> 6 are Macs at $1200 each (on average)
>>>
>>> Total amount for Windows machines: $37600
>>> Total amount for Macs: $7200
>>> Total of both: $44800
>>>
>>> Percentage of dollar "votes" for Windows machines: ~84%
>>>
>> We are not talking about computers here, snit, we are talking about
>> Microsoft revenues. As a group, Dell, HP, and the others make a lot more
>> money than Apple selling computers and maybe that is not 96% and could be
>> as
>> low as you claim if your grab-ass figures for average invoice were
>> correct,
>> but so what? Apple doesn't make that money as profit either, they have a
>> very high cost of sales compared to selling software.
>
> They are doing very well compared to Dell, HP, MS and pretty much any
> other
> tech company.
>
Certainly, Apple is a great success story, but they are not a software
company in the league of Microsoft, IBM, Symantec, Intuit, Oracle, and some
others. As an OEM tech, people like Jedidiah seem to think they are just
artsy-fartsy and only have appeal to shallow individuals like yourself who
do not properly respect the notion of getting the best return for your
computer dollar. I, OTOH, applaud Apple's success and I think that it is a
wonderfully incisive thing to have found such a dedicated niche and have the
focus to stay with their loyal customers' wants and needs.
The issue here, however, is in regard to Microsoft's opportunity to continue
to pull revenue (and profit) from the broad PC market. Apple's income share
vis-à-vis Dell, HP, and others, is not germane to that issue.
Big Steel
>
> "I didn't see his post because I have him killfiled
LOL what a joke he is about. The fool is still going to respond no
matter what. What good is his stupid and I might add worthless filters
if he constantly goes 3rd party to run his mouth?
He is nothing but an old pussy that can't face anyone and talk about
someone like he is a man. He is just a 3rd party trash talker with his
panties tired around his forehead, sitting on his stool and in front of
a Linux based computer. It's a very sad situation for
Willie-Kiss-em-Butt Boaster.
Snit
I do hope you, someday, find some morality.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
2:28 AM:
No argument here.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
4d9b1046$0$28233$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 4/5/11 5:49 AM:
>
>
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C9BF8FE6.93FE5%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>> amicus_curious stated in post
>>> That is a totally controlled situation within Apple in regard to how they
>>> may
>>> choose to do internal accounting. Apple sells very little OS software
>>> that
>>> can be measured.
>>
>> People do not use OSs by themselves - they are a part of a computer
>> system.
>
> The same may be said for truck tires, snit, but there is a measurable truck
> tire market and there is a measurable PC OS platform market.
Right, because both wear out and need to be replaced. Wait. No... that is
not the case.
Um, because people buy both with low end components and then upgrade to
higher quality ones. Wait. No... that is not the case.
So how are they the same?
> The major supplier in the latter is Microsoft. As an extension of the
> analogy, Ford and other makers came to a conclusion a decade ago that
> Firestone tires were a liability when it came to selling an SUV and so the
> entire brand was almost erased on that simple perception. A Firestone tire on
> an Explorer was like a Linux OS on a netbook in that it blocked sales of the
> item.
Right: people do not want to use Linux on the desktop, so Dell and HP and
the like do not sell computers with it, at least not in general. To have
Linux on such a system would be a liability for those companies.
>>>> 94 are Windows machines at $400 each (on average)
>>>> 6 are Macs at $1200 each (on average)
>>>>
>>>> Total amount for Windows machines: $37600
>>>> Total amount for Macs: $7200
>>>> Total of both: $44800
>>>>
>>>> Percentage of dollar "votes" for Windows machines: ~84%
>>>>
>>> We are not talking about computers here, snit, we are talking about
>>> Microsoft revenues. As a group, Dell, HP, and the others make a lot more
>>> money than Apple selling computers and maybe that is not 96% and could be as
>>> low as you claim if your grab-ass figures for average invoice were correct,
>>> but so what? Apple doesn't make that money as profit either, they have a
>>> very high cost of sales compared to selling software.
>>>
>> They are doing very well compared to Dell, HP, MS and pretty much any other
>> tech company.
>>
> Certainly, Apple is a great success story, but they are not a software
> company in the league of Microsoft, IBM, Symantec, Intuit, Oracle, and some
> others.
They are a system company: they sell solutions. Solutions for the desktop,
for the tablet, for phones, etc. It is one of the reasons they do so well -
they sell the whole widget - and, now, really the whole ecosystem. They
understand that tech specs are secondary to user experiences. Few companies
seem to get that (or have the ability to handle things well).
> As an OEM tech, people like Jedidiah seem to think they are just artsy-fartsy
> and only have appeal to shallow individuals like yourself who do not properly
> respect the notion of getting the best return for your computer dollar.
I know I buy Macs because I *do* value getting the best return for my
dollar.
> I, OTOH, applaud Apple's success and I think that it is a wonderfully incisive
> thing to have found such a dedicated niche and have the focus to stay with
> their loyal customers' wants and needs.
Stay with their loyal customers and grow their customer base.
> The issue here, however, is in regard to Microsoft's opportunity to continue
> to pull revenue (and profit) from the broad PC market. Apple's income share
> vis-à-vis Dell, HP, and others, is not germane to that issue.
Apple competes both with MS and the hardware makers... and does very well.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> amicus_curious stated in post
> 4d9b1046$0$28233$ec3e2...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 4/5/11 5:49 AM:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> >news:C9BF8FE6.93FE5%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> >> amicus_curious stated in post
> >>> That is a totally controlled situation within Apple in regard to how they
> >>> may
> >>> choose to do internal accounting. Apple sells very little OS software
> >>> that
> >>> can be measured.
>
> >> People do not use OSs by themselves - they are a part of a computer
> >> system.
>
> > The same may be said for truck tires, snit, but there is a measurable truck
> > tire market and there is a measurable PC OS platform market.
>
> Right, because both wear out and need to be replaced. Wait. No... that is
> not the case.
>
> Um, because people buy both with low end components and then upgrade to
> higher quality ones. Wait. No... that is not the case.
>
> So how are they the same?
>
I think it's clear from his statement how they are the same. You said
people do not use OSes by themselves. This is true. People do not use
tires by themselves either. But there are measurable markets for both,
even though they are just pieces. That's how they are the same, in
this discussion.
Snit
33809091-ee10-45ed...@y26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com on 4/5/11
8:22 AM:
...
>> Right, because both wear out and need to be replaced. Wait. No... that is
>> not the case.
>>
>> Um, because people buy both with low end components and then upgrade to
>> higher quality ones. Wait. No... that is not the case.
>>
>> So how are they the same?
>
> I think it's clear from his statement how they are the same. You said
> people do not use OSes by themselves. This is true. People do not use
> tires by themselves either. But there are measurable markets for both,
> even though they are just pieces. That's how they are the same, in
> this discussion.
In other words, not in any real relevant way. Yeah, there are markets for
both, but the markets are *very* different... to the point where the
comparison is of essentially no value.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
amicus_curious
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C9C070FD.94055%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> amicus_curious stated in post
> 4d9b1046$0$28233$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 4/5/11 5:49 AM:
>
>>
>>
>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
>> news:C9BF8FE6.93FE5%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>>> amicus_curious stated in post
>>>> That is a totally controlled situation within Apple in regard to how
>>>> they
>>>> may
>>>> choose to do internal accounting. Apple sells very little OS software
>>>> that
>>>> can be measured.
>>>
>>> People do not use OSs by themselves - they are a part of a computer
>>> system.
>>
>> The same may be said for truck tires, snit, but there is a measurable
>> truck
>> tire market and there is a measurable PC OS platform market.
>
> Right, because both wear out and need to be replaced. Wait. No... that
> is
> not the case.
>
> Um, because people buy both with low end components and then upgrade to
> higher quality ones. Wait. No... that is not the case.
>
> So how are they the same?
>
To paraphrase your comment: "People do not use truck tires by themselves -
they are a part of a vehicle."
I am sure that you caught that analogy and were just trying to make some
smart-alec remarks, but perhaps you really are so dense.
>> The major supplier in the latter is Microsoft. As an extension of the
>> analogy, Ford and other makers came to a conclusion a decade ago that
>> Firestone tires were a liability when it came to selling an SUV and so
>> the
>> entire brand was almost erased on that simple perception. A Firestone
>> tire on
>> an Explorer was like a Linux OS on a netbook in that it blocked sales of
>> the
>> item.
>
> Right: people do not want to use Linux on the desktop, so Dell and HP and
> the like do not sell computers with it, at least not in general. To have
> Linux on such a system would be a liability for those companies.
>
That is what has happened so far. Dell and HP have taken fliers in desktop
Linux several times each, AFAICT, and after a short time, they are gone.
Bullshit. They are a package product company in the business of selling
retail level merchandise. A very successful one, true, but a retail product
company nonetheless.
>> As an OEM tech, people like Jedidiah seem to think they are just
>> artsy-fartsy
>> and only have appeal to shallow individuals like yourself who do not
>> properly
>> respect the notion of getting the best return for your computer dollar.
>
> I know I buy Macs because I *do* value getting the best return for my
> dollar.
>
>> I, OTOH, applaud Apple's success and I think that it is a wonderfully
>> incisive
>> thing to have found such a dedicated niche and have the focus to stay
>> with
>> their loyal customers' wants and needs.
>
> Stay with their loyal customers and grow their customer base.
>
>> The issue here, however, is in regard to Microsoft's opportunity to
>> continue
>> to pull revenue (and profit) from the broad PC market. Apple's income
>> share
>> vis-à-vis Dell, HP, and others, is not germane to that issue.
>
> Apple competes both with MS and the hardware makers... and does very well.
What on earth does Apple sell in competition with Microsoft Windows? Are
you talking about iPod vs Zune? Try to focus on computer platform software
and quit dragging these red herrings across your path.
amicus_curious
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C9C0871D.94069%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
As I said before, snit, stay away from Harvard Business School. Your odd
logic would only get you dismissed.
Snit
4d9b446d$0$28261$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 4/5/11 9:32 AM:
Please note your complete inability to counter my comments. Sure, you can
say derogatory things... so?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
4d9b43e8$0$28299$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 4/5/11 9:30 AM:
>>>>> That is a totally controlled situation within Apple in regard to how they
>>>>> may choose to do internal accounting. Apple sells very little OS software
>>>>> that can be measured.
>>>>>
>>>> People do not use OSs by themselves - they are a part of a computer system.
>>>>
>>> The same may be said for truck tires, snit, but there is a measurable truck
>>> tire market and there is a measurable PC OS platform market.
>>>
>> Right, because both wear out and need to be replaced. Wait. No... that is
>> not the case.
>>
>> Um, because people buy both with low end components and then upgrade to
>> higher quality ones. Wait. No... that is not the case.
>>
>> So how are they the same?
>>
> To paraphrase your comment: "People do not use truck tires by themselves -
> they are a part of a vehicle."
Right: so in that superficial way they are the same. But, as I have noted,
they are significantly different in other important ways. You ignored that,
left the topic behind and moved your goal post to making mocking comments.
> I am sure that you caught that analogy and were just trying to make some
> smart-alec remarks, but perhaps you really are so dense.
As I noted and you have run from: they are significantly different.
>>> The major supplier in the latter is Microsoft. As an extension of the
>>> analogy, Ford and other makers came to a conclusion a decade ago that
>>> Firestone tires were a liability when it came to selling an SUV and so the
>>> entire brand was almost erased on that simple perception. A Firestone tire
>>> on an Explorer was like a Linux OS on a netbook in that it blocked sales of
>>> the item.
>>>
>> Right: people do not want to use Linux on the desktop, so Dell and HP and the
>> like do not sell computers with it, at least not in general. To have Linux
>> on such a system would be a liability for those companies.
