That Other OS is Sinking Fast

Wikipedia just posted its web stats. As biased as they are we know the site and its content… so I claim it is reasonably representative of what it represents, shares of visits to

month share change
January 82.21% -0.31%
February 81.96% -0.25%
March 81.78% -0.18%
April 80.46% -1.32%
May 80.94% -0.52%
June 80.08% -0.86%

It seems to me that it is clear that other OS is losing share in a big way to small cheap computers. In the same period of time Linux rose from 2.28% to 2.98%, a 30% rise in half a year while that other OS dropped 2.5%, a 3% decline, in half a year. I would bet this trend will continue for at least another year and may well accelerate as tablets keep ramping up.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to That Other OS is Sinking Fast

  1. Contrarian says:

    I don’t think you are paying enough attention here, #pogson, my quarrel with #oiaohm is that he has been insisting that Australian legal terms regarding civil and criminal infractions are nearly the opposite meanings to US law and thus excuse his outlandish claims regarding judgements made in US courts on Microsoft antitrust issues. That sounded somewhat unlikely to me, given that Austrailians in general are pretty easy to understand and they have a common source of laws stemming from the same British sources. I cited an Australian answer site that supports my position. He demurs, but is unable to find any authority that supports his claim.

    It has absolutely nothing to do with ARM, Intel, Windows, Linux, or any other technical aspect.

  2. I don’t recall a lot of bases for Contrarian’s assertions… Things like bigger is better, and the rich win don’t carry much weight with me. On the contrary we see smaller and cheaper being better in so many ways. e.g. I just bought tires for my luxurious automobile. I paid double what I would have paid if my car had not been a luxurious car. Same goes for PCs. If all you need to do is to display a few pages from the web, an ARMed device is far superior to a hair-drier.

  3. Contrarian says:

    Are you finally admitting that there is not a single internet cite that supports your outlandish theory or not, #oiaohm? You make up story after story and one is more absurd than the next. Have you no sense of shame?

  4. oiaohm says:

    Contrarian basically read what I said.

    I read USA documents as they apply when used in an Australian Court. This does not mean I need to understand how the documents apply in a USA court or by USA Law. Of course I made a mistake that the both were proper aligned after the trade agreement. So I expected my conversion rules to Australian law to give the same result once here as the person would have got under USA law. A mistake.

    What the document mean changes completely when read in alignment with another law.

    If the documents I had been handed where Australian court documents no error would have happened no auto translation would have happened either.

    Also the document you have is an overview. Nothing more.

    I can point out something. Pull up criminal verdicts from “adding and abetting” charges here in Australia. Yes is a criminal offense but it is the most common for the verdict to be found liable instead of the word gulity. In fact some of these rulings have the word gulity no where on the criminal verdict. There are other criminal charges where liable and guilty have been used interchangeable over the history of Australian law.

    Yes adding and abetting person declared liable then sentenced to so many years jail you will find if you look far enough in rulings. Read the document you dug up careful again when you find those. “sanctions (penalties such as fines or imprisonment)”. Criminal is the only one that can do imprisonment after person has been found gulity under Australian and British and USA law.

    There are rulings the back my interpret the words gulity and liable for a criminal case can in fact be using interchangeably.

    Yes there are other cases in civil in Australia where its more common for the word gulity to be used than liable.

    Simple fact by rulings not concept introduction documents like the web link you pulled define Legal English.

    I am sorry you are the novice here Contrarian. Training documents are nothing more than a guild to legal personal. Don’t bother searching for them. We are based on case ruling and the real world ways judges do thing have have rulings saying those words are valid.

    Basically Contrarian you have zero understanding of Australian law and you better back off before you make even more of a idiot out yourself. Because if you had known the law you would not be stupid enough to try to make your point with concept introduction training documents. For the simple fact they are not reality.

    How a Countries Legal English is processed is not set by any Training documents. They are formed over years of court rulings.

    Also some things are discouraged like using liable for gulity in a criminal case. So they are not normally directly trained. The big but due to prior rulings that they are valid what the training documents say don’t change a thing.

    “After all, they have the same foundations.” So you are saying that both countries have the same legal rulings in their courts on document reading. See how bogus this is. Australian and USA have completely different rulings on this. This is where the problem for me reading USA documents come from.

    Australian and USA have a common ancestor. British Law. But due to the rulings since leaving British Law they do have different foundations of Legal English today to the point of being incompatible at times. Problem is they are still close enough that that you can be thinking you are reading them right when you are reading them wrong.

