Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 21:28 UTC, submitted by lemur2
Linux "If you consider NetApplications' data set, then Linux owns only about 1 percent of the desktop OS market and Windows has almost 92 percent. But if you consider all computing platforms, including mobile, than Windows has only 20 percent and Linux has 42 percent - and that would be in the form of Google's Android alone." No more or less legitimate than claiming Windows owns 92% of the market. It's all a matter of perspective.
Thread beginning with comment 549942
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Marketshare
by Nelson on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 21:50 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

Marketshare is about giving context to a situation. When you lump everything together with everything you lose context.

What is Linux having "double" marketshare really telling you? That Android is popular? We already knew that because Android is popular in the mobile space.

Its only function, is to mask Linux's deficiencies in other core markets.

Its just a twisting of numbers to make a headline. This is like using Windows 92% marketshare to inflate their numbers in mobile. Doesn't really make sense.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Marketshare
by galvanash on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 22:07 in reply to "Marketshare"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

What is Linux having "double" marketshare really telling you? That Android is popular? We already knew that because Android is popular in the mobile space.

Its only function, is to mask Linux's deficiencies in other core markets.


So is the 5% marketshare of Windows in mobile an indication of its deficiency in the mobile market? I personally don't think it is indicative of a "deficiency" any more than the 1% marketshare of Linux on the desktop is. It is a matter of popularity and where the broad corporate backing is - no major players are backing Linux as a desktop play (with the minor exception of Ubuntu, for what that is worth). If anything, Windows Phone has even less of an excuse for its poor showing in mobile, because at least it has the might of Microsoft behind it...

Its just a twisting of numbers to make a headline. This is like using Windows 92% marketshare to inflate their numbers in mobile. Doesn't really make sense.


I do get your point, sort of... But your saying that there is no context... There is context, i.e. Linux is on more devices across the broad market - that is the context. It isn't about making a headline, it is a relavent statistic as long as you take it for what it is. It is telling you that a hell of a lot of companies are using it for a wide variety of things, granted desktop isn't high on the list...

Reply Parent Score: 9

RE[2]: Marketshare
by Nelson on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 22:17 in reply to "RE: Marketshare"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


So is the 5% marketshare of Windows in mobile an indication of its deficiency in the mobile market? I personally don't think it is indicative of a "deficiency" any more than the 1% marketshare of Linux on the desktop is.


Deficiency meaning a lack of popularity, not any functional impediment. For the record, yes, I do think that Windows' 5% marketshare is a problem, and if Microsoft were twisting statistics in this way it would be equally wrong.


It is a matter of popularity and where the broad corporate backing is - no major players are backing Linux as a desktop play (with the minor exception of Ubuntu, for what that is worth). If anything, Windows Phone has even less of an excuse for its poor showing in mobile, because at least it has the might of Microsoft behind it...


The Desktop and Mobile markets are very different (as you seem to allude to) but then you try to make a direct comparison which I think is wrong.

The mobile market has many dynamics that the PC market does not, including more "Gate keepers" so to speak with interests that sometimes run contrary to that of Microsoft's and creates friction at the sales channel.

I am not convinced that most people who try Windows Phone hate it or reject it on its merits, I think rather, it is a big problem in the sales channel that Microsoft has made recent strides towards addressing.



I do get your point, sort of... But your saying that there is no context... There is context, i.e. Linux is on more devices across the broad market - that is the context. It isn't about making a headline, it is a relavent statistic as long as you take it for what it is. It is telling you that a hell of a lot of companies are using it for a wide variety of things, granted desktop isn't high on the list...


Sure, but why is it there? Mostly for one reason. Android. That is the functional equivalent of saying that Android is dominant in the mobile space. There is no new information, and crucial context is lost.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Marketshare
by WorknMan on Tue 22nd Jan 2013 22:50 in reply to "RE: Marketshare"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

So is the 5% marketshare of Windows in mobile an indication of its deficiency in the mobile market?


Yes, absolutely. Despite the merits of each OS, Windows on mobile sucks ass for the same reason that Linux on the desktop does... there are much better apps/games (and a wider variety of them too) on other platforms.

Edited 2013-01-22 22:51 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Marketshare
by pandronic on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 06:36 in reply to "Marketshare"
pandronic Member since:
2006-05-18

Nothing to see here, just Lemur's trolling at its finnest. It's sad that Thom publishes his garbage on the homepage.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Marketshare
by przemo_li on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 08:46 in reply to "Marketshare"
przemo_li Member since:
2010-06-01

Marketshare is about giving context to a situation. When you lump everything together with everything you lose context.


And gain ANOTHER.

What is Linux having "double" marketshare really telling you? That Android is popular? We already knew that because Android is popular in the mobile space.