>>
> That is what has happened so far. Dell and HP have taken fliers in desktop
> Linux several times each, AFAICT, and after a short time, they are gone.
Right: such systems do not sell well.
...
>>> Certainly, Apple is a great success story, but they are not a software
>>> company in the league of Microsoft, IBM, Symantec, Intuit, Oracle, and some
>>> others.
>>>
>> They are a system company: they sell solutions. Solutions for the desktop,
>> for the tablet, for phones, etc. It is one of the reasons they do so well -
>> they sell the whole widget - and, now, really the whole ecosystem. They
>> understand that tech specs are secondary to user experiences. Few companies
>> seem to get that (or have the ability to handle things well).
>>
> Bullshit. They are a package product company in the business of selling
> retail level merchandise. A very successful one, true, but a retail product
> company nonetheless.
The merchandise they sell is tied to ecosystems or, at the least, the "whole
widget". No other computer company does this as well.
...
>> Apple competes both with MS and the hardware makers... and does very well.
>
> What on earth does Apple sell in competition with Microsoft Windows?
OS X.
> Are you talking about iPod vs Zune? Try to focus on computer platform
> software and quit dragging these red herrings across your path.
I hope you feel better soon.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
cc
> cc stated in post
> 33809091-ee10-45ed-b396-2b83b3dc5...@y26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com on 4/5/11
It's relevant in that you were trying to dismiss the statement that
Apple doesn't have any real measurable OS software sales by saying
OSes are only a part of a computer system. AC just pointed out how
irrelevant your statement was since there are still markets for
"pieces" so to speak. He was not comparing the markets for tires and
OSes.
Snit
89dca223-bcb1-4634...@d2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com on 4/5/11
10:32 AM:
> On Apr 5, 11:45 am, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> cc stated in post
>> 33809091-ee10-45ed-b396-2b83b3dc5...@y26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com on 4/5/11
>> 8:22 AM:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>> Right, because both wear out and need to be replaced. Wait. No... that is
>
>>>> not the case.
>>
>>>> Um, because people buy both with low end components and then upgrade to
>>>> higher quality ones. Wait. No... that is not the case.
>>
>>>> So how are they the same?
>>
>>> I think it's clear from his statement how they are the same. You said
>>> people do not use OSes by themselves. This is true. People do not use
>>> tires by themselves either. But there are measurable markets for both,
>>> even though they are just pieces. That's how they are the same, in
>>> this discussion.
>>
>> In other words, not in any real relevant way. Yeah, there are markets for
>> both, but the markets are *very* different... to the point where the
>> comparison is of essentially no value.
>
> It's relevant in that you were trying to dismiss the statement that
> Apple doesn't have any real measurable OS software sales by saying
> OSes are only a part of a computer system.
Most of MS's sales come with computers. Both also sell upgrades.
> AC just pointed out how irrelevant your statement was since there are still
> markets for "pieces" so to speak. He was not comparing the markets for tires
> and OSes.
There is not much of a market for stand-alone OSs... they are made to work
with hardware. And they are sold with hardware.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
amicus_curious
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C9C096B8.9407E%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>
> Please note your complete inability to counter my comments. Sure, you can
> say derogatory things... so?
>
Sorry to say that you have no point to make and your comments are specious.
A derogatory response is entirely appropriate. You may go on believing
whatever your arcane logic suggests, but you will never prosper.
amicus_curious
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C9C0A16D.94093%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
There is not much of a market for stand-alone tires, either, snit. Outside,
of course, hanging them by a rope from a tree branch to amuse the kiddies,
but I think someone patented that and its use is thereby restricted.
You look a little silly, I think, trying to say that something selling to
others at a $30 billion dollar a year clip is "not much of a market". But
keep insisting.
amicus_curious
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C9C09AD2.9408A%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
You never noted any "significant differences", snit. You just did a hand
wave about some unmentioned "important ways". You are trying to sound
sophisticated and are failing miserably.
I never really appreciated the cultish nature of Apple computer users, snit.
You are a revelation! "Ecosystems?" "Whole widget?" LOL!
Lucky for you Bill Gates was so magnanimous ages ago and saved them from
extinction!
> ...
>>> Apple competes both with MS and the hardware makers... and does very
>>> well.
>>
>> What on earth does Apple sell in competition with Microsoft Windows?
>
> OS X.
>
To whom? The only use for OS X is to update and old Apple computer and no
one is interested in buying Windows for such a machine. I think that it
would not work anyhow. Anyone interested in buying a copy of Windows for a
newly constructed or existing Wintel machine is going to buy a copy of OS X,
either. There is no competition there. You are obviously misunderstanding
basic concepts of commerce.
Snit
4d9c63c3$0$7894$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 4/6/11 5:58 AM:
>>>> In other words, not in any real relevant way. Yeah, there are markets for
>>>> both, but the markets are *very* different... to the point where the
>>>> comparison is of essentially no value.
>>>>
>>> It's relevant in that you were trying to dismiss the statement that Apple
>>> doesn't have any real measurable OS software sales by saying OSes are only a
>>> part of a computer system.
>>>
>> Most of MS's sales come with computers. Both also sell upgrades.
>>
>>> AC just pointed out how irrelevant your statement was since there are still
>>> markets for "pieces" so to speak. He was not comparing the markets for tires
>>> and OSes.
>>>
>> There is not much of a market for stand-alone OSs... they are made to work
>> with hardware. And they are sold with hardware.
>>
> There is not much of a market for stand-alone tires, either, snit. Outside,
> of course, hanging them by a rope from a tree branch to amuse the kiddies, but
> I think someone patented that and its use is thereby restricted.
>
> You look a little silly, I think, trying to say that something selling to
> others at a $30 billion dollar a year clip is "not much of a market". But
> keep insisting.
Let me know when you are ready to respond to what I have said. Thanks!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
4d9c65df$0$7869$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 4/6/11 6:07 AM:
...
>> As I noted and you have run from: they are significantly different.
>>
> You never noted any "significant differences", snit. You just did a hand
> wave about some unmentioned "important ways". You are trying to sound
> sophisticated and are failing miserably.
Nope. But let me know when you are ready to respond to the points I made.
...
>> The merchandise they sell is tied to ecosystems or, at the least, the "whole
>> widget". No other computer company does this as well.
>>
> I never really appreciated the cultish nature of Apple computer users, snit.
> You are a revelation! "Ecosystems?" "Whole widget?" LOL!
>
> Lucky for you Bill Gates was so magnanimous ages ago and saved them from
> extinction!
Let me know when you are ready to respond reasonably to what I said.
>> ...
>>>> Apple competes both with MS and the hardware makers... and does very
>>>> well.
>>>
>>> What on earth does Apple sell in competition with Microsoft Windows?
>>
>> OS X.
>>
> To whom?
Me and millions of others.
> The only use for OS X is to update and old Apple computer and no one is
> interested in buying Windows for such a machine.
Clearly incorrect.
> I think that it would not work anyhow.
You do not think you can run Windows on a Mac? Another area where you are
wrong. OK.
> Anyone interested in buying a copy of Windows for a newly constructed or
> existing Wintel machine is going to buy a copy of OS X, either. There is no
> competition there. You are obviously misunderstanding basic concepts of
> commerce.
Nope. But keep dodging the comments I have made. It is all you have left.
>>> Are you talking about iPod vs Zune? Try to focus on computer platform
>>> software and quit dragging these red herrings across your path.
>>
>> I hope you feel better soon.
>>
>>
>> --
>> [INSERT .SIG HERE]
>>
>>
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
4d9c62c4$0$7957$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 4/6/11 5:54 AM:
Again: let me know when you can actually respond to my comments and not just
make such silly grade school comments.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
amicus_curious
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C9C1C1E6.941AB%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
No, that can never happen that way. You will have to let me know when you
finally have something definitive to say. Meanwhile go on telling yourself
that you are cool. We know better, though.
Snit
4d9d17a9$0$32229$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 4/6/11 6:45 PM:
>> Let me know when you are ready to respond to what I have said. Thanks!
>>
> No, that can never happen that way.
Right. You tried to equate the OS market with the truck tire market - I
pointed out why the comparison was faulty and, frankly, rather silly. You
responded with personal insults and attacks, completely leaving the topic
behind because even you know you have no honest and reasonable response.
So good for you to admit you are not ready to respond to what I have said.
You just want to focus on your silly grade school insults and that is not a
game I am interested in.
> You will have to let me know when you finally have something definitive to
> say. Meanwhile go on telling yourself that you are cool. We know better,
> though.
See: you have nothing on topic to add... just grade school put downs.
Boring.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
amicus_curious
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C9C268C5.9428B%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>
> See: you have nothing on topic to add... just grade school put downs.
> Boring.
>
There is no need for a more sophisticated put-down for you, snit! "The
right tool for the right job", I say.
Snit
4d9dae19$0$26582$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 4/7/11 5:27 AM:
You made a claim about the truck tire market being like the OS market.
I noted why you were wrong... why they are significantly different.
Specifically I pointed out how OSs, unlike tires, do not wear out and how
people are far more likely to get a different brand or type of tire than
they are to change brand or type of OS. The computer experience is largely
defined by the OS... the tires on a truck, while they alter the experience,
do not have nearly the same affect.
And all you can do is run. Oh well, it is not as though I expected better
from you.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Hadron
amicus curious, usually an intelligent and insightful poster .., seems a
tad confused on this point anyway. His refusal to allow "market share"
to mean anything other than "paid for products" when plenty of examples
of free products "taking market share" have been given is telling in
itself.
The Tyre market is nothing like the OS market. People like certain tyre
brands, they change them for different seasons, some even mix them, they
puncture, they shred etc etc etc.
If anything the tyres are analogy for the apps on a Windows system. Some
people prefer to go and buy the better ones rather than use the ones
that came with the OS (e.g Works or OO).
It's really rather a poor analogy for someone normally so straight
talking and who frequently demonstrates good common sense.
Snit
7:33 AM:
> Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> writes:
>
>> amicus_curious stated in post
>> 4d9dae19$0$26582$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 4/7/11 5:27 AM:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
>>> news:C9C268C5.9428B%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> See: you have nothing on topic to add... just grade school put downs.
>>>> Boring.
>>>>
>>> There is no need for a more sophisticated put-down for you, snit! "The
>>> right tool for the right job", I say.
>>
>> You made a claim about the truck tire market being like the OS market.
>>
>> I noted why you were wrong... why they are significantly different.
>> Specifically I pointed out how OSs, unlike tires, do not wear out and how
>> people are far more likely to get a different brand or type of tire than
>> they are to change brand or type of OS. The computer experience is largely
>> defined by the OS... the tires on a truck, while they alter the experience,
>> do not have nearly the same affect.
>>
>> And all you can do is run. Oh well, it is not as though I expected better
>> from you.
>
> amicus curious, usually an intelligent and insightful poster .., seems a
> tad confused on this point anyway. His refusal to allow "market share"
> to mean anything other than "paid for products" when plenty of examples
> of free products "taking market share" have been given is telling in
> itself.
Rick had the same mental block... I even went as far as to quote multiple
dictionaries to let him know market share need not refer to just paid for
products.
> The Tyre market is nothing like the OS market. People like certain tyre
> brands, they change them for different seasons, some even mix them, they
> puncture, they shred etc etc etc.
A nail in the road is a tire virus? :)
> If anything the tyres are analogy for the apps on a Windows system. Some
> people prefer to go and buy the better ones rather than use the ones
> that came with the OS (e.g Works or OO).
>
> It's really rather a poor analogy for someone normally so straight
> talking and who frequently demonstrates good common sense.
