The Mac owns the U.S. Windows owns the world. Nary the two shall meet?
Correction, 10:45 a.m. PDT: This blog initially misstated Apple's global market share. It was 3.3 percent in the second quarter, according to IDC, up from 2.9 percent a year ago.
Gartner and IDC both see the global computer market rising, 16 percent and 15 percent, respectively, with Hewlett-Packard (18 percent market share) and Dell (16 percent market share) winning big, as The Wall Street Journal reports.
U.S. growth, however, was somewhat tepid at 4.2 percent, according to Gartner. (IDC pegs it at 3.6 percent.) As demonstrated in the earnings calls for Sun, IBM, and others, the U.S. is no longer the place to be for growth: China, India, and other developing economies are.
Even so, one vendor continues to make huge strides regardless of the geography: Apple. As CNET News' Ina Fried reports, Apple's Mac sales grew 38 percent in Q2 2008, and that's just in the U.S. Ironically, while Windows' growth has slowed to a 4.2 percent crawl in the U.S., globally it is up 16 percent, while Apple only managed 3.2 percent growth outside of the U.S.
Globally, Apple now commands a 3.3 percent market share, up from 2.9 percent in 2007.
We seem to be in technology spending slowdown, but good products continue to make headway, albeit in different markets. Microsoft has stalled in the U.S., but is making it up elsewhere. Apple has yet to make a dent "elsewhere," but dominates the U.S. computer market. Global slowdown? Or simply a subtle shift in spending opportunities?
Does Apple reflect the U.S. consumer-spending binge? I'd hate to think my beloved Mac is making its gains at the expense of sound fiscal conservativism. On the other hand, is Windows the new cheapskate strategy? Do people only buy it if they're looking for something cheap and "good enough"?
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay. 
Not trying to be a fanbois - but is there really any question about this any longer? Macs at their heart are high-quality, legacy-free PC's that can run Windows if they have to - and run it well (virtually or physically). Over the next year, watch Mac sales in the US. They will increase considerably. Why? Because they provide a very viable alternative, at a slightly higher price, than a PC running Vista (an OS that few consumers actually "seek" - they just "get" when they buy a new PC).
Since '90 Macs were pricier than PC while offering less horsepower. High-end PCs that were priced in Mac territory were far superior in processing. People always talked about Mac being better for visuals, but being a 3D artist I always liked my Maya on PC as it was more convenient and much faster.
Whether you like a particular OS is a very subjective territory. Personally I love Vista, and like a lot more than Leopard. Vista offers a robust platform that runs all kinds of consumer and business software, when Leopard is still an OS for students who merely run MS Word, do some browsing and picture editing.
Running Vista on Mac simply makes no sense. At every level PCs still offer better bang for a buck, and high-end PCs are still more powerful than the top-of-the-line Macs. Overpaying makes sense only if you believe that that "cool" factor that comes with Mac is really worth it. From practical standpoint, Mac hardware isn't at par with PCs - latest Dells, HPs and Toshibas have better features, more power, better designs (subjective) and all of that at lesser price.
Finally, smokified, I just have to ask this question: what is a "**** color scheme"? To my knowledge Macs come in white, black or silver - which one of those is a "**** color scheme"? Or were you simply trying to be offensive?
Moreover, why is 'The Open Road' - a blog about open source - so enthusiastic about Apple, possibly the most closed-source, closed-hardware, closed-licensing IT company on Earth?
People can continue to buy their Macs based on poor education and stupid marketing tactics, but the fact that a Windows PC is a better choice for an all around home computer has not changed.
The last paragraph of this article is the pinicle of it's stupidity. Since when does making the realistic choice mean the same thing as being cheap and going with something that is just good enough? I work with endless amounts of different computers on a daily basis, mac and PC. I have yet to see a mac do something that PC cannot do, but I do notice that every client my company has that works with Macs also has to have PCs aroung to pick up where the Macs just do not have functionality.
