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 549994
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Marketshare
by przemo_li on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 08:46 UTC 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[3]: Marketshare
by przemo_li on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 09:43 in reply to "RE[2]: Marketshare"
przemo_li Member since:
2010-06-01

Nope. You still stubbornly insist that ONLY IBM PC is relevant. Even when given stats indicating that MOST people use phones not IBM PC's....

Consumer PC's are run by Linux.

You just ignore statistics because of your bias (1) Linux is only Fedora/Ubnuntu,etc. 2) Only IBM PC matter).

Reply Parent Score: 1

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[3]: Marketshare
by henderson101 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 17:15 in reply to "RE[2]: Marketshare"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30


"
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.
"

This actually borders on delusion. I'm sorry Lemur2, but Commercial use of FLOSS works in a very specific niche. That niche is where one of two factors come in to play:

1) The (parent) company has a lot of money to burn from other sources (e.g. Google)

2) The company has little or no assets and they are trying to rub magic beans together and bootstrap their business using the work of others (i.e. FLOSS developers.)

All other scenarios are pretty much based on one developer, or a very small collective, working slowly on a project and making progress that to most outsiders looks minimal and pretty much brings in zero cash (Haiku, Syllable, FreePascal, Lazarus, etc.)

Yes you might also get a driven development team that make amazing progress - but those projects have a very high burn rate. Very high.

Edit - added clarification "...Commercial use of..."

Edited 2013-01-23 17:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

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