Apple is Killing Linux on the Desktop
2008 is upon us and we’re greeted with the news, from NetApplications, that Apple Macs running OS X account for 7.3% of computers used to access the web.
More than a few Mac sites have mischievously quoted this as Macs having 7.3% market share. Market share of course is based on computer sales, as OS X’s own dictionary states. Not that market share accurately reflects the actual install base, and nor do these internet access figures.
However, as is also being noted, it is the trend of these figures that bears consideration. In the last two years, OS X has seen continual growth, from 4.21% in Jan 2006 (the first month of figures), to 5.67% in December 2006, to 7.31% in December 2007.
In the same time, Linux’s percentage has risen from only 0.29% to 0.63%. Although depending on how you apply the maths—you can put a positive slant on that by saying it’s more than doubled—the cold truth is Linux on the desktop is still barely worth mentioning. To paraphrase: reports of its life have been greatly exaggerated.
These figures are quite disturbing from Linux’s desktop perspective and although they have more than doubled, consider the iPhone has already achieved 0.12% in just six months. The iPhone has the potential to become the third most popular internet connected device! That deserves an exclamation mark.
The Linux figure is quite surprising considering the coverage Linux gets in computer magazines. Of the consumer computer magazines available in my part of the world, most of them give Linux a significantly disproportionately larger coverage than its desktop install-base demands, but none have specialist columns for Macs. That’s always seemed unfair, and now seeing these figures proves it so.
Linux has obviously not been helped at all by the Mac’s resurgence, and probably most importantly, Apple’s decision to switch to Intel CPUs.
Early in the decade it seemed that if you wanted a Windows alternative, Linux was it. Nowadays, an Apple Mac is undoubtedly the alternative and, with its resurgence and its Intel base, a very viable one.
Not that long ago there was almost a consensus that Linux would soon over take Apple. Several commentators suggested a few years ago that Apple’s biggest threat was not Microsoft, but Linux. Apple has taken care of that threat!
It’s not hard to understand why Linux has failed to live up to the promise of being a viable desktop alternative to Windows. Linux’s problems are many. For example: Apple has Microsoft Office, Linux doesn’t; Apple has Adobe Creative Suite, Linux doesn’t; Apple has easily accessed and easy to use service and support, Linux doesn’t; Apple is driven by someone who has some understanding of end-user needs, Linux is not.
Unfortunately though, it’s not necessarily a good thing for Linux to be struggling on the desktop, as the Linux community has so much to offer desktop computing. But with Apple and the Mac flying, Linux may never get the chance again.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
My issue with NetApplications is that they do not or can not distinguish between computer systems that run multiple OSes.
Most of our local Linux User Group (3clug.org) members run Linux on their Macs (true computer shade-tree mechanics) using Ubuntu or other Linux variant. Many of us also reluctantly run various MS Windows OSes on our Macs (not by choice).
The Mac is a multi-OS device. The NetApplication numbers are scrambled because the stats do not reflect the “true” platforms in actual use. I doubt they will ever be able to determine real platform use.
For example, many newer Macs also run Vista better than on non-Apple platforms. MS Vista stats are thus also not quite “true”, since they read “Vista” in use, but not Mac OS X.
Frankly, I honestly believe because of this multi-OS capability, the Mac “numbers” are actually higher in practice and not just in theory.
The article says “Not that market share accurately reflects the actual install base” and “the cold truth is Linux on the desktop is still barely worth mentioning”.
I detect a bit of bias. Installed based numbers indicate that Linux actually surpassed the Mac installed base (actual number of desktop systems in use) in 2004. The current Linux installed base is between 6% and 10% depending on the source of the numbers.
In the case of both the Mac and Linux, the conversion is from Windows. As a result, the Windows installed base has dropped to 82% to 86%.
Remember that “market share” reflects only the number of units sold - which does not apply (for the most part) to the Linux market. Most Linux “sales” are not sales of the software, but rather support contracts. As a result, only installed base matters when comparing anything to Linux.
You are correct that the Linux numbers could be viewed (and viewed correctly, I might add) from two different viewpoints. Yes, the share percentage is rather small for desktop/browser usage. I, as a Linux user fully accept this, and I have no problem with it staying below 1% as long as Linux suits my needs. However, desktop usage is just a portion of what Linux is used for, as some home servers (even commercial NAS devices) use Linux, and Linux thrives well in the server market. As an OS, Linux is hardly insignificant.
However, the part that prompted me to register and post a comment is this: “Linux has obviously not been helped at all by the Mac’s resurgence”. I am not sure how you correlated these together. I think that you just assumed that since “Fact A” exists and “Fact B” also exists, then “A” obviously has not been helped by “B”. I fail to see what analysis you have done to make this conclusion. I might propose a more reasoned (and equally un-researched) statement that since the increased acceptance of OS X as a viable alternative OS to the Microsoft dominance, that people are increasingly aware that alternative OSes can also “do the job” in many cases. And, Linux, requiring no additional expense for 90-some percent of users, is likewise more accepted as a possibility that can be explored.