Most of the people that claim they hate Windows actually really just don't know anything at all about Windows or comptuers in general. This whole Mac vs PC thing is just another stupid meaningless media orgy based on ignorance.
Stop wasting our time with these articles that are an obvious attempt to fuel the war between the knowledgable and the ignorant.
I love to see people ranting about what they saw with their oh-so-critical eye yet they themselves use incorrect spelling and improper grammar all over the place. Take this post to a 2rd grade teacher and she'd give you a D-. Plus, calling inanimate objects retarded? That's just retarded.
As for this odd argument that Macs can't do anything that a PC can't, why is that even interesting? I'm pretty certain that each can do the same things but it's how they are done or achieved that is important.
Finally, I'd like to draw your attention to this gem:
"Most of the people that claim they hate Windows actually really just don't know anything at all about Windows or comptuers in general."
Your implication here is that people who "don't know how to use a computer" prefer Macs over Windows. Why is that a bad thing? What is interesting is that Mac users are accused of being elitist and then you get comments like this that claim some sort of intellectual superiority over them. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...
Do you have any valid debate, or is your goal to pick a fight that you could never win?
Do you have any valid debate, or is your goal to pick a fight that you could never win?
Kelmon, The reason a PC is a more realistic decision for a home computer is the fact that PCs are far more functional as an all around computer. Macs are very limited in all around computing. They are very specific and proprietary. A PC can be upgraded and customized far more easily than a Mac, and the cost control you have with a PC makes the choice an obvious one.
There are MILLIONS more things you can do with a PC compared to a mac. Not to mention that not one person who has extended computer knowledge would ever even bother with a Mac. It is not because of your fear of intillectual inferiority, it is because the people that know what they are doing tend to make the better choices.
What is most interesting, in reply to your last statement, is that it is the same Mac buying non computer literate simpletons that run around babbling about how their Mac is so much better but at no point in the debate could they ever give you a valid reason why.
It is your choice to take my words out of context. That still does not change the real meaning of the words. I still do not see where I claimed to be more intellectual superior, it just sounds like you may have a complex about your actual level of intelligence.
Are you freak'n kidding me? Microsoft has made a killing on Windows due to public ignorance and computer illiteracy in general. Joe/Jane computer stupid will buy whatever computer his/her neighbor has thinking that they've made a wise choice. That's about as smart as me buying the same make of car or truck based on what my neighbor has parked in their driveway; it's just plain idiotic. A Windows PC is not the best all around choice; I would say that the Mac is since it can run both Mac OS X as well as Windows (and better as some benchmarks have shown in regards to Vista). More choice means more software and the Mac has the clear advantage here.
Macs can do anything an Windows PC can do and can do it better and in less the time. Plenty of studies done by major universities (like Stanford, UC Berkeley, etc...) have all come to the conclusion that Macs are more productive savvy and are the exact reason why they're found in deadline-driven environments and are tasked to perform many functions compared to the average corporate environments using Windows.
..."Most of the people that claim they hate Windows actually really just don't know anything at all about Windows or comptuers in general."...
Most people who say they hate Windows are those who have lost many productive hours dealing with the day-to-day frustrations using Windows. Microsoft makes a great Office product, but they make a terrible operating system and that's been the case since the days of MS-DOS. Those who claim to hate Macs probably have never touched or really used a Mac, but believe whatever Joe/Jane (Windows) computer user tells them. Let's think about this for a moment; there a lot more Mac users who have enough experience with Windows than the reverse and can give a real honest opinion about both systems and which is the better choice of the two platforms.
I work with both Macs and Windows everyday and I can say without question that the Mac is the better choice than Windows when you want to get real work done.
