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 550087
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Marketshare
by Nelson on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 16:39 UTC 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[4]: Marketshare
by lemur2 on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 23:09 in reply to "RE[3]: Marketshare"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

" 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.
"

You have made an incorrect attribution there. I did not post the words to which you are replying.

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..."


Actually, you completely miss the main economic impetus behind Linux and FOSS. Linux and FOSS is the best solution for ANY area where the actual product being sold is not the software itself.

A good example is the car industry:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/20/linux-foundation-forms-automotiv...

"The Linux Foundation sees it differently and wants our cars to embrace the same notions of common roots and open code that we'd find in an Ubuntu box. Its newly-formed Automotive Grade Linux Workgroup is transforming Tizen into a reference platform that car designers can use for the center stack, or even the instrument cluster. The promise is to both optimize a Linux variant for cars and provide the same kind of years-long support that we'd expect for the drivetrain. Technology heavy-hitters like Intel, Harman, NVIDIA, Samsung and TI form the core of the group, although there are already automakers who've signaled their intentions: Jaguar Land Rover, Nissan and Toyota are all part of the initial membership."

None of the companies Intel, Harman, NVIDIA, Samsung, TI, Jaguar, Land Rover, Nissan or Toyota sell software. It is therefore in their best interests to collaborate on developing code (thereby sharing the development costs) that they can all then use in products they do sell.

Edited 2013-01-23 23:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1