    Yes a section of the Usa anti-trust law wording has been ruled historically different in both countries. The points of error are quite min due to the common ancestor. I now know 9 major rulings in document reading are different. This is quite a low number and would not be anywhere near as low without an common ancestor.

    Also 4 process differences. Like the Australian ruling forbidding Crown rep from interfering in Civil cases. USA does not have this ruling. Not that I need to know this to perform conversion.

    Also I have been kind enough not to brick bat you yet.

    What is a possible criminal defined as. “criminal liability”. This is by British law. The concept of rulings being able to be used interchangeably use Guilty and Liable in rulings in facts starts in the British courts the common ancestor of both system. British system some judges ruled people Criminally liable for offense instead of word guilty. Australian law dropped the requirement to title with Criminal in later rulings on interp of rulings here.

    That is the brick bat. USA system does in fact support the double word usage. Criminally liable for the word Guilty. Its only a minor difference between the two countries English. Word liable does not say that the document is not criminal.

    Do some digging and you will find the prefix to say the word Guilty in a USA civil court as well and be a valid ruling. Yes Civilly Guilty is still a valid wording in the USA counts for liable.

    Yes at one point of time with Britsh law you could not write the word liable alone. It had to be prefixed with Civilly or Criminally. Since they had many changes on the Britsh books where the Judge could decide to hand down a Civilly or Criminally punishment based on how bad they thought the crime was. Yes Civilly was like modern day conviction not recorded. Yes in those times there was no such thing as a Judge declaring conviction not recorded.

    Australia just to rid of all the prefixing crud.

    All Legal English changes with time and rulings and countries own government alterations on it.

    I have always like the old english version of gulity gyltig.

  5. Contrarian says:

    “That link covers does not cover how cases are handled in Australia”

    Well, it is an Australia site, #oiaohm. OTOH, you just continue to make up assertions and claims with nothing to back them up. You admitted that you do not understand US law, so it is a small step to take to admit that you do not understand Australian law either. After all, they have the same foundations.

    Let me see you cite something that backs up anything that you have claimed.

  6. oiaohm says:

    ““So without android google advertising profits would be down”

    After you are finished with coming to a basic understanding of criminal vs civil actions in Australia, look up the term “non sequitur” and see how it applies to your conclusion.”

    Contrarian please take a close look many companies making android devices. Use to make fakes of nokia and the like. While they were making fakes they never did any advertisement. Google advertising is up because they have allowed more makers to release legal and above board products. While they are making illegal products they don’t need advertise as much.

  7. oiaohm says:

    Other than the fact that is a just a general over view. That link covers does not cover how cases are handled in Australia.

    Contrarian does not cover reading of ruling or translation between legal jurisdictions. USA documents have to be translated to the correct jurisdiction interpret before they can be used in an Australian court. Its like people have under age sex overseas and being handled civil because that is how that country handles rape since it was over age in that country. When they return to a Australia that is automatically a pedophile criminal charge. That if they were framed or anything they will have to appeal against in Australian courts if they don’t want the charge there forever.

    Basically what is civil and what is criminal changes when you change between jurisdictions. Yes this something kinda unique to Australian law. Committing a crime as per Australian law overseas if caught you still have committed the crime to the Australian courts even if overseas you were charged civil in the overseas country. We don’t have double jeopardy in the Australian legal system apply to cases performed overseas. So you can be charged again for the same offense in Australia as you were done for overseas. USA double jeopardy is different.

    Please read where does that document you pull say that a person is found guilty using the word guilty. “‘guilty’ verdict has been reached”. guilty is in ” for a reason. The word guilty does not have to be used under Australian law. Libel, absolutely committed there are about 20 words set that can be used instead and ruling hold as the person gulity. A guilty verdict many use any of the 20 words sets. The civil court is allows to use the word sets of guilty to mean Libel.

    “Criminal law involves a relationship between the Crown (State) and an individual. Civil law, on the other hand, involves resolving all other disputes. ”

    This is a key thing. DPP is a Crown representative. So cannot start action in the Civil court. This is why our government has departments like ACCC for civil. Thinking USA is based on British law mostly this idea of a clear divide comes from there. DOJ doing civil just is really completely wrong.

    Contrarian I am a researcher I have to assemble the documents how they will apply when placed in an Australian court. Not how they appear in the country they are coming from. Basically it would not matter if the case was from USA or China or any other country to be used in Australian courts to has to be aligned with Australian law.