I have nothing against him making the analogy... heck, if he thinks it is a
good one he can even note why he thinks I am wrong... but instead he just
demeaned himself by sinking to silly insults. I do not get it.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
An Old Friend
gnr59ex...@news.eternal-september.org in stone using Trajan:
I agree it's a poor analogy. I think, as far as a car goes, the *engine*
would be a better analogy for the operating system, but there are
problems with that, since the engine is really "hardware" instead of
software.
An analogy I like is a cooking-related one. The hardware, of course, is
your stove, oven, refrigerator, sink ... and the software is the food you
purchase to prepare on it. (Again, it's not perfect, but it's better than
the car analogy, I think.)
Proprietary software is rather like Stouffer's frozen meals, while open-
source software is more like getting individual boxed, canned and fresh
items from the grocery store and combining them yourself (although some
open-source software is made in the "frozen meal" style, too).
Programming your own solutions is like being your own farmer and raising
your own crops.
In the case of Apple, there are specific food items that were designed to
be cooked best with their particular stoves, ovens, etc. Apple pays close
attention to the taste and texture of the foods, and while they don't
appeal to everyone, they do appeal to many.
flatfish+++
Just to play devil's advocate, for an average driver under average
conditions which is probably the vast majority of the market, you are
correct Hadron.
However for performance car drivers, tires are extremely important and
different brands and even models within the brand make a huge difference
because in many cases the car's suspension is tuned to the tires.
Not the norm, but still it happens.
--
flatfish+++
Please visit our hall of Linux idiots.
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead
"By the time Microsoft released the Windows 7 beta
in January 2009, Linux had clearly lost its chance at desktop glory."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/207999/desktop_linux_the_dream_is_dead.html
Hadron
Indeed. But people "pimping" their cars are likely to buy new tyres too
: low profile ones no doubt ...
Snit
4/7/11 8:28 AM:
Still does not make the market similar to the OS market.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
amicus_curious
"Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gnr59ex...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> amicus curious, usually an intelligent and insightful poster .., seems a
> tad confused on this point anyway. His refusal to allow "market share"
> to mean anything other than "paid for products" when plenty of examples
> of free products "taking market share" have been given is telling in
> itself.
>
> The Tyre market is nothing like the OS market. People like certain tyre
> brands, they change them for different seasons, some even mix them, they
> puncture, they shred etc etc etc.
>
> If anything the tyres are analogy for the apps on a Windows system. Some
> people prefer to go and buy the better ones rather than use the ones
> that came with the OS (e.g Works or OO).
>
> It's really rather a poor analogy for someone normally so straight
> talking and who frequently demonstrates good common sense.
>
I am truly sorry that I so disappointed you here, Hadron. Clearly I am not
communicating my points. Snit's inability to understand was, I felt, due to
his substantial bias against Microsoft and towards Apple. In your case, I
think it is just some confusion in what was actually being said.
My view of the whole thing started with Snit's "People do not use OSs by
themselves - they are a part of a computer system."
Now I don't see where that has any particular bearing on the context of the
thread, which was bb's initial suggestion that Linux "share" of some sort
was dramatically increasing. Although he offered that with no real comment,
his implication, I felt, was that it had some significance and related to
bad news about Microsoft chances in the future.
Now I admit that I focus on revenues and do not really pay much attention to
free stuff in terms of "market share". There may very well be dictionaries
that define market share in different ways than I see it as well, but I at
least got my understanding and outlook from a recognized school of business.
Now that was not, in spite of my allusions, HBS, and it was a more mundane
state university in the mid-West, but we used many of the same texts and
read the same cases.
The only use of market share statistics is to characterize the approach that
a product marketing person would take to increasing revenues and protecting
already acquired business. Various people on both sides of the arguments
here misuse it as a sort of deterministic way of keeping score and that is
what I frequently post in opposition to.
It is not the end of the world for Microsoft if someone switches from
Windows to Linux or from IE to Chrome or buys a smart phone or even an iPad.
These are not "fungible commodities" where usage share is the same as market
share and can be seen as such.
In any case, there is a huge and profitable business area that can be
loosely termed as "PC OS software". Similarly there is a, I postulate
without really knowing, huge and profitable business area that can be termed
"truck tires". It does not matter that either market's products can only be
used in conjunction with some other product, i.e. a computer or a truck.
Now that is as far as my analogy was taken, at least by me. It only served
to show that noting that you needed a computer to use an OS was impertinent
to the larger task of creating and protecting revenues for your product.
It was certainly not intended to be an analogy from which you could draw
inferences about the software business (or the truck tire business, either).
As to your second issue, that is "His refusal to allow "market share" to
mean anything other than "paid for products" when plenty of examples of free
products "taking market share" have been given is telling in itself.", I can
only re-iterate what I know and that is that some things are important in
product marketing and some things are not as important. Technically,
someone paying cash for a product is considered to be "in the market".
Anyone not doing so is not in the market. The people who are not paying but
could perhaps pay if properly motivated are know as the "unsold" market.
Any person that is a truly hopeless case, such as Richard Stallman's OS
purchase business, is just dismissed and no time is wasted on them.
Potential business in the PC OS market is 100% Microsoft Windows, in my
view. Anyone using Linux is just part of an unsold segment that has not
been properly educated and motivate in order to see and appreciate why they
should pay for Windows. The people who buy an Apple are sort of unsold
Windows customers, but they are mostly hopeless cases that are not going to
respond to promotions by Microsoft and any money spent there is largely
wasted unless some other goal is achieved.
If any of that is understood, then it is fairly clear that "market share" in
the PC OS market is immaterial. Microsoft cannot change its strategy in the
least in order to increase its share. And I am sure that they do not do so,
in spite of the fears of some COLA posters who think so. Microsoft looks
for growth in various user industries to project whether Windows volume will
shrink or grow. If some segment is expanding, adding jobs and people, then
sales will grow as those people are given Wintel computers to use in their
jobs and they might buy a new computer to make home operations more
compatible and/or make sure that students are equipped with the latest
version of Windows.
The only metric that anyone cares about is how big the annual sales volume
for Windows will be and that is very nearly entirely determined by two
things: a) outside forces in the economy where business will grow if the
economy improves and b) Microsoft's efforts directed at its present users to
motivate them to re-buy. There is a very slight threat that there could be
something offered by Apple or Linux that would upset this calculation, but
it has not happened yet and it is not very easy to even postulate what it
might be. The system has been running for 3 decades and is in a very mature
phase of the product life cycle as measured by the marketing professors and
other practitioners.
I hope that all this blather might clarify the situation. If not, I did at
least try out of respect for your kind words.
Snit
4d9e2f64$0$6005$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 4/7/11 2:39 PM:
>
>
> "Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:gnr59ex...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>>
>> amicus curious, usually an intelligent and insightful poster .., seems a
>> tad confused on this point anyway. His refusal to allow "market share"
>> to mean anything other than "paid for products" when plenty of examples
>> of free products "taking market share" have been given is telling in
>> itself.
>>
>> The Tyre market is nothing like the OS market. People like certain tyre
>> brands, they change them for different seasons, some even mix them, they
>> puncture, they shred etc etc etc.
>>
>> If anything the tyres are analogy for the apps on a Windows system. Some
>> people prefer to go and buy the better ones rather than use the ones
>> that came with the OS (e.g Works or OO).
>>
>> It's really rather a poor analogy for someone normally so straight
>> talking and who frequently demonstrates good common sense.
>>
> I am truly sorry that I so disappointed you here, Hadron. Clearly I am not
> communicating my points.
Correct. I wish you would. There was no reason for this to get nasty or
controversial. I merely noted why I do not think the truck tire market is
like the OS market in any significant way to the conversation. Some of the
differences discussed:
* OSs do not wear out
* When people do replace tires, they are far more likely to change
brands and even types
* The computer experience is largely defined by the OS... far more
than the driving experience is defined by the tire (which is not
to say the tire does not effect the experience - it does)
> Snit's inability to understand was, I felt, due to his substantial bias
> against Microsoft and towards Apple. In your case, I think it is just some
> confusion in what was actually being said.
I noted the above points and you had *no* relevant response. It is not like
you gave a response and I discounted it... you simply sank to insults and
grade school put downs. In other words, you tacitly acknowledged you had no
real counter.
> My view of the whole thing started with Snit's "People do not use OSs by
> themselves - they are a part of a computer system."
And this is true. Sure, people do not use tires by themselves, either...
but that does not make the markets similar in any significant way. I called
you on this and that is what set you off. Now you are saying it shows some
sort of bias toward Apple / against MS for me to note this. That is, to say
the least, an odd interpretation. And one I predict you will not be able to
defend.
> Now I don't see where that has any particular bearing on the context of the
> thread, which was bb's initial suggestion that Linux "share" of some sort
> was dramatically increasing. Although he offered that with no real comment,
> his implication, I felt, was that it had some significance and related to
> bad news about Microsoft chances in the future.
Looking at my first post to you in this thread, you completely missed my
point. You made the clearly erroneous claim that:
-----
When you look at the money that is being paid for Windows
versus the money that is being paid for any other desktop OS,
the result is a 99+% vote for Windows, the balance being odds
and ends for Apple customers to buy upgrades and the very
occasional sale, if they even still exist, for boxed sets of
Linux.
-----
I called you on this. I noted how when you include all OSs, and even
restrict it to those people pay for, the idea that 99%+ of the dollars are
going toward Windows is simply silly. The number was one you pulled out of
nowhere and it does not pass the most basic of analysis.
Instead of admitting your number was wrong - or even just unsupported - you
moved goal posts to OSs purchased by themselves and not as a part of a unit.
Even this claim of yours is without any support... but instead of talking
about your claim, you made a poor analogy with truck tires.
Now, if you can, I would love to see you try to support your 99%+ claim.
Since it is almost surely incorrect, of course, you will not be able to do
so.
> Now I admit that I focus on revenues and do not really pay much attention to
> free stuff in terms of "market share". There may very well be dictionaries
> that define market share in different ways than I see it as well, but I at
> least got my understanding and outlook from a recognized school of business.
> Now that was not, in spite of my allusions, HBS, and it was a more mundane
> state university in the mid-West, but we used many of the same texts and
> read the same cases.
When discussing products which are free, it is absurd to use that
definition, no matter what school you went to. Clearly the definition you
are using does not apply. Note: this does not mean it might not be a valid
definition in other contexts, but your pushing of that definition in a
context in which it does not fit is rather silly.
> The only use of market share statistics is to characterize the approach that
> a product marketing person would take to increasing revenues and protecting
> already acquired business. Various people on both sides of the arguments
> here misuse it as a sort of deterministic way of keeping score and that is
> what I frequently post in opposition to.
That is not the only use - and it is not a relevant use in terms of the
market share of free products.
> It is not the end of the world for Microsoft if someone switches from
> Windows to Linux or from IE to Chrome or buys a smart phone or even an iPad.
> These are not "fungible commodities" where usage share is the same as market
> share and can be seen as such.
>
> In any case, there is a huge and profitable business area that can be
> loosely termed as "PC OS software". Similarly there is a, I postulate
> without really knowing, huge and profitable business area that can be termed
> "truck tires". It does not matter that either market's products can only be
> used in conjunction with some other product, i.e. a computer or a truck.
> Now that is as far as my analogy was taken, at least by me. It only served
> to show that noting that you needed a computer to use an OS was impertinent
> to the larger task of creating and protecting revenues for your product.
The fact you need a computer to use an OS was never in question. You went
out of your way and argued about a point that was never in contention. This
is rather silly, esp. given how the question was about your "99%+" figure.
The one you cannot defend.
