- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Debunking the 1% Myth
|
|
|
Comments (27)
broken quote
1 earlier comment in the full thread.
You can't make yourself believe something, but if you hear the same thing enough times, you will act in the same way as someone who actually does believe it.
If you hear the MacGyver theme tune enough times you too will believe you can make a bomb out of a soda straw and a ball of twine.
This belief that Linux has a 1% market share is what M$ is shooting for... Make your enemy into a straw-man, and they will see their supporters fall away,... even in the face of them growing stronger.
If you look at my own situation, I have converted several users over to Linux. One block I lived on had about 14 computer users. If only me and my neighbor were counted on that block, Linux had a 14% user base. At work, I am the only person whom I know is a Linux user out of about 40 people, making Linux market penetration in my office approximately 2.5%. You can do this all over the place until your self-selecting samples are way out of control.
I think that the best way to measure Linux market penetration is to do so from the internal figures your enemy uses. Apart from the "frightening the troops into a rally" arguments, M$ puts Linux market penetration somewhere between 6 and 10%. That jives with Canonical's 7+% estimate, and also some other credible estimates. If you consider that one Linux users will typically have more than one machine using Linux, then your figures are even higher. I have more than 12 computing devices running Linux in my home; 1 server, 3 HTPCs, 1 desktop machine, 2 netbooks, 2 UMPCs, 2 repurposed routers, & 2 traditional laptops, and that doesn't include my Nokia N900 web tablet/phone, 2 set-top boxes (Neuros OSDs) that are currently idle or the Android slates I intend to purchase in the next 12 mos.
My point is that my Linux usage is more typical of what I think the average Linux user does,... translate their $$$ software savings into running multiple machines on Linux. That impacts M$ in terms of eroding market share. They would rather me be a 2-4 device household running their software than me having as many devices as I do running their competition. They ramp up their marketing and development based on me being a potential consumer, and when I disappoint them, it impacts their bottom line. This has a cummulative effect on both sales, (when you multiply it out over the number of users, and Linux market share growth) and return on investment. Remember, M$ lost money over the last several years, over their expectations... Netbooks, mobile devices, embeded devices, all running Linux (in some form or another) all contribute to that. OEMs are widdling down per unit costs on M$ OS contracts. M$ is seeing their installed base erode at a time when their ROI is losing muscle power. Patent wars are just another sign of this. M$ is becoming increasingly less relevant. And they know it, too.
If you look at my own situation, I have converted several users over to Linux. One block I lived on had about 14 computer users. If only me and my neighbor were counted on that block, Linux had a 14% user base. At work, I am the only person whom I know is a Linux user out of about 40 people, making Linux market penetration in my office approximately 2.5%. You can do this all over the place until your self-selecting samples are way out of control.
I think that the best way to measure Linux market penetration is to do so from the internal figures your enemy uses. Apart from the "frightening the troops into a rally" arguments, M$ puts Linux market penetration somewhere between 6 and 10%. That jives with Canonical's 7+% estimate, and also some other credible estimates. If you consider that one Linux users will typically have more than one machine using Linux, then your figures are even higher. I have more than 12 computing devices running Linux in my home; 1 server, 3 HTPCs, 1 desktop machine, 2 netbooks, 2 UMPCs, 2 repurposed routers, & 2 traditional laptops, and that doesn't include my Nokia N900 web tablet/phone, 2 set-top boxes (Neuros OSDs) that are currently idle or the Android slates I intend to purchase in the next 12 mos.
My point is that my Linux usage is more typical of what I think the average Linux user does,... translate their $$$ software savings into running multiple machines on Linux. That impacts M$ in terms of eroding market share. They would rather me be a 2-4 device household running their software than me having as many devices as I do running their competition. They ramp up their marketing and development based on me being a potential consumer, and when I disappoint them, it impacts their bottom line. This has a cummulative effect on both sales, (when you multiply it out over the number of users, and Linux market share growth) and return on investment. Remember, M$ lost money over the last several years, over their expectations... Netbooks, mobile devices, embeded devices, all running Linux (in some form or another) all contribute to that. OEMs are widdling down per unit costs on M$ OS contracts. M$ is seeing their installed base erode at a time when their ROI is losing muscle power. Patent wars are just another sign of this. M$ is becoming increasingly less relevant. And they know it, too.