    Basically I was still using mapping from jurisdiction to jurisdiction when I should not have been.

    Legal cases crossing International Boarders gets really confusing really quickly. Titles of Civil and Criminal are really only a per country thing. Location of the case is the true factor that sets what is Criminal or Civil or if its even can be presented to the court not what was written on the court rulings. The Civil and Criminal written on the documents only right while the document is being processed in the Country it was made. After a while doing translations from country to country. Making the mistake I made is not uncommon because you are always doing in 1 direction. From overseas documents to Australian is what I am doing. I have never be asked to Australian documents to USA or any other country. You are disregarding civil and criminal markings all the time because most of the time they are wrong once aligned with the Australian laws.

    I am human I had to make that mistake sooner or latter. Do me a favor if you see me what appears to be a mistake. Just say hey we are reading this by whatever jurisdiction it is. Yes word jurisdiction after the correct country. By the way you are acting you are reading by Australian not whatever.

    Yes its very simple to get stuck in mapping mode. When you have read a few 1000 documents in a day.

  8. Contrarian says:

    “Still does not change the fact that by Australian Law MS is a criminal”

    It is downright embarassing to watch you squirm so blatently, #oiaohm. Why not just admit that you do not understand what you were on about and let the matter rest? Each post you make becomes more and more absurd. Without much of an effort I found an Australian site reference that you might read while you contemplate your foolish position:

    “So without android google advertising profits would be down”

    After you are finished with coming to a basic understanding of criminal vs civil actions in Australia, look up the term “non sequitur” and see how it applies to your conclusion.

  9. oiaohm says:

    “but they spent a considerable amount of money on R&D that seems to be related to Android.”
    Really you need to read more than balance sheets. Making presumes from the is foolish. Good place to start Contrarian. Everything there that is marked external Google does no maintenance on. All that happens on those is importing from external projects google does not work on.

    Google push to get all the alterations they need for android mainline linux kernel will also see another section change to external.

    HTC and Samsung and a lot of other hardware makers have their own trees. All the stuff under vendor is not google maintenance either.

    Google HTC and Samsung has less than 1/10 of the size code base apple has to take care of in Android vs iOS. And all of them are working all the time to make that less. Most of the externals are used everywhere in the Linux world. Also you find a lot of smaller companies coders inside the Android code base as well. Yes its a collective with not one party footing the complete bill.

    Basically google plan is completely different to what you think Contrarian get the ball rolling reduce the amount of code that has to be maintained by hardware makers. One day Google will be able to just walk away and keep the appstore.

    Lot of Google current R&D spending has nothing todo with Android. ChromeOS also is very light in amount of code google has to directly maintain.

    “Google made a ton of money last quarter from advertising.” Also where did this money come from. large number of devices being made equals a large amount of advertising.

    So without android google advertising profits would be down.

  10. oiaohm says:

    “guilty” and “liable”. This is an Australian legal quirk. If you are found guilty in a criminal case in Australia the judge can use either guilty or liable both equal guilty since a criminal case you can only be gulity. Civil case here you can only be found liable but again judge can use the word guilty and it will be treated as liable. The quirk is so criminals don’t get off because the judge said or wrote the wrong word. So particular judges are lazy about the usage. Its one of the known 8 differences. This is 1 I had forgotten yet had be taught about USA law that is not as sloppy with usage. Yes they are interchangeable by Australian legal english. Yes its a common mistake for a USA trained to think a case is civil when its criminal or the reverse due to using guilty and liable to sort cases with Australian case rulings.

    Yes English is not English. This is why international law is hell. Different countries have different legal english quirks.

    When DPP Australia criminal is acting for ACCC that is civil. A civil case number for the ACCC will be connected on the paper work. Even that its full criminal. Since it was investigated by a civil party. Yes Australian internal quirks. Note ACCC and DPP are both government bodies. Australia splits civil and criminal in government different way to the USA. Government civil rep cannot be Government criminal rep because they might be required to go against each other at times inside Australian law. So a civil case number on a criminal case is not strange here either. So the

    I did not mention another issue. Contrarian If I did bring equal actions against Microsoft as the USA under Australian trade practices laws. The civil convictions in the USA would have to be record in as past criminal convictions due to the mapping from USA law to Australian law. So I have to treat those civil convictions as criminal when doing my job. So in my eyes I have to see those cases as criminal not civil or I will write them down wrong. Even that its not the true state in the USA its self. Yes the evil of crossing legal boarders. A civil charge in one is a criminal in the other.