> It was certainly not intended to be an analogy from which you could draw
> inferences about the software business (or the truck tire business, either).
I made the point about OSs to counter your "99%+" figure before you moved to
the idea of OSs by themselves.
> As to your second issue, that is "His refusal to allow "market share" to
> mean anything other than "paid for products" when plenty of examples of free
> products "taking market share" have been given is telling in itself.", I can
> only re-iterate what I know and that is that some things are important in
> product marketing and some things are not as important. Technically,
> someone paying cash for a product is considered to be "in the market".
> Anyone not doing so is not in the market. The people who are not paying but
> could perhaps pay if properly motivated are know as the "unsold" market.
> Any person that is a truly hopeless case, such as Richard Stallman's OS
> purchase business, is just dismissed and no time is wasted on them.
Again: you are going out of your way to use irrelevant definitions. This
does not mean your definition is wrong, per se, but it is not relevant.
Clearly when someone talks about the market share of, say, Ubuntu or desktop
Linux that is *not* how they are using the term. To jump to the academic /
semantic game of debating the term is to dodge the point.
> Potential business in the PC OS market is 100% Microsoft Windows, in my
> view.
What? How about OS X? Apple also sells upgrades. And before you move your
definition of "PC" to exclude Macs, you did include in your initial stating
of the "99%+" figure:
... odds and ends for Apple customers to buy upgrades ...
> Anyone using Linux is just part of an unsold segment that has not been
> properly educated and motivate in order to see and appreciate why they should
> pay for Windows.
Wow. You right that and then accuse me of having an anti-MS bias. Well,
from *that* perspective so does Bill Gates!
> The people who buy an Apple are sort of unsold Windows customers, but they are
> mostly hopeless cases that are not going to respond to promotions by Microsoft
> and any money spent there is largely wasted unless some other goal is
> achieved.
People do move from OS X to Windows. And, for that matter, many people who
use OS X *also* use Windows, in a VM if nothing else (that is how I use it).
So Mac users are "eligible" customers of MS and of desktop Linux distros.
For that matter, Linux users sometimes use Windows in a VM as well (or dual
boot).
> If any of that is understood, then it is fairly clear that "market share" in
> the PC OS market is immaterial.
One can understand your claim but disagree. So, no, it is not "clear" that
"market share in the PC OS market is immaterial"
> Microsoft cannot change its strategy in the least in order to increase its
> share.
Sure it can: it can work to reduce the percentage of people who primarily
use other OSs.
> And I am sure that they do not do so, in spite of the fears of some COLA
> posters who think so.
They had a whole campaign comparing Windows machines to Macs... and the
whole "I'm a PC" ad thing. They *clearly* are working to gain back some
market share from competitors.
> Microsoft looks for growth in various user industries to project whether
> Windows volume will shrink or grow. If some segment is expanding, adding jobs
> and people, then sales will grow as those people are given Wintel computers to
> use in their jobs and they might buy a new computer to make home operations
> more compatible and/or make sure that students are equipped with the latest
> version of Windows.
And there goes your claim that you were talking about only upgrades /
conversions and not OSs that came with the computer.
> The only metric that anyone cares about is how big the annual sales volume
> for Windows will be and that is very nearly entirely determined by two
> things: a) outside forces in the economy where business will grow if the
> economy improves and b) Microsoft's efforts directed at its present users to
> motivate them to re-buy. There is a very slight threat that there could be
> something offered by Apple or Linux that would upset this calculation, but
> it has not happened yet and it is not very easy to even postulate what it
> might be.
Then why all the MS ads targeting Mac users?
> The system has been running for 3 decades and is in a very mature phase of the
> product life cycle as measured by the marketing professors and other
> practitioners.
>
> I hope that all this blather might clarify the situation. If not, I did at
> least try out of respect for your kind words.
Hopefully you can see where I am coming from better, too. As I said: there
is no need for the nastiness. I much prefer a reasoned conversation or even
a debate.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
amicus_curious
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C9C38D0C.9438E%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>
> Now, if you can, I would love to see you try to support your 99%+ claim.
> Since it is almost surely incorrect, of course, you will not be able to do
> so.
>
Granted that my reference to 99%+ was essentially a hand wave, and I think
that was obvious, but you yourself should think for a moment. Windows is
some $30B a year and as little as 0.5% of that would be $150 million dollars
worth. The stated revenues for the commercial Linux distributions are far,
far less that that in aggregate, close to zero AFAICT, and all other
distributions are considered to be "free as in beer" and similarly have no
revenue stream. Where would Linux vendors obtain any more revenue that
that?
>> Now I admit that I focus on revenues and do not really pay much attention
>> to
>> free stuff in terms of "market share". There may very well be
>> dictionaries
>> that define market share in different ways than I see it as well, but I
>> at
>> least got my understanding and outlook from a recognized school of
>> business.
>> Now that was not, in spite of my allusions, HBS, and it was a more
>> mundane
>> state university in the mid-West, but we used many of the same texts and
>> read the same cases.
>
> When discussing products which are free, it is absurd to use that
> definition, no matter what school you went to. Clearly the definition you
> are using does not apply. Note: this does not mean it might not be a
> valid
> definition in other contexts, but your pushing of that definition in a
> context in which it does not fit is rather silly.
>
Where did you get your business degree, snit, and what was their definition
of market share?
>> The only use of market share statistics is to characterize the approach
>> that
>> a product marketing person would take to increasing revenues and
>> protecting
>> already acquired business. Various people on both sides of the arguments
>> here misuse it as a sort of deterministic way of keeping score and that
>> is
>> what I frequently post in opposition to.
>
> That is not the only use - and it is not a relevant use in terms of the
> market share of free products.
>
Well what other use would it ever have?
Again you are misreading my words, snit. If I am a product manager and
someone is not buying my product which is the best that can be offered since
I am doing my job, I have failed to educate my target customer since he is
either acting totally irrationally or else simply does not understand the
advantages provided by my product over my competitor.
My competitor thinks the same way, of course, if he has a product manager
for his product. The only answer to that is to discover that the two
products are optimize for different market segments and really do not
compete with one another. That is where the truth lies.
If you want to say "only one out of a hundred people use Linux", that is a
fair statement. Or if you say "the use of Linux has almost doubled in the
past two years, from 1% to 1.7% based on web usage statistics", that is also
accurate. I only object to misusing the term "market share" which has a
very specific meaning to me and anyone else involved in product marketing.
>> The people who buy an Apple are sort of unsold Windows customers, but
>> they are
>> mostly hopeless cases that are not going to respond to promotions by
>> Microsoft
>> and any money spent there is largely wasted unless some other goal is
>> achieved.
>
> People do move from OS X to Windows. And, for that matter, many people
> who
> use OS X *also* use Windows, in a VM if nothing else (that is how I use
> it).
> So Mac users are "eligible" customers of MS and of desktop Linux distros.
> For that matter, Linux users sometimes use Windows in a VM as well (or
> dual
> boot).
>
The percentage of such folk either way is so negligible as to not be of any
importance to a market strategy.
>> If any of that is understood, then it is fairly clear that "market share"
>> in
>> the PC OS market is immaterial.
>
> One can understand your claim but disagree. So, no, it is not "clear"
> that
> "market share in the PC OS market is immaterial"
>
>> Microsoft cannot change its strategy in the least in order to increase
>> its
>> share.
>
> Sure it can: it can work to reduce the percentage of people who primarily
> use other OSs.
>
How? They have almost all the market that there is. What would they want
to change? Instead of trying to get the few percent of computer users who
for one reason or another do not used Windows to buy it, they are far better
off working to get their current customers to update the version that they
have. Even the COLA folk sense this; look at the disparaging remarks they
make about how XP users are not switching to 7 or Vista or whatever and
staying with XP. The money is in the upgrades, not in the conversions.
>> And I am sure that they do not do so, in spite of the fears of some COLA
>> posters who think so.
>
> They had a whole campaign comparing Windows machines to Macs... and the
> whole "I'm a PC" ad thing. They *clearly* are working to gain back some
> market share from competitors.
>
Do you really think so? I think it was just a routine defensive move to
counter the Apple ads. Apple says PCs are un-cool, Microsoft says that Macs
are a rip-off and that you can do lots of things with Windows.
I don't see that they are targeting them, snit. Why would you think that
they were?
>> The system has been running for 3 decades and is in a very mature phase
>> of the
>> product life cycle as measured by the marketing professors and other
>> practitioners.
>>
>> I hope that all this blather might clarify the situation. If not, I did
>> at
>> least try out of respect for your kind words.
>
> Hopefully you can see where I am coming from better, too. As I said:
> there
> is no need for the nastiness. I much prefer a reasoned conversation or
> even
> a debate.
>
We shall see.
Hadron
> Where did you get your business degree, snit, and what was their definition of
> market share?
This is your one big failing. total inability to use a word in
context. Potential share doesnt vanish into a blackhole.
If 20% of the Market has still not acquired an OS and MS targets it but
they install LInux instead it doesnt take a genius to work out what
"Linux has 20% of the market share" means in this context. I am baffled
by your intransigence on this. Business degree or not. I can only assume
it was from a Polytechnic where definitions and terms were preferred
over thought, flexibility and adaptability in the face of changing
scenarios.
99.99% of the rest I agree with you.
Snit
6:47 AM:
As I noted, he is using terms incorrectly... and thinking this makes him
clever.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
4d9f0c3e$0$27078$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 4/8/11 6:20 AM:
>
>
> "Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
> news:C9C38D0C.9438E%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
>
>>
>> Now, if you can, I would love to see you try to support your 99%+ claim.
>> Since it is almost surely incorrect, of course, you will not be able to do
>> so.
>>
> Granted that my reference to 99%+ was essentially a hand wave, and I think
> that was obvious, but you yourself should think for a moment. Windows is some
> $30B a year and as little as 0.5% of that would be $150 million dollars worth.
> The stated revenues for the commercial Linux distributions are far, far less
> that that in aggregate, close to zero AFAICT, and all other distributions are
> considered to be "free as in beer" and similarly have no revenue stream.
> Where would Linux vendors obtain any more revenue that that?
Even ignoring Windows, there is OS X. As long as you are admitting that the
99%+ figure was hyperbole then I am not sure what we are disagreeing about.
That was my primary point.
>>> Now I admit that I focus on revenues and do not really pay much attention to
>>> free stuff in terms of "market share". There may very well be dictionaries
>>> that define market share in different ways than I see it as well, but I at
>>> least got my understanding and outlook from a recognized school of business.
>>> Now that was not, in spite of my allusions, HBS, and it was a more mundane
>>> state university in the mid-West, but we used many of the same texts and
>>> read the same cases.
>>>
>> When discussing products which are free, it is absurd to use that definition,
>> no matter what school you went to. Clearly the definition you are using does
>> not apply. Note: this does not mean it might not be a valid definition in
>> other contexts, but your pushing of that definition in a context in which it
>> does not fit is rather silly.
>>
> Where did you get your business degree, snit, and what was their definition of
> market share?
What degree I have or do not have is not relevant. I am not the topic. The
fact you are using a term out of context is quite clear. When talking about
the market share of a free product, one is clearly not talking about the
cost of the products or the "sales" of the product in terms of an exchange
for money.
>>> The only use of market share statistics is to characterize the approach that
>>> a product marketing person would take to increasing revenues and protecting
>>> already acquired business. Various people on both sides of the arguments
>>> here misuse it as a sort of deterministic way of keeping score and that is
>>> what I frequently post in opposition to.
>>>
>> That is not the only use - and it is not a relevant use in terms of the
>> market share of free products.
>>
> Well what other use would it ever have?