That 1% occupies an awful lot of MS' attention.
The Goebbels quote is an urban legend. There is no legitimate attribution of that to him. It has been attributed to Lenin which may be accurate. The James quote is the original version.
> That 1% occupies an awful lot of MS' attention.
Doesn't it though ?!?!?! ... An awful lot of attention for something so miniscule. You'd figure 1-5% would be just enough for them to show to the DoJ that they really had competition... So they wouldn't mind it... But they seem to be bothered an awful lot by it, don't they?!?!?!
Doesn't it though ?!?!?! ... An awful lot of attention for something so miniscule. You'd figure 1-5% would be just enough for them to show to the DoJ that they really had competition... So they wouldn't mind it... But they seem to be bothered an awful lot by it, don't they?!?!?!
@JaseP;
Its because if Linux penetration into their 'market' actually reached 5% or more (I am using 5% because it sounds about right) the number of people that would convert others to Linux would reach critical mass and by the time of their next release no one would want or need it. Or at the very least all of a sudden 20+% of their market would be permanently gone.
Just my opinion..not based on any facts..just straight out of my head.
Its because if Linux penetration into their 'market' actually reached 5% or more (I am using 5% because it sounds about right) the number of people that would convert others to Linux would reach critical mass and by the time of their next release no one would want or need it. Or at the very least all of a sudden 20+% of their market would be permanently gone.
Just my opinion..not based on any facts..just straight out of my head.
Straight out of the head of Scott...now I'm scared...
You know, if Linux is so unimportant and so insignificant why have so many Microsoft fanbois descended on my last two articles? None of them provide facts or figures or links to back their assertions. one of them answer any questions I put to them. They just repeat the same FUD over and over again in slightly revised form. If Linux is just 1% of the market why do they feel so very threatened by it?
Scott, I actually believe that the real number is 8-10%. Tablets, like netbooks before them, are going to start boosting the Linux numbers this year unless you dismiss Android as other than Linux. If you use Gartner's lower figure of 18% for Linux netbook share in 2009 rather than ABI's 32% number it still works out to over 5% accounted for by Linux. Gartner has been shown to skew in favor of Microsoft before. The lowest number that could be reasonably defended is 6% and there is enough evidence to indicate that it is more than that.
Scott, I actually believe that the real number is 8-10%. Tablets, like netbooks before them, are going to start boosting the Linux numbers this year unless you dismiss Android as other than Linux. If you use Gartner's lower figure of 18% for Linux netbook share in 2009 rather than ABI's 32% number it still works out to over 5% accounted for by Linux. Gartner has been shown to skew in favor of Microsoft before. The lowest number that could be reasonably defended is 6% and there is enough evidence to indicate that it is more than that.
The source often quoted for the 1% figure is NetApplications http://marketshare.hitslink.com/operating-system-market-shar...
I don't believe their numbers for a moment, but a lot of people take them as gospel.
If anyone can point to a source at least equally credible and quotable for higher percentages, I'd be grateful.
I don't believe their numbers for a moment, but a lot of people take them as gospel.
If anyone can point to a source at least equally credible and quotable for higher percentages, I'd be grateful.
I debunked that number thoroughly in the article. I also provided market share numbers from ABI Research (again, link in the article) that show that netbooks alone account for much more than 1%. Those sources are at least equally credible.
> If anyone can point to a source at least equally credible and quotable for higher percentages, I'd be grateful.
Some guy on the internet said Linux has 80% market share. That's just as credible. The act of compiling a dataset (if they even bother to do that) does not in any way add credibility.