    DOJ in the USA is kinda confusing to me. Interesting part here is every civil case the DOJ has been to date in the USA if or when same person would be charged here it would map to criminal. See problem my training has taught me how to extract and convert from USA system to Australian. So I am reading the files as they would apply to Australian law. Not how they would apply to USA law.

    Simple fact I have been caught out by differences between the two systems. Also caught out by how I am required to interpret the rulings for Australian law. Nice lesson really.

    Also I made the mistake that the systems were proper synced. That after some research I found the goof up. How in trade agreement Australia and Usa laws were meant to come into sync on anti-trust but today they are worst synced than they ever were. What one calls civil the other calls criminal. A cross boarder case Australian company vs a USA one would get complete nightmare from hell.

    Still does not change the fact that by Australian Law MS is a criminal.

  11. Google will not only benefit by encouraging use of their web services generating ad revenue but they get a cut of application downloads. Also, taking $billions out of M$’s revenues likely frees up money that Google can take in one way or another. It’s good for the whole economy not to have monopoly.

  12. Contrarian says:

    Protest all you want, #oiaohm, but you totally manufactured the notion of there being criminal proceedings that were adjudicated under seal after the civil suits were processed. That is not a variance in the use of terminology, that is pulling a story out of thin air.

    I am very doubtful that the legal terms of “guilty” and “liable” are interchanged or otherwised confused in Australia as well.

    It is sufficient for now that you admit to your mistakes and stop posting these erroneous statements.

    “Basically reading balance sheets tell you nothing without market numbers”

    That is true, but at least I have the cart following the horse. Market numbers are used by product suppliers to make decisions regarding market strategies. Reporting them as news serves no purpose other than to have the losers feel bad. A company is not going to do anything differently when their share is 80% than they did when their share was 90%, if declining. In either case they are the leader and they must tend to the job of leading the market.

    If some new market is formed, for example iPads, that has some negative effect on one’s primary market, for example netbooks, there is absolutely nothing that can be done from a product promotions point of view.

    Once could attempt to enter and win the alternate market, but that is very expensive. I do not know if Microsoft has enough money to do that. They have made the deal with Nokia that might result in very low price smart phones that Microsoft is somehow subsidizing in order to bring down the prices that have resulted in Apple’s current financial success. I don’t know. Alternately, they may believe that partnering with Nokia in cell phones is akin to partnering with IBM as they did in the early days of PCs. Nokia is still the overall market leader in cell phones as a general category, I think.

    I think that the Windows 8 effort is going to have a major effect on both tablets and netbooks. Also, the .NET changes by Microsoft are making it easier to program for cell phones, tablets, and conventional computers with the same tools and interfaces.

    But back to the subject at hand. Market surveys suggest what product promotion tactics might be effective but a balance sheet tells whether or not the business itself is effective. That is much more important, I think.

    Google made a ton of money last quarter from advertising, but they spent a considerable amount of money on R&D that seems to be related to Android. Their revenues from licensing Google apps to phone makers is nowhere near the costs they are incurring from keeping the Android OS current. Google is surely betting that they can eventually find a way to profit from Android’s popularity, but it is becoming a tough market. Apple is still leading the way and has profitability some 10x that of their competitors such as Samsung, Motorola, and HTC on a per unit basis. As I mentioned above, there is also Nokia with Microsoft about to add to the confusion as well as RIM.

    That tells me an important thing that you and #pogson will not agree with, I am sure. Namely that the Android effort is not so certain to continue unless Google finds some better way to monetize their position. So far, Google is mum, suggesting that their stockholders trust in the wisdom that has brought GOOG to such height. That is a lot like the .COM approach, in my view, i.e. “Build it and they will come!”, which sort of flopped a decade ago with disasterous effects on a lot of companies and investors, including major institutions.

  13. oiaohm says:

    Contrarian “Last I heard, English was the official language in Australia, too. Are you an immigrant there?” I know Australian English and the Official language in Australia is Australian English. USA English is mostly the same. But there are quirks. Where the two languages are not the same. Just like Australian English and British English. Basically English is not uniform globally.

    When you move into USA Legal English and Australian Legal English there are less quirks. This time around we found one. One I did not know. There are 8 others I do know. One if I was reading an Australian document gives it is completely different meaning. Also I was bias by Australian law that the if the changes were applied here they are criminal.