Percent of the market... as in the people using the product or similar
product. User base might be a better term... but in context it is *very*
clear what is meant.
One size does not fit all.
> My competitor thinks the same way, of course, if he has a product manager for
> his product. The only answer to that is to discover that the two products are
> optimize for different market segments and really do not compete with one
> another. That is where the truth lies.
And I was in reference to truth.
> If you want to say "only one out of a hundred people use Linux", that is a
> fair statement. Or if you say "the use of Linux has almost doubled in the
> past two years, from 1% to 1.7% based on web usage statistics", that is also
> accurate. I only object to misusing the term "market share" which has a very
> specific meaning to me and anyone else involved in product marketing.
So you object to common usage and want others to change to accommodate you.
Hey, I get that... I have a pet peeve of hearing the "t" in "often" - even
though dictionaries now accept that as acceptable pronunciation. Used to
not be the case and I have had a hard time adapting... still jumps out at me
when I hear people saying the word "incorrectly". But I do not ask them to
change - I accept I am just looking at things from a specific perspective
(in this case a dated one, in your case a more technical one) and I do not
push that onto others.
>>> The people who buy an Apple are sort of unsold Windows customers, but they
>>> are mostly hopeless cases that are not going to respond to promotions by
>>> Microsoft and any money spent there is largely wasted unless some other goal
>>> is achieved.
>>>
>> People do move from OS X to Windows. And, for that matter, many people who
>> use OS X *also* use Windows, in a VM if nothing else (that is how I use it).
>> So Mac users are "eligible" customers of MS and of desktop Linux distros. For
>> that matter, Linux users sometimes use Windows in a VM as well (or dual
>> boot).
>>
> The percentage of such folk either way is so negligible as to not be of any
> importance to a market strategy.
VMs are becoming more common. And that market area is likely to grow. And,
yes, I am including desktop Linux in that "market", as both host and guest
OS.
>>> If any of that is understood, then it is fairly clear that "market share" in
>>> the PC OS market is immaterial.
>>>
>> One can understand your claim but disagree. So, no, it is not "clear" that
>> "market share in the PC OS market is immaterial"
>>
>>> Microsoft cannot change its strategy in the least in order to increase its
>>> share.
>>>
>> Sure it can: it can work to reduce the percentage of people who primarily use
>> other OSs.
>>
> How? They have almost all the market that there is. What would they want to
> change? Instead of trying to get the few percent of computer users who for
> one reason or another do not used Windows to buy it, they are far better off
> working to get their current customers to update the version that they have.
> Even the COLA folk sense this; look at the disparaging remarks they make
> about how XP users are not switching to 7 or Vista or whatever and staying
> with XP. The money is in the upgrades, not in the conversions.
Again: look at their marketing. They clearly target Mac / OS X users.
>>> And I am sure that they do not do so, in spite of the fears of some COLA
>>> posters who think so.
>>>
>> They had a whole campaign comparing Windows machines to Macs... and the whole
>> "I'm a PC" ad thing. They *clearly* are working to gain back some market
>> share from competitors.
>>
> Do you really think so? I think it was just a routine defensive move to
> counter the Apple ads. Apple says PCs are un-cool, Microsoft says that Macs
> are a rip-off and that you can do lots of things with Windows.
Of course their ads targeting Mac users was largely in reaction to Apple's
ads. That does not mean they did not have such ads. The point is MS was
clearly working to get Mac users to move to Windows (and to prevent Windows
users from moving to the Mac).
>>> Microsoft looks for growth in various user industries to project whether
>>> Windows volume will shrink or grow. If some segment is expanding, adding
>>> jobs and people, then sales will grow as those people are given Wintel
>>> computers to use in their jobs and they might buy a new computer to make
>>> home operations more compatible and/or make sure that students are equipped
>>> with the latest version of Windows.
>>>
>> And there goes your claim that you were talking about only upgrades /
>> conversions and not OSs that came with the computer.
>>
>>> The only metric that anyone cares about is how big the annual sales volume
>>> for Windows will be and that is very nearly entirely determined by two
>>> things: a) outside forces in the economy where business will grow if the
>>> economy improves and b) Microsoft's efforts directed at its present users to
>>> motivate them to re-buy. There is a very slight threat that there could be
>>> something offered by Apple or Linux that would upset this calculation, but
>>> it has not happened yet and it is not very easy to even postulate what it
>>> might be.
>>>
>> Then why all the MS ads targeting Mac users?
>>
> I don't see that they are targeting them, snit. Why would you think that they
> were?
Because that was the whole focus of the ads? Really, not sure how else to
answer that. The whole "I'm a PC" and the price comparison ads were all
about comparing Windows with OS X / Macs.
>>> The system has been running for 3 decades and is in a very mature phase of
>>> the product life cycle as measured by the marketing professors and other
>>> practitioners.
>>>
>>> I hope that all this blather might clarify the situation. If not, I did at
>>> least try out of respect for your kind words.
>>>
>> Hopefully you can see where I am coming from better, too. As I said: there
>> is no need for the nastiness. I much prefer a reasoned conversation or even
>> a debate.
>>
> We shall see.
>
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
amicus_curious
"Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kiy63kr...@news.eternal-september.org...
> "amicus_curious" <ac...@sti.net> writes:
>
>> Where did you get your business degree, snit, and what was their
>> definition of
>> market share?
>
>
> This is your one big failing. total inability to use a word in
> context.
You are rather implying that it is a failing to refuse to misuse what I
consider a technical term. That happens all the time, of course, and a
marketing fellow might say mega-deal and not actually mean a deal a million
times bigger than an ordinary deal, but only, say, ten times bigger. I use
the term somewhat loosely myself on occasion and I do recognize the context
that it is being used within, I believe. Here, though, bb's original post
was suggesting that the increase of web share usage from 1% to 1.7% had some
meaning in regard to the Windows software market and I say it does not.
>Potential share doesn't vanish into a black 'hole.
>
More accurately it either remains as an unsold potential or buys into a
product and provides revenues to the winner. But until it is sold
something, that potential is not actually part of the market. Once it is
sold, it becomes a source of market growth.
> If 20% of the Market has still not acquired an OS and MS targets it but
> they install LInux instead it doesnt take a genius to work out what
> "Linux has 20% of the market share" means in this context. I am baffled
> by your intransigence on this. Business degree or not. I can only assume
> it was from a Polytechnic where definitions and terms were preferred
> over thought, flexibility and adaptability in the face of changing
> scenarios.
>
Well, I will surrender on this with one last effort to say that a long time
ago the people considered that the world was flat and, in context, the
hypothesis worked OK for their purposes at the time. Eventually, though, it
became necessary to understand the real geometry there.
Market share, in marketing circles, has a very specific meaning as does
analysis of unsold potential market customers and recognition of false
targets such as groups who will never buy regardless of circumstances.
Those kind of share figures are used by savvy product managers to pick a
promotion strategy that might increase that share.
If you want to mix apples and oranges and bananas, using the term simply to
mean a mind share of sorts and you do not have any real intention of using
these figures as a part of a decision making process, you are certainly free
to do so. I will make no more mention of it until someone tries to draw a
conclusion from some detected anomaly that may occur in the future.
amicus_curious
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C9C46980.94407%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
I said "use", snit, not "what other meaning could it have?"
It must fit all who are in your target market, snit. Otherwise you will not
have the best product for those target customers and will not win their
business. Markets are collections of niches, and you have to be the best
choice in your niche. Nothing else will succeed.
That is not even remotely the same thing, snit.
Where have they ever done that? Perhaps you felt swayed by their
advertising and mistakenly thought it was directed at yourself, but that is
just another of your misperceptions.
>>>> And I am sure that they do not do so, in spite of the fears of some
>>>> COLA
>>>> posters who think so.
>>>>
>>> They had a whole campaign comparing Windows machines to Macs... and the
>>> whole
>>> "I'm a PC" ad thing. They *clearly* are working to gain back some
>>> market
>>> share from competitors.
>>>
>> Do you really think so? I think it was just a routine defensive move to
>> counter the Apple ads. Apple says PCs are un-cool, Microsoft says that
>> Macs
>> are a rip-off and that you can do lots of things with Windows.
>
> Of course their ads targeting Mac users was largely in reaction to Apple's
> ads. That does not mean they did not have such ads. The point is MS was
> clearly working to get Mac users to move to Windows (and to prevent
> Windows
> users from moving to the Mac).
>
No they were targeting their current customers and pointing out how foolish
one would be to switch to a Mac and pay a lot more for the same thing or
even a lesser thing.
Well you are just too self-centered to see the truth. Where is Microsoft
more likely to obtain future business? Would it be from converting a
Macintosh user to become a Windows user? Or would it more likely be from
keeping an existing Windows customer and persuading them to update sooner
than later? Which is easier to accomplish? Microsoft marketers are not
stupid, they make bonuses base on the cost effectiveness of their promotions
measured by results of in-depth surveys that Microsoft pays a lot of money
to have conducted. You say that you do not have any formal training in this
area, so why are you so certain that you know more than they do?
Microsoft ads are directed at current customers. There are ever so many
more of them than there are Mac customers, wouldn't you agree? And the Mac
user is a relatively hard sell because they almost all come with the same
attitude that you display. A smart marketer isn't going to waste a kit if
tune and energy trying to do that. Ditto for Linux users who are even more
sparse than Mac users, if you want to believe the comparisons usage of
desktops offered by the web statistics keepers. A smart marketer is going
to dig where the ore is the richest and that is where they already have
solid customer bases.
Snit
4d9f8292$0$22093$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 4/8/11 2:46 PM:
...
>>>> That is not the only use - and it is not a relevant use in terms of the
>>>> market share of free products.
>>>>
>>> Well what other use would it ever have?
>>>
>> Percent of the market... as in the people using the product or similar
>> product. User base might be a better term... but in context it is *very*
>> clear what is meant.
>>
> I said "use", snit, not "what other meaning could it have?"
And now you know how it is used when in reference to free products.
Part of the problem here is you are demanding exactness in terms of the term
"market share" (and not just exactness, but a specific definition that is
not relevant)... and yet you admitted your 99%+ figure was not at all
accurate (and it was nowhere near). You used 99%+ to mean a strong
majority.
...
>>>> Wow. You right that and then accuse me of having an anti-MS bias. Well,
>>>> from *that* perspective so does Bill Gates!
>>>>
>>> Again you are misreading my words, snit. If I am a product manager and
>>> someone is not buying my product which is the best that can be offered since
>>> I am doing my job, I have failed to educate my target customer since he is
>>> either acting totally irrationally or else simply does not understand the
>>> advantages provided by my product over my competitor.
>>>
>> One size does not fit all.
>>
> It must fit all who are in your target market, snit. Otherwise you will not
> have the best product for those target customers and will not win their
> business. Markets are collections of niches, and you have to be the best
> choice in your niche. Nothing else will succeed.
The best product does not always succeed. And, of course, products can
succeed in markets the developers did not design them for nor focus the
marketing on. But this is pretty far afield from the two areas of
disagreement:
* 99%+: which you admitted you were inexact with
* "market share": where you used pushed for an irrelevant definition.
...
>>> If you want to say "only one out of a hundred people use Linux", that is a
>>> fair statement. Or if you say "the use of Linux has almost doubled in the
>>> past two years, from 1% to 1.7% based on web usage statistics", that is also
>>> accurate. I only object to misusing the term "market share" which has a
>>> very specific meaning to me and anyone else involved in product marketing.
>>>
>> So you object to common usage and want others to change to accommodate you.