> why have so many Microsoft fanbois descended on my last two articles
If you are a Microsoft fanboi, you're so confused you probably don't know why you do most of what you do. I can understand being a Linux fanboi, trying to stick it to a big corporation, or trying to bring goodness to the world, or that sort of thing, but what kind of loser do you have to be if you are a fanboi of a large, for-profit corporation? Why does anyone else troll?
Some guy on the internet said Linux has 80% market share. That's just as credible. The act of compiling a dataset (if they even bother to do that) does not in any way add credibility.
> why have so many Microsoft fanbois descended on my last two articles
If you are a Microsoft fanboi, you're so confused you probably don't know why you do most of what you do. I can understand being a Linux fanboi, trying to stick it to a big corporation, or trying to bring goodness to the world, or that sort of thing, but what kind of loser do you have to be if you are a fanboi of a large, for-profit corporation? Why does anyone else troll?
Free Ferrari-Acer laptop for Christmas, I guess.
Indeed, the quote attributed to Joseph Goebbels is in doubt. However, he was Reich Minister of Propaganda. Propaganda has a relationship with Constructivism. One facet is the creation and sharing of meaning; another facet is influencing the shared meanings of others.
Anyone ever pay for and attend est training? No, don't answer that. The same goes for rebirthing and reparenting, primal screaming and a host of other processes developed to help the human race evolve ever higher, whether for fun, profit or as a product of indigestion.
I have lost both the picture and the text, but I still point to the full page ad Microsoft took out in a German magazine several years ago, the one with the cute cartoon creatures that were supposed to metaphorically represent how Linux was expected to evolve (expected by Microsoft, that is). But not really; this is what they hoped to influence other people to expect.
Bill Gates and company saw a need to be concerned, even back then. They started up the propaganda machine and hoped their brand of constructivism would win the day. How 1984 of them. The content of today's reports depends on who controls the reporting. Sometimes the reports have veracity and integrity...
Anyone ever pay for and attend est training? No, don't answer that. The same goes for rebirthing and reparenting, primal screaming and a host of other processes developed to help the human race evolve ever higher, whether for fun, profit or as a product of indigestion.
I have lost both the picture and the text, but I still point to the full page ad Microsoft took out in a German magazine several years ago, the one with the cute cartoon creatures that were supposed to metaphorically represent how Linux was expected to evolve (expected by Microsoft, that is). But not really; this is what they hoped to influence other people to expect.
Bill Gates and company saw a need to be concerned, even back then. They started up the propaganda machine and hoped their brand of constructivism would win the day. How 1984 of them. The content of today's reports depends on who controls the reporting. Sometimes the reports have veracity and integrity...
@golem: Bruce Byfield wrote a piece for Datamation on just how dubious the Net Applications numbers are. Please read: http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3818696/Li...
Gee Carla, you make it sound as if my head is full of undisclosed crimes and many yet to be tried scandalous endeavors...wait let me rephrase that..;-)
Well, Scott...well.....
In my defense, your not in trouble if you don't get caught..
And that its better to ask for forgiveness than permission..
And that its better to ask for forgiveness than permission..
> And that its better to ask for forgiveness than permission..
That depends on what, exactly, you are asking forgiveness for doing...
That depends on what, exactly, you are asking forgiveness for doing...
@caitlyn: Thanks. Your article is well written and helpful.
Going back to a presentation by Ballmer, he stated that Windows has a market share of 83% in the US. I believe that was on the occasion of the release of Windows 7. If as you say Linux and OS/X each have about 8%, that would be quite consistent with Ballmer's 83% figure for Windows.
NetApplications used to show statistics for the US market. The market share shown for Windows trended down smoothly over a period of years, finally reaching 87% IIRC before they switched to the present method of estimating worldwide market share. If the downtrend continued as before, it might well have reached 83% by now.
Going back to a presentation by Ballmer, he stated that Windows has a market share of 83% in the US. I believe that was on the occasion of the release of Windows 7. If as you say Linux and OS/X each have about 8%, that would be quite consistent with Ballmer's 83% figure for Windows.
NetApplications used to show statistics for the US market. The market share shown for Windows trended down smoothly over a period of years, finally reaching 87% IIRC before they switched to the present method of estimating worldwide market share. If the downtrend continued as before, it might well have reached 83% by now.