    Basically Contrarian you are stupid to call me an immigrant. The issue is I am Australian my english is different get over it.

    Also now that I know the quirk that was causing the issue I have the right interpretation. It was not a case of my not knowing nothing about it. Yes I knew most of it. The Quirk had altered the meaning of the documents. Human error. Yes knowing 99 percent and having 1 percent wrong problem. The 1 percent wrong backed by the laws of the country I am in. Funny enough it appears I am not the only Australian legal to make this mistake. The hardening of Australian trade practices laws are in fact started from USA anti-trust laws. This does make me feel a little better. There is one noted error about the alignment Australian law and USA law says a max of 10 million dollar fine and Australian says a min of 10 million dollar fine but after it was done it was decided a min of 10 million was perfectly good. But the requirement for criminal convictions is not marked as a error. Most likely a good thing to note down Australian background law will most likely miss read that little section of text repeated of the USA anti-trust law and act if its the other way. Its criminal it must be punished criminal is the way it read to us.

    So yes my believe in the way the USA anti-trust law is read is also has come from read documents about the required changes to the Australian trade practices laws for the USA Australia trade agreement where the same mistake was made about the USA anti-trust law. The problem I am Australian Legal. I have been brain washed by it into a wrong interpenetration. I now know that is a wrong interpenetration. But at least I can see the funny side. At least Australia has better laws out of it. So basically I have had to accept a particular set of documents here are wrong so I can accept the correct USA interpenetration. Beware the people who wrote those documents are higher qualified in Law than me. Yes its a language issue and I was not the only Australian caught a full legal board of 12 read it the wrong way with no dispute and everyone on that board had a PHD in Australian Law. Some were even qualified do cases in the USA. So its quite a major quirk we found a new quirk that is not documented in any Australian International law course. I am only as good as my training. This time it was wrong.

    Contrarian reading balance sheets tell you nothing. Again you would know this if you had read historic balance sheets of Apple vs Microsoft and Linux vs Unix. Company with the highest profit per Unit has the largest balance sheet value for a long time. Even in cases of Unix when almost all their market share was gone particular Unix were still pulling in more income than redhat that had a bigger market share. In the end of course they faded out of existence.

    Android by unit sales numbers exceeds apple. Apple exceeds Android in profit taken at this stage. So less sales equals more profit for Apple so appears better on Balance sheet. This is exactly how the Unix vs Linux balance sheets looked before the Unix failures. Same was also true for MS vs Apple of old. MS took less profit per unit than Apple so appeared MS to be behind right up to 70 percent market dominance.

    Basically reading balance sheets tell you nothing without market numbers. Most of HTC phones sold in the last 12 months were Android. HTC balance sheet is way up. HTC has profited from Android yet you cannot see how much.

    This is the problem. There is no central balance sheet that shows Android income and hardware companies balance sheets don’t break it down that way.

  14. Contrarian says:

    “Basically I might be bad with USA anti-trust law.”

    Good. Now that you recognize that, please refrain from making comments on things that you know nothing about.

    ” have not hid the fact I am Australian. It would have been handy if someone had pointed out their was a legal english difference between the two countries”

    Last I heard, English was the official language in Australia, too. Are you an immigrant there?

    “But really you know nothing of the market and it still shows Contrarian.”

    I can read a balance sheet, #oiaohm, and the ones that I am reading do not show much of a gain for Linux anywhere even when you want to include Android phones and tablets. Linux is in last place in the computer market where Microsoft is the leader and Android is in last place in the phone and tablet market where Apple is the leader. I think that is a trend shown by Linux-based products.

  15. oiaohm says:

    Basically I might be bad with USA anti-trust law. I am use to Australian Trade Practices that don’t mess around and don’t have bad wording. What MS did is a crime to the laws where I am.
    Yes do what Microsoft has been convicted of and members of the board would have criminal convictions. Getting a criminal conviction prevents you from being on a company board in future here.

    Still to where I am Contrarian doing what Microsoft did is criminal. So I will see them as such. Yes ACCC is civil. DPP are criminal and the charges MS had done would be done by DPP here. So by Australian law Microsoft would be a felon. This is why I miss read the way the USA Law is worded. I was looking for what I was expecting to see. Yes the wording was slightly deceptive.