>> Hey, I get that... I have a pet peeve of hearing the "t" in "often" - even
>> though dictionaries now accept that as acceptable pronunciation. Used to not
>> be the case and I have had a hard time adapting... still jumps out at me when
>> I hear people saying the word "incorrectly". But I do not ask them to change
>> - I accept I am just looking at things from a specific perspective (in this
>> case a dated one, in your case a more technical one) and I do not push that
>> onto others.
>>
> That is not even remotely the same thing, snit.
Sure it is: we are both bothered by something we see as "wrong" even though
the "wrong" way is in common usage and is well accepted. The difference is
I do not try to push the "right" way onto others or pretend I cannot
understand others when they say it "incorrectly".
...
>>> How? They have almost all the market that there is. What would they want
>>> to change? Instead of trying to get the few percent of computer users who
>>> for one reason or another do not used Windows to buy it, they are far better
>>> off working to get their current customers to update the version that they
>>> have. Even the COLA folk sense this; look at the disparaging remarks they
>>> make about how XP users are not switching to 7 or Vista or whatever and
>>> staying with XP. The money is in the upgrades, not in the conversions.
>>>
>> Again: look at their marketing. They clearly target Mac / OS X users.
>>
> Where have they ever done that? Perhaps you felt swayed by their advertising
> and mistakenly thought it was directed at yourself, but that is just another
> of your misperceptions.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=621NMj9_SR4&vq=medium>
<http://www.microsoft.com/showcase/en/us/details/4c38d674-d6a2-4117-87c3-b5e
d571a710c>
<http://www.microsoft.com/showcase/en/us/details/73cd7f98-8473-412c-bf2d-900
16642cd18>
They specifically talk about Macs. How can you claim it is a
"misperception" to note that they do.
...
>> Of course their ads targeting Mac users was largely in reaction to Apple's
>> ads. That does not mean they did not have such ads. The point is MS was
>> clearly working to get Mac users to move to Windows (and to prevent Windows
>> users from moving to the Mac).
>>
> No they were targeting their current customers and pointing out how foolish
> one would be to switch to a Mac and pay a lot more for the same thing or even
> a lesser thing.
So you agree with my second target but disagree with my first. Have any
support for that? And how would one target one without targeting the other?
The idea was to pick our product and not the competition... that does not
differentiate between what you have now.
...
>>> I don't see that they are targeting them, snit. Why would you think that
>>> they were?
>>>
>> Because that was the whole focus of the ads? Really, not sure how else to
>> answer that. The whole "I'm a PC" and the price comparison ads were all
>> about comparing Windows with OS X / Macs.
>>
> Well you are just too self-centered to see the truth.
LOL! You do like to feel superior. Keep in mind though that in this
discussion we have had two primary disagreements and I have been clearly
correct both times. Your 99%+ figure was rather silly and your push for an
irrelevant use of the term "market share" was a poor choice.
> Where is Microsoft more likely to obtain future business? Would it be from
> converting a Macintosh user to become a Windows user? Or would it more likely
> be from keeping an existing Windows customer and persuading them to update
> sooner than later? Which is easier to accomplish? Microsoft marketers are
> not stupid, they make bonuses base on the cost effectiveness of their
> promotions measured by results of in-depth surveys that Microsoft pays a lot
> of money to have conducted. You say that you do not have any formal training
> in this area, so why are you so certain that you know more than they do?
>
> Microsoft ads are directed at current customers. There are ever so many more
> of them than there are Mac customers, wouldn't you agree? And the Mac user is
> a relatively hard sell because they almost all come with the same attitude
> that you display.
They display an attitude of common sense. OK.
> A smart marketer isn't going to waste a kit if tune and energy trying to do
> that. Ditto for Linux users who are even more sparse than Mac users, if you
> want to believe the comparisons usage of desktops offered by the web
> statistics keepers. A smart marketer is going to dig where the ore is the
> richest and that is where they already have solid customer bases.
You keep saying the ads somehow targeted Windows users and not OS X users...
but the evidence does not support that. The ads were about using their
product and not another... they made no mention as to what OS the folks
depicted had used in the past. Heck, they made no mention as to OS
features, just price and some hardware features (at least that I recall).
In other words, you are pushing a claim that is not supported by the data.
My view is that the data stands by itself and is correct. Seems you are
zero for three here... and yet you still have a rather mightier-than-though
attitude. Interesting.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
amicus_curious
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C9C4DCE8.944C8%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
You are far to quick to pat yourself on the back, snit. First off, I proved
that Microsoft does have 99+% of the relevant market. No one else has any
really measurable share. You seem to have forgotten that you were trounced
on this item. Second, I have explained that market share is an exact term
used in marketing for a specific purpose. You admitted that you are
ignorant as to anything to do with business administration and marketing and
somehow think that your misuse of the term is proof that you made some sort
of point. I am sorry that you are so confused if that is the case and you
are not just being childishly obstinate.
What evidence, snit? You admit you don't know jack about marketing,
advertising, or anything else apparently. But you insist somehow that these
ads were aimed at Mac users. Mac users are not worth bothering with and
Microsoft certainly understands that. Your arrogance seems to make you
think that they have some interest in you all, but that is a big mistake.
They run an ad that 95 or more people out of a hundred see as a good reason
to not bother with looking at a Macintosh computer and to stay with their
existing machine or possible go out and replace it with the latest "cloud"
capable model. You, though, assume that they are targeting the 5% who do
use a Mac. That is absurd. If they were targeting Mac users, they would
advertise on Macintosh websites and magazines, presuming that some exist.
They wouldn't buy prime time slots on general purpose channels, they would
go where there was some sort of concentration of Mac users so that they
could get more coverage for their advertising dollar.
> In other words, you are pushing a claim that is not supported by the data.
> My view is that the data stands by itself and is correct. Seems you are
> zero for three here... and yet you still have a rather
> mightier-than-though
> attitude. Interesting.
>
You have no data, snit. Quit trying to kid yourself.
If it helps your ego to think that Microsoft is focused on Mac business at
any cost and that makes you feel large, then go ahead, bask in the glory you
see. If you ever want to understand how things really work, though, you are
going to have to change your attitude.
Snit
4d9f9d60$0$22148$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 4/8/11 4:40 PM:
...
>>>>> I don't see that they are targeting them, snit. Why would you think that
>>>>> they were?
>>>>>
>>>> Because that was the whole focus of the ads? Really, not sure how else to
>>>> answer that. The whole "I'm a PC" and the price comparison ads were all
>>>> about comparing Windows with OS X / Macs.
>>>>
>>> Well you are just too self-centered to see the truth.
>>>
>> LOL! You do like to feel superior. Keep in mind though that in this
>> discussion we have had two primary disagreements and I have been clearly
>> correct both times. Your 99%+ figure was rather silly and your push for an
>> irrelevant use of the term "market share" was a poor choice.
>>
> You are far to quick to pat yourself on the back, snit.
Nope... though I do it in a way which points out your errors... but rest
assured, I do that only because of your attitude. :)
> First off, I proved that Microsoft does have 99+% of the relevant market.
Nope. And the idea they do is absurd: if nothing else OS X has a higher
than 1% share (in terms of both units and dollars).
> No one else has any really measurable share.
Completely and utterly incorrect. Again: Apple. OS X. Macs. They exist
and are a significant part of the desktop market.
> You seem to have forgotten that you were trounced on this item. Second, I
> have explained that market share is an exact term used in marketing for a
> specific purpose.
For crying out loud! Have you forgotten the whole discussion on relevancy?
Did you not understand that when talking about a free product your focus on
the market, in terms of dollars and not units, does not apply? Where were
you during that explanation?
> You admitted that you are ignorant as to anything to do with business
> administration and marketing and somehow think that your misuse of the term is
> proof that you made some sort of point.
I hoped you would do better than just flat out make up such a claim. But
you did. Such is life... now that I have noted how your three primary
claims have no merit you are going to sink to insisting I said I was
"ignorant" about something I never said I was. So be it.
> I am sorry that you are so confused
> if that is the case and you are not just being childishly obstinate.
See: you pretend I am confused when I have been shown to be right on each
point discussed. Namely:
* You said Windows had 99%+ of the market. The fact OS X exists and has a
greater than 1% market share rips this apart. The fact that Linux *also*
has a greater than 1% market share adds to this, though with that you
insisted on an irrelevant use of the term "market share".
* You pushed for a technical and irrelevant use of the term "market share" -
one that does not apply to free products.
* You claimed that MS was not targeting Mac usage, but their ads
specifically compared their products to Macs. This completely trounced your
claim.
I am not saying I am always right, but in this case I am 3 for 0 (and, thus,
you are 0 for 3). This is not a big deal - we all make mistakes. I just
hope you learn to handle yours better than to belittle me or make up stories
about me. I will admit, however, I am sorta rubbing your nose in your
errors and I understand that is not comfortable for you (though your pride
dictates you will deny this... so be it).
...
>>> A smart marketer isn't going to waste a kit if tune and energy trying to do
>>> that. Ditto for Linux users who are even more sparse than Mac users, if you
>>> want to believe the comparisons usage of desktops offered by the web
>>> statistics keepers. A smart marketer is going to dig where the ore is the
>>> richest and that is where they already have solid customer bases.
>>>
>> You keep saying the ads somehow targeted Windows users and not OS X users...
>> but the evidence does not support that. The ads were about using their
>> product and not another... they made no mention as to what OS the folks
>> depicted had used in the past. Heck, they made no mention as to OS features,
>> just price and some hardware features (at least that I recall).
>
> What evidence, snit? You admit you don't know jack about marketing,
> advertising, or anything else apparently.
For the record: you made that up.
> But you insist somehow that these ads were aimed at Mac users.
Of course they were - they *specifically* mentioned the Macs!
> Mac users are not worth bothering with and Microsoft certainly understands
> that. Your arrogance seems to make you think that they have some interest in
> you all, but that is a big mistake.
You keep denying that MS "bothers" with Macs, but they clearly do. They do
in terms of their commercials and also in terms of their products. They are
one of the largest Mac developers! You claim it is "arrogance" for me to
understand these simple facts. That is yet another error on your part -
though since it is tied to accusations against me and not to any real data I
shan't add that to your list of errors.
> They run an ad that 95 or more people out of a hundred see as a good reason to
> not bother with looking at a Macintosh computer and to stay with their
> existing machine or possible go out and replace it with the latest "cloud"
> capable model. You, though, assume that they are targeting the 5% who do use
> a Mac. That is absurd.
It is also a bastardization of what I said. I noted they were targeting
users of OS X *and* of Windows. Note how you twisted that.
> If they were targeting Mac users, they would advertise on Macintosh websites
> and magazines, presuming that some exist. They wouldn't buy prime time slots
> on general purpose channels, they would go where there was some sort of
> concentration of Mac users so that they could get more coverage for their
> advertising dollar.
They advertised on TV and in magazines - and not just Windows-based
magazines.
>> In other words, you are pushing a claim that is not supported by the data.
>> My view is that the data stands by itself and is correct. Seems you are
>> zero for three here... and yet you still have a rather
>> mightier-than-though
>> attitude. Interesting.
>>
> You have no data, snit. Quit trying to kid yourself.
>
> If it helps your ego to think that Microsoft is focused on Mac business at
> any cost and that makes you feel large, then go ahead, bask in the glory you
> see. If you ever want to understand how things really work, though, you are
> going to have to change your attitude.
"Focused on the Mac business at any cost"... another thing you made up.
You are now at the point where your ego is not letting you admit to your
errors so you are making things up. Oh well. You are also, in order to
protect your pride, pretending you have an "attitude" that allows you to
understand "how things really work", even though you are 0 for 3 in this
"discussion". A sad showing from you, frankly. Remember:
* You said Windows had 99%+ of the market. The fact OS X exists and has a
greater than 1% market share rips this apart. The fact that Linux *also*
has a greater than 1% market share adds to this, though is not needed to
make it clear you were wrong.