Oh dear. If you can provide a single example of something that a PC can do that makes it a better home computer than a Mac then I will be very surprised. Unfortunately you have negated your whole comment with this nonsense. The problem is that you are, almost certainly, a PC gamer and therefore believe that everyone has the same requirements as you. The Mac is most definitely not a gaming machine, but for most home users this is not important. I have seen many comments that say things like "a Mac is only any good if you want to browse the web or read email", but these are precisely the sort of thing that home users want to do (and in business, for that matter). Very few people ever upgrade their PC for the simple reason that they are scared of the internal components - they'll either get a shop to add more memory or they'll buy a new PC. With current computers there is almost no need to replace any of the internal components because computing power outstripped anything (except games) that we do with them years ago. My PC doesn't break a sweat doing normal tasks, so why would I need to upgrade anything? It's only PC gamers that have this obsession with upgrading their computer's components. Not everyone has an interest in frittering away their life playing games.
No one is coming to take away your Windows so you can stop ranting. Just accept that not everyone likes Windows, has the same requirements in computing as you do, has the same level of knowledge in computers that you do, and perhaps want something that feels simple. There's nothing wrong with this.
Mac owns the US. with what, 1 Mac to 10 PC? If we include business environment, will it be line 1 Mac per 20-40 PCs? That's not really "owns the US."
http://cultofmac.com/goliath-meet-goliath/2276
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/gartner-says-worldwide-pc-market/story.aspx?guid=%7B30A2A023-BFF1-4754-B00A-4F4A6B24FF80%7D&dist=hppr
You also completely left out a major factor - Linux. Linux usage is rather huge outside of the US, and I daresay that it gives Windows a run for its money in many nations. Thing is, IDC and Gartner can't count an OS' stats when its licensing terms allow for freely copying that OS.
Linux is an extremely simple, powerful, and elegant solution for the vast majority of home users.
It is easier to use than Windows and simpler to maintain.
You may consider it easier to use than Windows, but unfortunately 98% of the computing world does not agree. Your software options are minimal, your functionality in comparison is minimal, and the amount of feature control you have is not even near the same level as OSX or Windows.
It is not a good replacement for Windows, it is a cult OS that is generally used by non-conformists and people who cannot afford Windows or a computer that can run it.
Hard to say. Public perception still dictates that Apple computers are more expensive than the competition, even though study after study (and my own experience) continue to disprove this highly popular misconception. Furthermore, Ms Windows has been more expensive than Mac OS for a *long* time, and when it comes to Windows Server vs. Mac OS X Server, the difference is even more pronounced.
Is it valid to say that people only buy the more expensive product because they?re looking for something cheap? If we recognize that cheap ? inexpensive, that may very well be true.
You also completely left out a major factor - Linux. Linux usage is rather huge outside of the US, and I daresay that it gives Windows a run for its money in many nations. Thing is, IDC and Gartner can't count an OS' stats when its licensing terms allow for freely copying that OS.
"People can continue to buy their Macs based on poor education and stupid marketing tactics."
Smokified: GET AN EDUCATION!
I've extensively used Mac and Windows OSes together and I know that the Mac OS beats Windows in pretty much everything regarding technical issues, creativity and productivity. Yes you can pretty much get the same task results in a Windows environment compared to a Mac environment, however if you factor everything in including the software and the OS, doing something in Windows is more aggravating and takes more steps than on a Mac.
Smokefied, enjoy fixing your registry while I'm busy getting work done on my Mac and making money.
I have yet to "fix" my registry, although it does come in handy for forcing some settings and tweaking others to better align with my use. This is a feature I quite enjoy, but have yet to fix due to a programatic error. I do, however, have to repair permissions on a very regular basis on my OSX boxes.
Oh, and I have not had a BSOD since XP SP1, But both my new 20" iMac and My xserve had issues out of the box. the iMac kernel panic'd on it's 1st software update, and my xserve's Software Update Server had to be reconfigured twice to get the service to actually start.
As far as productivity, Adobe admits that their products run slower on the Apple platform, and even a high end Mac cannot out perform a high end PC. Sure, you can run Windows on a mac, but it is unsupported and that alone is reason enough not to.
Reply if you must, but it will fall on educated deaf ears. I just know better than to buy an Apple for productivity.