1) That MOBILE is bigger than IBM PC as Personal Computing solution for consumers.
2) That MS lack flexibility for fighting in new markets.
3) That there are MORE phones than IBM PC's out there in the world.
4) That for some people PHONE is only PC they have.
5) That MS do fine job on IBM PC.
6) That MS to stay as dominant player need to push for MOBILE.
7) That FLOSS model of development is technically superior to proprietary one, in terms of gaining market share. (With all else been equal)
8) That CHEAP solutions are in demand.
...


Its only function, is to mask Linux's deficiencies in other core markets.


If we take those numbers as true, then Linux deficiencies on IBM PC DO NOT MATTER. ITS NO BIG DEAL ANYMORE. MS deficiences on MOBILE are (small) deal. Cause as those stats show MOBILE is more relevant.

Its just a twisting of numbers to make a headline. This is like using Windows 92% marketshare to inflate their numbers in mobile. Doesn't really make sense.


Come one. BREAKING 10y of solid grip on consumer personal computing solutions IS NOT WORTH HEADLINE?


Less emotions more thinking.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Marketshare
by 0brad0 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 09:02 in reply to "RE: Marketshare"
0brad0 Member since:
2007-05-05


Come one. BREAKING 10y of solid grip on consumer personal computing solutions IS NOT WORTH HEADLINE?


Less emotions more thinking.


Exactly.. more thinking. This is trying to claim a whole bunch of different operating systems are one when they're not. Android is what is winning marketshare, not Ubuntu/Red Hat/Debian, etc. and in markets where Windows hasn't even existed until very recently. It's not as if Android had to claw back the marketshare from an entrenched Microsoft OS. Lets see ChromeOS takeover for Windows on the PC and then it would mean something. Until then this is a completely ridiculous and bogus use of statistics at best.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Marketshare
by Nelson on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 16:39 in reply to "RE: Marketshare"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


1) That MOBILE is bigger than IBM PC as Personal Computing solution for consumers.


We already knew where growth was, and who to attribute it to. This article could have just said "Android is popular" and have conveyed the same amount of information, in a more honest way.


2) That MS lack flexibility for fighting in new markets.
3) That there are MORE phones than IBM PC's out there in the world.


Then why not say there are more phones out there? Why not say MS lacks flexibility. If that's the case, then the point should be stated in the article, and be focal points around which a discussion can be had.


4) That for some people PHONE is only PC they have.
5) That MS do fine job on IBM PC.
6) That MS to stay as dominant player need to push for MOBILE.


Again, this has been known. How many articles has OSNews not had in the past stressing this fact? How hasnt' Windows 8's power play clued you into this already?

There is no new information presented here, only old information, with less context.


7) That FLOSS model of development is technically superior to proprietary one, in terms of gaining market share. (With all else been equal)


I disagree on your conclusion. It MAY be true, but these numbers don't show that. Android isn't developed using a FLOSS model.


If we take those numbers as true, then Linux deficiencies on IBM PC DO NOT MATTER. ITS NO BIG DEAL ANYMORE. MS deficiences on MOBILE are (small) deal. Cause as those stats show MOBILE is more relevant.


This is where I can agree. It largely doesn't matter, except apparently, to lemur2, who uses Linux's mobile numbers to inflate their overall numbers and paint a misleading picture.



Come one. BREAKING 10y of solid grip on consumer personal computing solutions IS NOT WORTH HEADLINE?


Less emotions more thinking.


No. This is similar to claiming the unemployment rate has gone down without saying why. Yes, it's gone down. But its a meaningless statistic if labor participation also went down.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Marketshare
by zima on Tue 29th Jan 2013 15:22 in reply to "RE: Marketshare"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

7) That FLOSS model of development is technically superior to proprietary one, in terms of gaining market share. (With all else been equal)

"Technically superior" and "gaining market share" might be and often are a bit unrelated things...

Besides, only one open OS (Linux) does really well in the market share...

Edited 2013-01-29 15:23 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Marketshare
by bert64 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 10:41 in reply to "Marketshare"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

Desktop is the only market in which linux is deficient...

Doing well in mobile (and tablets) thanks to android.
Doing well in servers.
Dominant in supercomputing according to the top500 list.
Doing well in embedded devices (tv sets, set top boxes etc).
Doing well in networking (Routers, firewalls, appliances etc)

About the only area where linux isn't a major player is desktops

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Marketshare
by Nelson on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 16:40 in reply to "RE: Marketshare"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Ok. I get your talking point. I saw it the first five times lemur2 pasted it in the comments.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Marketshare
by Valhalla on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 21:00 in reply to "Marketshare"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24


Its only function, is to mask Linux's deficiencies in other core markets.

When you say 'other core markets' you must mean solely the pc desktop, I can't think of any other.

And this is a Microsoft monopoly in which not even Apple with all it's marketing and popularity could make a real dent, which incidentally is likely what made them (very successfully) shift their focus onto tablets.

Reply Parent Score: 2