* You pushed for a technical and irrelevant use of the term "market share" -
one that does not apply to free products.
* You claimed that MS was not targeting Mac usage, but their ads
specifically compared their products to Macs. This completely trounced your
claim. When faced with this you moved the goal post to focusing on Macs "at
any cost" and solely targeting Mac user... which was never claimed by
anyone.
You are, currently, 0 for 3.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
4d9f7ea4$0$22091$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 4/8/11 2:28 PM:
>
>
> "Hadron" <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:kiy63kr...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> "amicus_curious" <ac...@sti.net> writes:
>>
>>> Where did you get your business degree, snit, and what was their
>>> definition of
>>> market share?
>>
>>
>> This is your one big failing. total inability to use a word in
>> context.
>
> You are rather implying that it is a failing to refuse to misuse what I
> consider a technical term. That happens all the time, of course, and a
> marketing fellow might say mega-deal and not actually mean a deal a million
> times bigger than an ordinary deal, but only, say, ten times bigger. I use
> the term somewhat loosely myself on occasion and I do recognize the context
> that it is being used within, I believe. Here, though, bb's original post
> was suggesting that the increase of web share usage from 1% to 1.7% had some
> meaning in regard to the Windows software market and I say it does not.
When talking about a free product, the insistence on referring to dollars as
one discussed its share in the market is nonsensical. Not
...
>> If 20% of the Market has still not acquired an OS and MS targets it but
>> they install LInux instead it doesnt take a genius to work out what
>> "Linux has 20% of the market share" means in this context. I am baffled
>> by your intransigence on this. Business degree or not. I can only assume
>> it was from a Polytechnic where definitions and terms were preferred
>> over thought, flexibility and adaptability in the face of changing
>> scenarios.
>>
> Well, I will surrender on this with one last effort to say that a long time
> ago the people considered that the world was flat and, in context, the
> hypothesis worked OK for their purposes at the time. Eventually, though, it
> became necessary to understand the real geometry there.
How is that even relevant? Do you think it makes your push of money into a
discussion about free products somehow make more sense?
> Market share, in marketing circles, has a very specific meaning as does
> analysis of unsold potential market customers and recognition of false
> targets such as groups who will never buy regardless of circumstances.
> Those kind of share figures are used by savvy product managers to pick a
> promotion strategy that might increase that share.
The fact that the term market share might mean something different in
different contexts is not in question.
> If you want to mix apples and oranges and bananas, using the term simply to
> mean a mind share of sorts and you do not have any real intention of using
> these figures as a part of a decision making process, you are certainly free
> to do so. I will make no more mention of it until someone tries to draw a
> conclusion from some detected anomaly that may occur in the future.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
amicus_curious
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C9C4FCD2.944E9%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
I am having a real problem deciphering what you might mean here, snit. The
first sentence has a kind of usual ring to it as a non-argument response
that shows how you missed the point, but the "Not" seems out of place. That
usually means that you are using a sort of sarcasm to say something
backwards.
If the "not" was unintended, then I need to point out that the use of
dollars is totally appropriate when commenting on the effect of Linux on
Microsoft revenues. I think it has very little, if any effect. All that
the Linux mind share figures show is the size of some form of unavailable
market. Absent Linux, it is not at all likely that those users would be out
and about buying Windows machines, so how many of them may exist is not
material to Windows' strategy. The only effect that the existence of Linux
has on the desktop OS software market is in its formation of a sort of
bottom level of user commitment that limits the theoretical size of the
market. Microsoft must provide feature, function, and benefit for its
products in excess of that level in order to motivate customers to buy.
Else they will simply stay with what they have, which forms a similar sort
of lower limit, or could switch to the cheaper solution, if the differential
in price seemed worthwhile. That is where the dollars always have to come
in, snit, that is as a differential between the products. Windows is
perceived as worth more than that price difference minus the cost of change,
whatever it may be, and that is what keeps them in the lead.
> ...
>>> If 20% of the Market has still not acquired an OS and MS targets it but
>>> they install LInux instead it doesnt take a genius to work out what
>>> "Linux has 20% of the market share" means in this context. I am baffled
>>> by your intransigence on this. Business degree or not. I can only assume
>>> it was from a Polytechnic where definitions and terms were preferred
>>> over thought, flexibility and adaptability in the face of changing
>>> scenarios.
>>>
>> Well, I will surrender on this with one last effort to say that a long
>> time
>> ago the people considered that the world was flat and, in context, the
>> hypothesis worked OK for their purposes at the time. Eventually, though,
>> it
>> became necessary to understand the real geometry there.
>
> How is that even relevant? Do you think it makes your push of money into
> a
> discussion about free products somehow make more sense?
>
People misunderstood the nature of the world a thousand years ago just as
they seem to misunderstand the meaning of "market share" in COLA today.
Used correctly, market share information is useful for decision making.
Used incorrectly, there is nothing to be gained from knowing it.
>> Market share, in marketing circles, has a very specific meaning as does
>> analysis of unsold potential market customers and recognition of false
>> targets such as groups who will never buy regardless of circumstances.
>> Those kind of share figures are used by savvy product managers to pick a
>> promotion strategy that might increase that share.
>
> The fact that the term market share might mean something different in
> different contexts is not in question.
>
The problem comes in when the term is misused technically, for example to
include Linux, Apple, and Android effects in some kind of statistic that
describes user mind-share, and then to make some inference about market
behavior or make a strategy decision based on that false statistic.
amicus_curious
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C9C4F3B0.944DB%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
> amicus_curious stated in post
> 4d9f9d60$0$22148$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 4/8/11 4:40 PM:
>
> ...
>>>>>> I don't see that they are targeting them, snit. Why would you think
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> they were?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Because that was the whole focus of the ads? Really, not sure how
>>>>> else to
>>>>> answer that. The whole "I'm a PC" and the price comparison ads were
>>>>> all
>>>>> about comparing Windows with OS X / Macs.
>>>>>
>>>> Well you are just too self-centered to see the truth.
>>>>
>>> LOL! You do like to feel superior. Keep in mind though that in this
>>> discussion we have had two primary disagreements and I have been clearly
>>> correct both times. Your 99%+ figure was rather silly and your push for
>>> an
>>> irrelevant use of the term "market share" was a poor choice.
>>>
>> You are far to quick to pat yourself on the back, snit.
>
> Nope... though I do it in a way which points out your errors... but rest
> assured, I do that only because of your attitude. :)
>
>> First off, I proved that Microsoft does have 99+% of the relevant market.
>
> Nope. And the idea they do is absurd: if nothing else OS X has a higher
> than 1% share (in terms of both units and dollars).
>
OS X has a no share at all in the relevant market, snit. It is an in-house
product consumed almost entirely by Apple. Windows is shut out from
competing in that niche entirely. If Apple were to offer users a choice
among Windows, OS X, and Linux on their machines, then there would be a
market, but that is not the case. IIRC, they sue anyone who tries to make
even a compatible hardware product that might be able to use alternate OS,
including OS X.
>> No one else has any really measurable share.
>
> Completely and utterly incorrect. Again: Apple. OS X. Macs. They exist
> and are a significant part of the desktop market.
>
Not the software market, snit, just the desktop computer market. Apple
competes with Dell and HP, not with Microsoft. They only affect Microsoft
indirectly by limiting the size of the business that Microsoft does compete
within.
>> You seem to have forgotten that you were trounced on this item. Second,
>> I
>> have explained that market share is an exact term used in marketing for a
>> specific purpose.
>
> For crying out loud! Have you forgotten the whole discussion on
> relevancy?
> Did you not understand that when talking about a free product your focus
> on
> the market, in terms of dollars and not units, does not apply? Where were
> you during that explanation?
>
Do you not understand that your focus on unit count has no meaningful use
beyond keeping score?
>> You admitted that you are ignorant as to anything to do with business
>> administration and marketing and somehow think that your misuse of the
>> term is
>> proof that you made some sort of point.
>
> I hoped you would do better than just flat out make up such a claim. But
> you did. Such is life... now that I have noted how your three primary
> claims have no merit you are going to sink to insisting I said I was
> "ignorant" about something I never said I was. So be it.
>
>> I am sorry that you are so confused
>> if that is the case and you are not just being childishly obstinate.
>
> See: you pretend I am confused when I have been shown to be right on each
> point discussed. Namely:
>
> * You said Windows had 99%+ of the market. The fact OS X exists and has a
> greater than 1% market share rips this apart. The fact that Linux *also*
> has a greater than 1% market share adds to this, though with that you
> insisted on an irrelevant use of the term "market share".
>
You continue to miss the point, snit. Why not quit this absurd
conversation? You are not in the PC OS business anyway, so it doesn't
matter what you understand or misunderstand. You are just one of the fans
in the stands, cheering for a losing team and not noticing that the game was
over more than a decade ago.
> * You pushed for a technical and irrelevant use of the term "market
> share" -
> one that does not apply to free products.
>
Free products are not markets.
> * You claimed that MS was not targeting Mac usage, but their ads
> specifically compared their products to Macs. This completely trounced
> your
> claim.
>
You change your tune, snit? Did you finally come to the understanding that
the ads did not target Mac "users", but rather some notion of "usage"?
> I am not saying I am always right, but in this case I am 3 for 0 (and,
> thus,
> you are 0 for 3). This is not a big deal - we all make mistakes. I just
> hope you learn to handle yours better than to belittle me or make up
> stories
> about me. I will admit, however, I am sorta rubbing your nose in your
> errors and I understand that is not comfortable for you (though your pride
> dictates you will deny this... so be it).
>
You are doomed to a life of failure, snit. But the good news is that you
may not suffer much since you are too numb to even understand that.
> ...
>>>> A smart marketer isn't going to waste a kit if tune and energy trying
>>>> to do
>>>> that. Ditto for Linux users who are even more sparse than Mac users,
>>>> if you
>>>> want to believe the comparisons usage of desktops offered by the web
>>>> statistics keepers. A smart marketer is going to dig where the ore is
>>>> the
>>>> richest and that is where they already have solid customer bases.
>>>>
>>> You keep saying the ads somehow targeted Windows users and not OS X
>>> users...
>>> but the evidence does not support that. The ads were about using their
>>> product and not another... they made no mention as to what OS the folks
>>> depicted had used in the past. Heck, they made no mention as to OS
>>> features,
>>> just price and some hardware features (at least that I recall).
>>
>> What evidence, snit? You admit you don't know jack about marketing,
>> advertising, or anything else apparently.
>
> For the record: you made that up.
>
I asked you define your understanding and experience and you said that it
was not relevant. Hence you have none.
I think you do understand, snit! That is the second time you have run from
your use of "Mac users" and substitute the inanimate "OS X". But you slip
up when you say "users of OX X". That can only mean "Mac users", eh?
>> If they were targeting Mac users, they would advertise on Macintosh
>> websites
>> and magazines, presuming that some exist. They wouldn't buy prime time
>> slots
>> on general purpose channels, they would go where there was some sort of
>> concentration of Mac users so that they could get more coverage for their
>> advertising dollar.
>
> They advertised on TV and in magazines - and not just Windows-based
> magazines.
>
Which is what I said. Are you just trying to generate some smoke screen?
>>> In other words, you are pushing a claim that is not supported by the
>>> data.
>>> My view is that the data stands by itself and is correct. Seems you are
>>> zero for three here... and yet you still have a rather
>>> mightier-than-though
>>> attitude. Interesting.
>>>
>> You have no data, snit. Quit trying to kid yourself.