BSODs? I welcome then! They provide useful information pinpointing hardware and driver problems that are quickly remedied. Apple, in contrast, treats its users like the idiots they are, presenting them with a "beachball" that invariably results in an expensive and time-consuming trip to the Apple store (where they can drool over their next mistake-in-the-making). Search 'kernel panic' on YouTube and watch all of the clueless Mac users, it is beyond comical.
I think we can all agree: pound for pound, an Apple box simply cannot hold a candle to a PC. True truth. And you point to an obvious example, one no Mac user can face up to: Adobe products simply run better on a PC! Every time. These "graphics" people working with Macs are, well, graphics people. They are the ONLY ones who use our Mac labs. We I ask them why, they just shrug and say "the prof says we should" and then skulk away. The prof? A fanboi, every time. You'd think he/she was getting a commission from Apple or something. Maya on a Mac? Get real.
You take one set of growth numbers and extend it to an unsupported conclusion? This isn't journalism, it's tabloid exhibitionism designed to drive traffic.
What's next? Bigfoot sighted using a Mac?
The hard truth is, while a few people are buying them for their real merits, a lot of people are buying Macs because they have become a fashion statement and that group is pretty fickle. Let's see what the fad is next year.
"Globally, Apple now commands an 8.5 percent market share, up from 6.4 percent in 2007."
Those are U.S. numbers. Globally Apple has 3.3%, up from (I believe) 2.8%.
This is an education issue as much as anything else. Most people have been 'satisfied' with Windows XP, they get the new OS because they get a new computer. I'm sure folks running Tiger aren't seeking Leopard when they get their new mac, it's what comes with the new machine.
In general Microsoft has been limited in what they can provide in the OS. When MacOS can no longer have things like iLife and Safari packaged with their OS, then a lot of the flair that their tout as being so much better than Windows will diminish. Remember, the things that we demand from our Windows OS are things that Mac criticizes them for: legacy hardware/software support? No where in a Mac, yet my PC can run windows 3/1 applications (why I'd want to I don't know, but it's demanded of them) few included packaged applications? Windows got an anti-trust lawsuit by company after company when they did that, but apple includes in their OS "everything you could want" or whatever.
Vista isn't a bad OS, in fact for most multi-tasking applications I find it way superior at this point (post-SP1) to XP. That isn't to say it's flawless, folks still write for XP for the most part, and the Vista folks get what the Vista folks get. But it's what the consumers demand of the OS, and then hate the company that's successful with it.
I see this a lot: businesses use a software application purchased years ago for BIG bucks ($ 6,000 - $25,000) and it's still doing what they want it to do. MS Virtual PC pretty much solves this issue, but it's always interesting to run accross a DOS 6.2 or Windows 3.11 machine still pumping along day after day after day after year after year, playing a mission critical role.
Proprietary software? Microsoft when it matters.
Every one knows that the REAL reason to pick a desktop OS is how well it supports World of Warcraft!!!!
In addition, perhaps you will explain how Apple selling a measly less than 1 in 10 PC?s in the US, equals Apple ?dominating? the US? Is that yet another example of CNET voodoo maths?
Stop wasting our time with these articles that are an obvious attempt to fuel the war between the knowledgable and the ignorant."
Well said smokified...
Again.. 8-10% of a market is not dominating. The IPhones doing good too right..
What a waste of time this article was. Not only were the author's data point incorrect, but it does seem that he was biased in his view of OS's. CNET needs to hire more writers with a stronger moral and intellectual compass.
Apple has been doing well since the mactel switch (If you remember, Apple Marketing told us the PPC was just as good if not better than the x86, but obviously had to change their tune...) but has still to fully grasp the Enterprise concept. Their Enterprise products lack the functionality of Microsoft's, and have a long way to go for full Directory integration into mixed environments. I base this comment after my own experience in a 3000 node network (35% OSX 10.4) running eDirectory & ActiveDirectory.
At least they play WoW now.
- by Seaspray0 July 17, 2008 11:22 AM PDT
- ... with a 40% chance of rain in 9% of the the cities, while 16% of umbrellas will be left at home. Sorry, I had to throw in some statistics, too.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (64 Comments)