    “Treated like a felony” in Australian legal acts does equal having a felony for the charge assigned other wise it was not treated like a felony(Australian law cold logic). Apparently usa law it means processed as if felony. Two completely different meanings same block of text. USA documents have a different legal wording to what I am 100 percent use to. So the mistake. Issue of reading international legal documents at times some places have strange wording to what you are using.

    Yes the treated like a felony in the usa documents to be Australian legal text would have to be replaced with processed as if felony. God darn english inconsistent between countries. I am more than willing to put my hand up to a miss reading of the USA documents. But that does not change my point of view based on my own countries law that Microsoft are criminals. Really the Australian version is more black and white when read.

    I have not hid the fact I am Australian. It would have been handy if someone had pointed out their was a legal english difference between the two countries.

    I am also use to the clear separation. Civil cases are brought by civil rep body’s in Australia. Criminal are the space of the DPP. Anti-trust stuff falls under joint. Civil investigate DPP charges in criminal if particular rules are broken.

    More I am getting to know the USA system its Nuts and explains the massive internal messes the usa has. Yes the Civil bodys can investigate the DPP and the DPP can investigate the Civil for miss conduct. Basically our system trusts no one. Everyone has someone who could be looking over there shoulder.

    But really you know nothing of the market and it still shows Contrarian. Yours case is not a case of miss reading english due to country differences its a case of putting head in sand and not testing what you are saying.

  16. oiaohm says:

    “People will do what it takes to get what they need and if they have to switch from Apple to IBM PC to get, say, Lotus 123, they would do so.”

    You examples are bad. Lotus 123 were on both “Apple’s Mac OS in 1991.”

    In fact
    “If I am selling product I better support what my customer will be coming to me to get product on.”
    Contrarian this is not what I am saying.

    What I am saying is very darn simple.

    People will use what every they know that will get the job done that costs the least. This is a basic market rule.

    Support is not required. Support sales did not drive MS products or Linux to domination in markets.

    Corrosive market is about finding a weakness so that people get use to your system simply. MS Dos found a weakness. OEM’s needed a cheap OS at the time something that can run CP/M applications without much porting. Windows built on top of that weakness.

    “people will not buy one that causes them to switch technologies”

    This is where you are wrong. People are buying android. Android has no compatibility with any other Phone OS. In fact has no compatibility with anything other than Android. Users switch between their phone os and their desktop OS all the time. They are switching technologies.

    If what you said was true there would be no Mobile phone or tablet sales of devices not containing windows. Since these cause them to switch.

    You have a point in the market where they are willing switching technologies. This is the point to attack. Since now you don’t have to fight with them to switch.

    Basically in every market there is a willing switch point. A point where users will not fight switching.

    In fact shock horror their are office suits for mobile phones exclusively that don’t have a Windows version.

  17. oiaohm says:

    Really Android is the first one to follow the right model.

    Early versions of Android were very limited in what they could do. Trying to do everything at once is a major error.

    Android is an example of following what Corrosive market methods required. Android will keep on getting a bigger wave behind it as its features increase.

  18. Contrarian says:

    “As soon as someone use the term Killer App you know they know nothing at all about Market forces.”

    That is a lot like saying “As soon as someone starts talking about Microsoft’s criminal convictions you know they nothing at all about antitrust law” 🙂

    Only I won’t concede that much, #oiaohm. You were saying

    “If I am selling product I better support what my customer will be coming to me to get product on.”

    which is totally wrong. People will do what it takes to get what they need and if they have to switch from Apple to IBM PC to get, say, Lotus 123, they would do so. It is easy to see today that, with a wide choice of products, people will not buy one that causes them to switch technologies where many products do much the same thing. In that case, the ship has sailed long ago and you must have a Windows version of whatever you are selling as a personal productivity application first if not exclusively. You can add an OS X version if you want to pursue the last remnants of a potential market. Nobody is going to have a Linux only app unless it is some sort of support utility for Linux itself. Even the FOSS products that work with Linux almost always have a Windows version available and many only have a Windows version.

  19. One could say Android is a killer app running on Linux kernel… It certainly is catching the wave and has legs.

  20. oiaohm says:

    Contrarian yes term “Killer app” Equal fools gold. Yes equally as deceptive. As soon as someone use the term Killer App you know they know nothing at all about Market forces.

    MS Dos and MS Windows did not beat Apple in market share with a Killer app.
    Linux servers did not beat Unix servers in market share with a Killer app.

