That's truly good news - but if businesses and governments are buying more Macs and BSD systems, why is the Mac market share still dropping?

Is it that they only buy BSD systems to the detriment of Macs?

It still surprises me that most people only consider Windows even when they're faced with the facts. Most often claim that our security is through obscurity. But even if that were true why not enjoy attack-free computing for a few years rather than continuously struggling with Windows? I'm certain the cost savings would more than outweigh the cost of new computers/software/training.

You'd think there are more masochists out there than we are led to believe

I suspect the reason their Market Share went down last quarter was because they stopped selling the iMac for two months and are backordered on the iMac G5s. If Apple had been able to keep supply up with demand, I'd be willing to bet we'd have seen an INCREASE in their market share. It's a good thing they were able to significantly ramp up production of the iPod when it needed to be done or I suspect the iPod's market share would be suffering as well.

Alex

Quote

El Mutanto wrote:
It still surprises me that most people only consider Windows even when they're faced with the facts.
You'd think there are more masochists out there than we are led to believe

Having to maintain insecure and fiddly systems keeps more people in IT jobs than otherwise necessary methinks. That is why many managers want to use them.......

How does having a low percentage of total breaches prove OS X/BSD is the most secure? What percentage of machines online use OS X/BSD? (Hint: low.) This doesn't seem to prove anything beyond security-through-obscurity. What matters is how many attempted breaches were successful, or what percentage of machines of a specific OS were breached.

> if businesses and governments are buying more Macs and BSD systems,
> why is the Mac market share still dropping?

Apple's market share is dropping because the number of Macs being sold is increasing at a slower rate than the number of PCs being sold. This is not surprising since Apple is the sole supplier of Macs, while there are hundreds of PC suppliers. Low market share does not indicate a slowdown of sales, or a shrinking installed base.

Lets see…market share for all operating systems include "touch pads" at gas stations, magnetic card readers, etc.. Show me the data comparing just the Mac OS and/or Apple computer to any other "like" software or equipment I've seen this for years but I have yet to have any Wintel friend support their claim…

Quote

marsviolet wrote:
> if businesses and governments are buying more Macs and BSD systems,
> why is the Mac market share still dropping?

Apple's market share is dropping because the number of Macs being sold is increasing at a slower rate than the number of PCs being sold. This is not surprising since Apple is the sole supplier of Macs, while there are hundreds of PC suppliers. Low market share does not indicate a slowdown of sales, or a shrinking installed base.

That's correct.

What most people don't realize is that the world's largest supplier of PCs isn't Dell, HP or IBM. It's in sum the "white box" makers who make cheap PCs from commodity grade parts.

I had the same questions. This doesn't make sense. Unfortunately, it will cost you big bucks to get the full report...

Andy C.

For years now, market share numbers have been based on sales -- including everything from your standard desktop to 'drones' that are used in commercial environments. In other words, PCs that you *never* see, and are usually stripped down.

On top of that, usually the count doesn't specify between new users buying a system and current users upgrading or replacing or changing systems.

On average, it seems that a Mac will outlast a PC *usefully* by about 1 - 1.5 years. In other words, at least in my past work environments, we could get a PC to last usefully for about 2 - 2.5 years. There were a few Macs in the office and they were, on average, replaced every 3 - 4 years. *shrug*

::: beginning of rant :::
BUT -- has anyone noticed that although Apple has continued to be profitable, that they continue to sell computers, that the market share keeps "dropping"??? Just watch, a year from now, no matter WHAT Apple is doing, market share will be listed as like, .9%. Ridiculous.
::::: end rant :::::::

And to those that claim that IT won't let it due to job less --- I have to politely disagree. I don't think it's as much job loss as it is that people generally don't want to learn something new AND there really are some rabid, you'll-pry-it-from-my-cold-dead-fingers Windows-worshipers. Kinda like some on our side of the system fence, huh?

Sure - Macs tend to take less maintenance per unit, however at least in the beginning of a "switch", you'd still need all those IT personnel not only to install new machines, but to also outline new rules/abilities to the users and probablyl also show the users how to use their new machine, in order to maintain productivity.

sorry about the long reply -
mv

...and I haven't been happier. I've been looking over the fence at the Apple camp for the past 10 years and each year I opted to upgrade or rebuild or build a new PC rather than take the plunge. In the latest iMac incarnation, Apple has finally made "my machine." True, it's not as upgradeable as a PC and may not run the latest and greatest whiz-bang games, but I spend zero time trying to chase down and fix problems. XP Pro even with SP2, firewall, antivirus, ad/spy/malware detectors installed and running cost me lots of free time as my family complained they saw the back of my head more than my face (as I was "stuck" at the PC, working on the latest failure).

My family loves our new iMac. My son records his electric guitar into GarageBand, my daughter can do the same with her keyboard. I'm getting used to the whole "drag-n-drop" way the OS likes to operate and I get more "face time" with my wife. The other day, a friend came over to visit and noted aloud that something in the living room didn't look right. I was sitting on the couch for the first time - not shackled to the computer chair.

As much as I'd love this to be The Magic Bullit, it proves nothing. It simply is a reflection of install base in each market. For whatever reason, mi2g mentions nothing of this, which is either extremly inept or highly suspect.

dhp wrote:
>This doesn't seem to prove anything beyond security-through-obscurity. >What matters is how many attempted breaches were successful,
>or what percentage of machines of a specific OS were breached.

LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!! Macs are teh most secure evar!!!

Haha, just kidding. I checked their press release and it is really about total breaches of online computers. No word about successful breaches on a specific OS. This study proves absolutely nothing.

press release: http://www.mi2g.com/cgi/mi2g/press/021104.php

Funny footnote: 'The critics were against the previous study which also came out in favour of Apple and BSD, because the entrenched supporters of Linux and Windows felt that mi2g was guilty of 'computing blasphemy'. In subsequent months, mi2g's reputation was damaged on search engines and bulletin boards.'

...I wonder why.

Quote

Planeten Paultje wrote:
Having to maintain insecure and fiddly systems keeps more people in IT jobs than otherwise necessary methinks. That is why many managers want to use them.......

That is very, very true. I speak from personal experience of that: more employees under a manager gives the manager more power, more "importance" a bigger budget and, ultimately, more take-home pay.

As for those who have suggested that the home-user going out to buy a computer has heard a lot about the problems with Windows and the ease of use or whatever of Macs, forget it. Those that even bother to listen are in a minority; those that then act like anything but sheep are fewer still. But most of them simply don't know that Macs are computers for at home, that they can get on the Web and can actually do email -- wow! Just a few days ago, someone came here and saw my G4 iMac -- he was quite amazed, he'd never seen anything like it. Yet he's been a Windows user for years and does a lot more with his machine than the average Windows home user, making full films on DVD, producing all sorts of documents for organisations, etc. But an iMac he'd never seen!

Quote

dhp wrote:
How does having a low percentage of total breaches prove OS X/BSD is the most secure? What percentage of machines online use OS X/BSD? (Hint: low.) This doesn't seem to prove anything beyond security-through-obscurity. What matters is how many attempted breaches were successful, or what percentage of machines of a specific OS were breached.

Actually, mi2g are aware of this perception and have in the past addressed the concern, having gone so far as to pen a rebuttal of "security through obscurity" with a thoughtful, logical and well-considered explanation.