This "debate" was summarized nicely a couple years ago...
I disagree. There are more than enough sales figures since 2003 from IDC, ZDNet, Gartner, ABI Research, Dell and even Microsoft to show that the 1% figure hasn't been true since at least 2002 and probably for some time before that. There is more than enough data from more than enough credible sources to show that it is in excess of 6%.
The web counters used by those disputing my article often come from clearly biased sources. NetApplications rebrands and sells Windows software, not Linux software. StatCounter also has financial interests that are tied to Windows. The web counters that remain are all over the map and do not provide anything resembling a consistent result. The sales figures, on the other hand, show a steady and consistent pattern of growth since 2003.
Finally, if Steve Ballmer said Windows market share is 83% in the U.S. at the Windows 7 launch do you really want to claim that he is biased against his own company? That number is also consistent with my analysis.
The web counters used by those disputing my article often come from clearly biased sources. NetApplications rebrands and sells Windows software, not Linux software. StatCounter also has financial interests that are tied to Windows. The web counters that remain are all over the map and do not provide anything resembling a consistent result. The sales figures, on the other hand, show a steady and consistent pattern of growth since 2003.
Finally, if Steve Ballmer said Windows market share is 83% in the U.S. at the Windows 7 launch do you really want to claim that he is biased against his own company? That number is also consistent with my analysis.
> The web counters used by those disputing my article often come from clearly biased sources.
That is what I was referring to, because it is the web counters that are always cited. Maybe I should have said to imagine that Dilbert is making a presentation on behalf of one of the web counter companies.
That is what I was referring to, because it is the web counters that are always cited. Maybe I should have said to imagine that Dilbert is making a presentation on behalf of one of the web counter companies.
OK, fair enough :) Then we do agree.
I've been following Xitimonitor's numbers from some years, and when it comes to OS, they're about the same as the NetApps numbers: Consistently 0.9% for Linux for the last few years.
AFAIK, they're French and they count hits on European websites.
What makes it interesting, is they always have much higher numbers for FF-market share then NetApps does. But the same for Linux market share. So it's correct it matters a great lot if you're counting hits on US / European Websites (10% difference in FF-market share is no exception!), but there's not much difference in Linux market share.
So I think 1-2% (not counting Android) may be accurate after all (here I agree to disagree). We shouldn't forget most growth in PC-sales comes from countries where almost everybody uses pirated Windows, and RedFlag lost the battle after Bill Gates became involved.
Recently, I saw some numbers from France. I think in no (democratic?) government in the world, Linux is as popular as in France. And even in France, the market share was below 1%. All other countries in the EU are much more a Microsoft-friend than France, with my own country about the worst, even worse than UK (given the highest market share of IE throughout Europe, maybe except for Ukrain).
AFAIK, they're French and they count hits on European websites.
What makes it interesting, is they always have much higher numbers for FF-market share then NetApps does. But the same for Linux market share. So it's correct it matters a great lot if you're counting hits on US / European Websites (10% difference in FF-market share is no exception!), but there's not much difference in Linux market share.
So I think 1-2% (not counting Android) may be accurate after all (here I agree to disagree). We shouldn't forget most growth in PC-sales comes from countries where almost everybody uses pirated Windows, and RedFlag lost the battle after Bill Gates became involved.
Recently, I saw some numbers from France. I think in no (democratic?) government in the world, Linux is as popular as in France. And even in France, the market share was below 1%. All other countries in the EU are much more a Microsoft-friend than France, with my own country about the worst, even worse than UK (given the highest market share of IE throughout Europe, maybe except for Ukrain).
Quoting:Finally, if Steve Ballmer said Windows market share is 83% in the U.S. at the Windows 7 launch do you really want to claim that he is biased against his own company?
I think it's reasonable to support the view espoused by Steve Balmer, which places Linux uptake at over 10%. I can't see any benefit to Microsoft from pointing out that Windows is not as popular as is often claimed.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post