    No market has been won and held by a Killer app. Killer app at best will get you temp market share. Until something equal appears.

    Corrosive market effect is how markets are won for good. This is a process of taking up 1 role at a time until there were no role left for the OS they were competing with. Being cheaper and doing 90 percent of what the market requires.

    Unix and Apple both tried the Killer App card. The idea lead to your down fall. Yes this has been the big mistake on the Linux side. Lets try to find a killer app. Forgot that idea. It never has worked in all of history.

    Lets just be the best at X role then be the best a Y role and keep on going. Sooner or latter you will win.

    People using MS Dos wanted Apple at first. People using Linux servers wanted Unix servers at first. As features grow that disappears. Victory does not require being the best at first.

    Linux all the markets it holds in major numbers have been won by Corrosive market effects. Where it enters the market as one role and just keeps on expanding until its destroyed its competition.

    Phones are one of the ideal place for Linux to enter the home market and use Corrosive effects to dominate. Phone enters keep on expanding its roles until the home market finds it no longer needs PC’s.

    “only models that come with Linux are the bottom of the line stuff that screams “Loser!” to the buyer.” Corrosive entry point to the market the ITEM does scream loser at times.

    Problem here is your statement is false. From DELL their top of the Line workstations are Linux. The items that start at 2000 dollars plus for a case alone no keyboard mouse or monitor. Mind you top of the line workstations are only in the Enterprise section of the DELL online shops.

    Android has no plans to stop at just being a Phone OS. Question is how long before Android has the features todo 90 percent of what all users need.

    The true missing stuff is not bottom or top but mid market. Mid market is always the last to develop in Corrosive market effects. Reason you either are competing for top or bottom and the middle gets the crud beat out of it. Its when the Corrosive effect has lead to dominance does the one behind Corrosive get a mid market.

    Contrarian yes you have also proven that you don’t know what the current market truly looks like with the comment “only models that come with Linux are the bottom of the line stuff that screams “Loser!”

    About time you have a good look at history and what the current market really is. After you do that MS location does not look anywhere near as stable.

  21. M$’s sales are not increasing. While Android/Linux is growing by leaps and bounds, M$ is growing at less than the rate of growth of PCs. The end-result of that is that the world will have fewer machines running that other OS and more running Linux. M$ announces their next quarter on July 21. Stay tuned. How many quarters in a row do you need to see sluggish sales before you accept M$ is in decline. In the economy 2 quarters is enough. Shall we go for three?

    Wikipedia’s data:
    June 2011 – 80%
    March 2011 – 81.78%
    January 2011 – 82.21%
    October 2010 – 84.39%

    That’s real. For the installed base to shrink like that the sales of units must be in a nose-dive and at a level much less than 80%.

  22. Contrarian write, “It isn’t going to happen. “

    That sounds like denial because measurements of what’s happening in numbers reveals the share of that other OS is shrinking, even on x86 PCs. M$ is boasting about selling 400 licences for that other OS when 600 million PCs were sold. That’s something. It is happening. People are clinging to XP because it is more costly to go to “7”. Lots of them will choose to go to GNU/Linux because it’s cheaper. Where is M$ on tablets? That’s 100 million sales M$ won’t get. It’s happening. Believe it. It’s not a dream.

  23. Contrarian says:

    “If I am selling product I better support what my customer will be coming to me to get product on.”

    That is rather simplistic, #oiaohm, although it suits the general style around here. I will point out, though, that the history of technical success has been the traditional means of finding a solution to some significant problem rather than just trying to undersell the competition. Does the term “killer app” ring any bells? With you, I would imagine the answer is no.

    The cost difference between Windows and Linux is a small amount of money, but the affects of making a change are a major issue. It isn’t going to happen. People might buy a Droid phone from Samsung or Hitachi or Motorola or Sony although they will probably rue the fact that they didn’t get a “real” iPhone every time that they see an Apple ad on tv. They will not be persuaded to save a few bucks on some cheesy computer, though. Chances are that they have a perfectly fine Windows computer right now and would only discard it for a better one. A better one will come with Windows as the only models that come with Linux are the bottom of the line stuff that screams “Loser!” to the buyer.

    “I have been around long enough. I know what writing on the wall for a companies future looks like.”

    Pardon me for smirking, #oiaohm, but, while I agree that you have been around long enough and even perhaps too long, I can only say that, if your business sense is as retarded as your legal understanding, Microsoft has nothing to fear.