>>
>> If it helps your ego to think that Microsoft is focused on Mac business
>> at
>> any cost and that makes you feel large, then go ahead, bask in the glory
>> you
>> see. If you ever want to understand how things really work, though, you
>> are
>> going to have to change your attitude.
>
> "Focused on the Mac business at any cost"... another thing you made up.
>
Well you seem to think that they care and would waste 95% of the effect of
their advertising trying to change their position. That would amount to
"focused...at any cost", or at least at a very high relative cost.
> You are now at the point where your ego is not letting you admit to your
> errors so you are making things up. Oh well. You are also, in order to
> protect your pride, pretending you have an "attitude" that allows you to
> understand "how things really work", even though you are 0 for 3 in this
> "discussion". A sad showing from you, frankly. Remember:
>
> * You said Windows had 99%+ of the market. The fact OS X exists and has a
> greater than 1% market share rips this apart. The fact that Linux *also*
> has a greater than 1% market share adds to this, though is not needed to
> make it clear you were wrong.
>
> * You pushed for a technical and irrelevant use of the term "market
> share" -
> one that does not apply to free products.
>
> * You claimed that MS was not targeting Mac usage, but their ads
> specifically compared their products to Macs. This completely trounced
> your
> claim. When faced with this you moved the goal post to focusing on Macs
> "at
> any cost" and solely targeting Mac user... which was never claimed by
> anyone.
>
> You are, currently, 0 for 3.
>
Tell yourself that, snit, but I think you know better. When you can admit
it, that will be the day you start to get well.
Snit
4da04f10$0$2601$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 4/9/11 5:17 AM:
...
The "not" was unintentional. You got that at least. Other than that, well,
you just seem a bit lost... not in being incorrect necessarily, but in being
focused on the topic. Remember: I was merely noting your incorrect usage of
the term "market share" in terms of a free product.
>
>> ...
>>>> If 20% of the Market has still not acquired an OS and MS targets it but
>>>> they install LInux instead it doesnt take a genius to work out what "Linux
>>>> has 20% of the market share" means in this context. I am baffled by your
>>>> intransigence on this. Business degree or not. I can only assume it was
>>>> from a Polytechnic where definitions and terms were preferred over thought,
>>>> flexibility and adaptability in the face of changing scenarios.
>>>>
>>> Well, I will surrender on this with one last effort to say that a long time
>>> ago the people considered that the world was flat and, in context, the
>>> hypothesis worked OK for their purposes at the time. Eventually, though, it
>>> became necessary to understand the real geometry there.
>>>
>> How is that even relevant? Do you think it makes your push of money into a
>> discussion about free products somehow make more sense?
>>
> People misunderstood the nature of the world a thousand years ago just as they
> seem to misunderstand the meaning of "market share" in COLA today. Used
> correctly, market share information is useful for decision making. Used
> incorrectly, there is nothing to be gained from knowing it.
See below.
>>> Market share, in marketing circles, has a very specific meaning as does
>>> analysis of unsold potential market customers and recognition of false
>>> targets such as groups who will never buy regardless of circumstances.
>>> Those kind of share figures are used by savvy product managers to pick a
>>> promotion strategy that might increase that share.
>>
>> The fact that the term market share might mean something different in
>> different contexts is not in question.
>>
> The problem comes in when the term is misused technically, for example to
> include Linux, Apple, and Android effects in some kind of statistic that
> describes user mind-share, and then to make some inference about market
> behavior or make a strategy decision based on that false statistic.
As has been noted:
* You pushed for a technical and irrelevant use of the term "market share" -
one that does not apply to free products.
Not sure what else you need.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
4da053b3$0$2642$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 4/9/11 5:38 AM:
...
>>> You are far to quick to pat yourself on the back, snit.
>>>
>> Nope... though I do it in a way which points out your errors... but rest
>> assured, I do that only because of your attitude. :)
>>
>>> First off, I proved that Microsoft does have 99+% of the relevant market.
>>>
>> Nope. And the idea they do is absurd: if nothing else OS X has a higher than
>> 1% share (in terms of both units and dollars).
>>
> OS X has a no share at all in the relevant market, snit. It is an in-house
> product consumed almost entirely by Apple. Windows is shut out from competing
> in that niche entirely. If Apple were to offer users a choice among Windows,
> OS X, and Linux on their machines, then there would be a market, but that is
> not the case. IIRC, they sue anyone who tries to make even a compatible
> hardware product that might be able to use alternate OS, including OS X.
You are moving goal posts:
When you look at the money that is being paid for Windows
versus the money that is being paid for any other desktop OS,
the result is a 99+% vote for Windows, the balance being odds
and ends for Apple customers to buy upgrades and the very
occasional sale, if they even still exist, for boxed sets of
Linux.
I pointed out how your 99%+ figure was not correct. Now you are trying to
exclude one of the very groups you included before, Apple customers buying
upgrades.
>>> No one else has any really measurable share.
>>
>> Completely and utterly incorrect. Again: Apple. OS X. Macs. They exist
>> and are a significant part of the desktop market.
>>
> Not the software market, snit, just the desktop computer market. Apple
> competes with Dell and HP, not with Microsoft. They only affect Microsoft
> indirectly by limiting the size of the business that Microsoft does compete
> within.
The software market (specifically the market for OSs) is very much tied to
the desktop computer market. In fact, without an OS, those machines do not
sell in any significant numbers... just as trucks are rarely sold without
tires. :)
...
>> See: you pretend I am confused when I have been shown to be right on each
>> point discussed. Namely:
>>
>> * You said Windows had 99%+ of the market. The fact OS X exists and has a
>> greater than 1% market share rips this apart. The fact that Linux *also*
>> has a greater than 1% market share adds to this, though with that you
>> insisted on an irrelevant use of the term "market share".
>>
> You continue to miss the point, snit. Why not quit this absurd
> conversation? You are not in the PC OS business anyway, so it doesn't
> matter what you understand or misunderstand. You are just one of the fans
> in the stands, cheering for a losing team and not noticing that the game was
> over more than a decade ago.
See: you have no real response... just insults. This is evidence you know I
am correct.
>> * You pushed for a technical and irrelevant use of the term "market share" -
>> one that does not apply to free products.
>>
> Free products are not markets.
No, but they are *in* markets. But now this is just silly semantics. By
the way, to show you how I am using the term in a common way:
<http://goo.gl/IWSHI>
-----
Linux market share grows vs. Windows and Mac OS X shrinkage
-----
Are you going to deny they were talking about free versions of Linux?
<http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/linux-market-share>
-----
Linux Market Share
-----
And there to? No reference to free versions?
<http://www.thevarguy.com/?p=15843>
-----
Measuring Ubuntu's Market Share
-----
What? Who buys Ubuntu?
On and on and on. You can whine about the "correct" usage of "market share"
and I can whine about the "correct" pronunciation of "often"... that would
not mean either of us would be right.
>> * You claimed that MS was not targeting Mac usage, but their ads specifically
>> compared their products to Macs. This completely trounced your claim.
>>
> You change your tune, snit? Did you finally come to the understanding that
> the ads did not target Mac "users", but rather some notion of "usage"?
Huh? I noted you were incorrect. Now you want to try to turn that around.
Sorta cute, I guess.
>> I am not saying I am always right, but in this case I am 3 for 0 (and, thus,
>> you are 0 for 3). This is not a big deal - we all make mistakes. I just
>> hope you learn to handle yours better than to belittle me or make up stories
>> about me. I will admit, however, I am sorta rubbing your nose in your errors
>> and I understand that is not comfortable for you (though your pride dictates
>> you will deny this... so be it).
>>
> You are doomed to a life of failure, snit. But the good news is that you
> may not suffer much since you are too numb to even understand that.
See how you get when you are proved wrong. Not a very good showing for
yourself.
....
>>> What evidence, snit? You admit you don't know jack about marketing,
>>> advertising, or anything else apparently.
>>
>> For the record: you made that up.
>>
> I asked you define your understanding and experience and you said that it
> was not relevant. Hence you have none.
See: you made it up. You lied. Period. Please stop lying.
...
>>> They run an ad that 95 or more people out of a hundred see as a good reason
>>> to not bother with looking at a Macintosh computer and to stay with their
>>> existing machine or possible go out and replace it with the latest "cloud"
>>> capable model. You, though, assume that they are targeting the 5% who do
>>> use a Mac. That is absurd.
>>>
>> It is also a bastardization of what I said. I noted they were targeting
>> users of OS X *and* of Windows. Note how you twisted that.
>>
> I think you do understand, snit! That is the second time you have run from
> your use of "Mac users" and substitute the inanimate "OS X". But you slip up
> when you say "users of OX X". That can only mean "Mac users", eh?
Your comments did not come close to responding to the fact I noted another
of your fabrications. Why is that? Why not just admit you made your claim
about my view up?
>>> If they were targeting Mac users, they would advertise on Macintosh websites
>>> and magazines, presuming that some exist. They wouldn't buy prime time slots
>>> on general purpose channels, they would go where there was some sort of
>>> concentration of Mac users so that they could get more coverage for their
>>> advertising dollar.
>>>
>> They advertised on TV and in magazines - and not just Windows-based
>> magazines.
>>
> Which is what I said. Are you just trying to generate some smoke screen?
>
So we agree the advertise in those places. Lovely.
...
>>> If it helps your ego to think that Microsoft is focused on Mac business at
>>> any cost and that makes you feel large, then go ahead, bask in the glory you
>>> see. If you ever want to understand how things really work, though, you are
>>> going to have to change your attitude.
>>
>> "Focused on the Mac business at any cost"... another thing you made up.
>>
> Well you seem to think that they care and would waste 95% of the effect of
> their advertising trying to change their position. That would amount to
> "focused...at any cost", or at least at a very high relative cost.
Nope. Remember: you made that up. You have been doing that a lot.
>> You are now at the point where your ego is not letting you admit to your
>> errors so you are making things up. Oh well. You are also, in order to
>> protect your pride, pretending you have an "attitude" that allows you to
>> understand "how things really work", even though you are 0 for 3 in this
>> "discussion". A sad showing from you, frankly. Remember:
>>
>> * You said Windows had 99%+ of the market. The fact OS X exists and has a
>> greater than 1% market share rips this apart. The fact that Linux *also* has
>> a greater than 1% market share adds to this, though is not needed to make it
>> clear you were wrong.
>>
>> * You pushed for a technical and irrelevant use of the term "market share" -
>> one that does not apply to free products.
>>
>> * You claimed that MS was not targeting Mac usage, but their ads specifically
>> compared their products to Macs. This completely trounced your claim. When
>> faced with this you moved the goal post to focusing on Macs "at any cost" and
>> solely targeting Mac user... which was never claimed by anyone.
>>
>> You are, currently, 0 for 3.
>>
> Tell yourself that, snit, but I think you know better. When you can admit
> it, that will be the day you start to get well.
If you think I am wrong then actually try to counter my comments. Please.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
amicus_curious
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C9C5D1CE.94586%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
What you are missing is the rest of the story, snit. I say that the
"share", meaning percentage and nothing else, of users who prefer Macintosh
and the similar share of users who prefer Linux together or individually
have no meaningful effect on Microsoft's future business. You cannot
measure that share with dollars at all, I would agree, but then there is no
purpose in measuring it to begin with since it has no affect on the market.
I understand that is your point of view, snit. Mine is that you are
misusing the term while remaining ignorant of its real meaning. I might ask
the question, which you so far have refused to answer, as to just what
purpose you would put the knowledge contained in your contextual
understanding of "market share". The way you describe it, that is not in
accordance with marketing theories, it has no purpose other than to simply
define a collection of apples, oranges, and bananas that have no real
relationship to one another.