Aren’t statistics great? The way they all tell their own little stories… As an example, the statistics from w3 schools show that Apple’s share has actually dropped (marginally) from it’s 4.0% peak in July to 3.9% and the Linux share is very slightly behind but not far off Apple’s at 3.3% (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp)
Funny old thing statistics isn’t it? I suppose an article proclaiming “Despite heavy marketing costs Apple still only marginally more popular than an OS given away for free” wouldn’t be quite as popular.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to stir up a Linux vs Mac argument here, just pointing out how flawed making a statement like “a few years ago that Apple’s biggest threat was not Microsoft, but Linux. Apple has taken care of that threat!” is and to be honest, who really cares if it’s true or not?
What is important is that these statistics show is a) You have to take these things with a pinch of salt and b) that more people are turning to alternative operating systems rather than using the disaster that is Microsoft Windows.
Aren’t statistics great? The way they all tell their own little stories… As an example, the statistics from w3 schools show that Apple’s share has actually dropped (marginally) from it’s 4.0% peak in July to 3.9% and the Linux share is very slightly behind but not far off Apple’s at 3.3% (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp)
It’s a funny old thing statistics isn’t it? I suppose an article proclaiming “Despite heavy marketing costs Apple still only marginally more popular than an OS given away for free” wouldn’t be quite as popular.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to stir up a Linux vs Mac argument here, just pointing out how flawed making a statement like “a few years ago that Apple’s biggest threat was not Microsoft, but Linux. Apple has taken care of that threat!” is and to be honest, who really cares if it’s true or not?
What is important is that these statistics show is a) You have to take these things with a pinch of salt and b) that more people are turning to alternative operating systems rather than using the disaster that is Microsoft Windows.
One of the more interesting things to come out of the Net Applications Market Share survey is the comparison between Apple’s OSes and Vista - the graph can be found on <a hef=“http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=10”>This page</a>. This shows the installed base of Vista at around 10.48%, and Macs (both PPC and Intel) at around 7.28%.
This on a quick and dirty analysis suggests that the uptake of Vista is only around half that of the uptake of Intel Macs, given the release timescales of each.
I wonder if it’s possible for the percentage of OSX machines o exceed the percentage of Vista machines - and if so, over what timescale?
Uptake of new versions of Windows is always slow—Windows XP only hit something of 10% marketshare in its first year of existence. Looking at W3School’s marketshare statistics of early 2003, XP only broke 30% after March of that year. (NetApps monthly charts only go as far back as October 2004, where XP had 63% of the market according to them.)
Looking at the data, I think I should have said ‘install base’ rather than ‘marketshare’.
Well, to me it looks like we will have 33% Linux, 33% Windows and 33% Apple and a Open Source Java Layer on top in 20 years. At least that’s the best scenario ;->.
Apple and Linux can benefit a lot from each other in achieving more market share.
Well, to me it looks like we will have 33% Linux, 33% Windows and 33% Apple and a Open Source Java Layer on top in 20 years.
I sincerely hope in 20 years we’re not still talking about Windows, Apple and Linux except in history class.
I’m pretty sure we’ll always have Linux. Unix, on which Linux is based would be turning 40 next year. That said, brand names can exist beyond the lives of the product itself. Windows today isn’t remotely the Windows that debuted in 1985, and of course the Macintosh operating system is completely different than what was running the computers in 1984.
macemoneta said:
I detect a bit of bias. Installed based numbers indicate that Linux actually surpassed the Mac installed base (actual number of desktop systems in use) in 2004. The current Linux installed base is between 6% and 10% depending on the source of the numbers.
That’s why I say a few years ago it looked like Linux was over-running Apple, because those sorts of figures were what we where hearing.
However, why aren’t those install base figures for desktop Linux reflected in these internet access figures? Is it really possible only 1/10th of Linux desktop users are browsing the web? I do find that hard to believe.
So I’d suggest that Linux’s install base has been grossly exaggerated in the past.
Chris Howard said: “However, why aren’t those install base figures for desktop Linux reflected in these internet access figures?”
Many Linux users set their user agent in the browser (e.g., using the “User Agent Switcher” extension) to Windows/IE, so that they can access poorly written web sites. This is the standard workaround given to new users when they report a problem with a web site. I have to do it myself on many sites. Rather than switch back and forth, most people just leave it set.
I do not use anything other than Linux and XP and unfortunately this article makes some great points. Mac does indeed have better compatibility with that of the Windoze world. That is the main reason the Linux desktop being a replacement for Windoze is all but a pipe dream and has been for years. Though Linux has definitely made huge strides and important innovations, it will never be ready for the average user until either Windoze falls or Linux is more compatible like the Mac.
Chris Howard is correct - the amount of Linux desktop usage is virtually insignificant.
This shouldn’t detract, however, from the massive success Linux has had in other areas.
If you look at statistics from the other side, how many servers on the web are Linux based?
I think the idea that Linux will ever conquer the desktop is a moot point - it has no real importance.
The next “big thing” will be the mobile internet market and this is where Linux will meet John Q Public…