  24. Contrarian says:

    “It is sad that so much money is still being flung at M$ but it is clear that will not continue as the share of people using smarter devices increases. There’s news today that 75% of users of smart phones access “social” sites using the gadgets.”

    You might take some stock in the facts you present, #pogson, and wonder about your conclusions. If 75% is already using the devices for what they can do, and Microsoft OS sales are still increasing, what damage is the next 25% actually going to do? The obvious answer is that people are still using both and have been using both since the new devices became popular. Nothing in those tea leaves to suggest any change beyond your own wishes.

  25. oiaohm says:

    “Which leads to the question “Share of what?” The Wikipedia stats show the “share” of accesses to their website and the only statistical inference that can be made is that, despite the fact that there are almost as many internet capable phones in the world, the vast majority of people still use a Windows computer to access the internet.”

    Yes I agree numbers like this are only a guide. But they are a key guide. If I am selling product I better support what my customer will be coming to me to get product on.

    “That is true only if you consider a cell phone to be a “small cheap computer”.”

    The simple fact the ARM processor was first designed for a Desktop Computer.

    Phones have a better screen more power than all the early computers. Also lot of phones these days have hdmi out and support USB keyboard and mice. So its a little hard not to call them small cheap computers. Users might not be exploiting this to there full advantage yet. Give them time the idea of docking you phone for a desktop is still a little weird just like when laptops first turned up. Neither do people support there desktop machines to their full advantage either.

    Really I would be worried if 20 percent market share can be lost before people are taking full advantage of what the tech offers. I would hate to be in Microsoft location. There are reasons why Microsoft actions are like a rabbit in spot light at times too afraid to move.

    “As to the “share” of the money involved, Microsoft still has it all and the total sum of that money is still growing. That is more important from a business point of view”

    Yes that is interesting. But their is something you are not taking account of. Microsoft have sent many departments to countries with lower wages. Microsoft has also closed many departments. So total wage bill is lower today than it was even 6 months ago. Yet this does not show in there profitability.

    Also name any new Microsoft department started in the last 4 years. PS there is not one.

    Death of 1000 cuts. Microsoft most likely will be Millions of cuts. You can only do cuts for so long before there is nothing more to cut.

    Just because a company is making profit does not mean that the companies state looks healthy. Its true the bigger they are the harder they fall. Also the longer it takes for them to fall. SUN that was a smaller company than Microsoft managed to take 30 years to fail. Yet the same writing was on the wall at SUN 25 years before their final failure. It come a running joke after the first 10 years of predictions of SUN failure.

    I expect MS death to follow the SUN model. Slowly but surely lose touch with the market. Remember early on in SUN death in the Server market lot of people were out there saying it was impossible. Too large to fail. Too much market share to fail.

    I have been around long enough. I know what writing on the wall for a companies future looks like. Unless company changes way that writing will become the fact.

  26. You can ignore units shipped for a while until the older units in the installed base are scrapped. Then the installed base shrinks…

    It is sad that so much money is still being flung at M$ but it is clear that will not continue as the share of people using smarter devices increases. There’s news today that 75% of users of smart phones access “social” sites using the gadgets. Unlike smart phones tablets are a fair replacement for PCs and production of tablets is cranking up.

    see ABI Research

    “Other popular phone-based activities included:

    · Checking email (80%)
    · Checking weather and reading news (63% each)
    · Playing music or viewing stock quotes (53% each)
    · Checking sports scores (51%)
    · Searching for information (48%)
    · Playing games (39%)”

    So the money-tree upon which M$ sits is not growing and will decay while new trees spring up all around.

  27. Contrarian says:

    “It seems to me that it is clear that other OS is losing share in a big way to small cheap computers”

    That is true only if you consider a cell phone to be a “small cheap computer” #pogson. In terms of the money paid for OS platform software used by client computers, Microsoft has 100% if one accepts that Apple makes their own OS and does not buy anything. No one else gets a dime, I think, from such sales.

    Which leads to the question “Share of what?” The Wikipedia stats show the “share” of accesses to their website and the only statistical inference that can be made is that, despite the fact that there are almost as many internet capable phones in the world, the vast majority of people still use a Windows computer to access the internet.

    As to the “share” of the money involved, Microsoft still has it all and the total sum of that money is still growing. That is more important from a business point of view, I think, than some analysis of what the Wikipedia fans are using to get information. But you pick your favorite if you wish.

Leave a Reply