Yeah, they are stretching the definition of marketshare by including mobile. But I still find it interesting to see how far this obscure kernel has gone in many areas that don't directly challenge Microsoft's desktop turf.

And hey, I still also like Linux on the desktop too.

I wonder why not add the "device" market to the calculation as well? In that way *nix can approach > 80% marketshare easily. (Things like GPS navigation tablet or car's self-check system runs on *nix AFAIK, mostly because modern Windows don't fit the low memory requirement and didn't run on low power consumption ARM chips at that time)

I heard this has more market share than windows, *nix etc. put together and then multiplied by a really large coefficient.

 EDIT: p.s., I don't believe that graph for a second. For instance I reckon they only started including non-PC devices from 2005 (otherwise a lot of iPhones and "others" were sold effectively overnight). It's also interesting to see how Apple's growth from 2005 has been somewhat slow and how Microsofts growth is going up again. But statistics, you can make them say anything. Especially if you do them badly.

With Microsoft's push to devices I think it make sense to include all of the above. Windows Embedded has been on the market for quite sometime so why shouldn't Ford Sync and the like be included? As developers aren't we interested in more than just hardware that sits in front of people's faces?

15 minutes ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

Does the chart include Windows embedded too?

Of course not. That won't allow for dramatic forum threads about Linux having twice Windows marketshare to be created, right?

49 minutes ago, BitFlipper wrote

*snip*

Of course not. That won't allow for dramatic forum threads about Linux having twice Windows marketshare to be created, right?

And if it was included would it make a difference? I don't think embedded can fit in as many crevasses as Linux but I could be wrong.

For instance, what happened in 2004? The iPod, of course, so that has to be what makes Apple jump from 5% to 21%, but something else must have happened that year, to make "Others" jump from zilch to 29%. I cannot remember what might have been so big to make more of a splash than the iPod, maybe it was a number of things, but I cannot really figure this out (unless some specific OS, e.g. Symbian, got "computing device" status in 2004).

Another disconcerting fact is that Apple stays almost flat after 2004, in the 20's range; flat enough that it's impossible to say when the iPhone or the iPad were introduced in this timeline. Of course the PC business have been growing in the double digits until very recently, so the graph is kind of skewed, but I was still taken by surprise.

We have an important milestone for our comparisons: 2008. That's when, according to Gartner, the 1 billion PC mark was reached. According to those percentages, there were roughly 500 million Apple devices back then (Mac + iPod + iPhone); and there were about 650 million "Others" devices. Any clue as to what those are supposed to be?

Fast forward a few years; as I mentioned the PC market keeps growing until very recently, so that billion must have grown significantly, but let's keep it as it's a nice round figure. If PC's are 20% (and that's our conservative estimate of one billion units), there are more than one billion Apple devices out there and more than two billion Android devices (plus the usual 700 million unknown "Others"). Does that even remotely sounds possible? Android gets there in just 4 years, which means that, assuming linear growth, they must have sold some 500 million units per year (without any turnover: every unit sold goes to a new customer).

The chart isn't bogus, of course, and is probably indicating something important. What I know is it's probably not numbers that can be compared to net applications or similar statistics. Maybe it's units sold that year, maybe it's revenues. Without proper labeling and some background information, any number means pretty much anything.

2 hours ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

*snip*

And if it was included would it make a difference? I don't think embedded can fit in as many crevasses as Linux but I could be wrong.

Well, it would at the very least mean that Microsoft could claim credit for every TV in every seat in every airline in the west, as well as every ATM in America and a fair chunk of all of the advertisements in malls and outside shops in America and Europe. There are a lot of Microsoft Embedded machines out there.

10 seconds ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

Well, it would at the very least mean that Microsoft could claim credit for every TV in every seat in every airline in the west, as well as every ATM in America.

Not every one of them. Both Delta and Continental have in-flight entertainment systems based on Red Hat Linux, and maybe a few others.

2 hours ago, Blue Ink wrote

*snip*

Not every one of them. Both Delta and Continental have in-flight entertainment systems based on Red Hat Linux, and maybe a few others.

American, United and Air Canada are Windows Embedded for sure.

6 hours ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

Well, it would at the very least mean that Microsoft could claim credit for every TV in every seat in every airline in the west, as well as every ATM in America and a fair chunk of all of the advertisements in malls and outside shops in America and Europe. There are a lot of Microsoft Embedded machines out there.

6 hours ago, Blue Ink wrote

*snip*

Not every one of them. Both Delta and Continental have in-flight entertainment systems based on Red Hat Linux, and maybe a few others.

No doubt Windows Embedded is everywhere.  Thanks Blue on the clarification.

I wonder if Windows Embedded is running my home router or my TV? I bet it would make a cool smart watch.

2 minutes ago, Craig_​Matthews wrote

It's too bad Linux is all over the consumer NAS market. They universally suck because none of the manufacturers can configure an smb.conf even with a gun to their head.

Amen.

I've thrown money away twice now on *nix based NAS garbage that has the reliability of a meth addict.

1 day ago, Blue Ink wrote

Another disconcerting fact is that Apple stays almost flat after 2004, in the 20's range; flat enough that it's impossible to say when the iPhone or the iPad were introduced in this timeline. Of course the PC business have been growing in the double digits until very recently, so the graph is kind of skewed, but I was still taken by surprise.

In fact one would potentially expect a substantial drop in Microsoft's percentage share on this graph without it being bad news for the company. Simply if (using oversimplified, incorrect, assumptions to set up an exemplar hypothetical situation) everyone owned one computer, running windows, and then Apple invented the smartphone and over time everyone acquired on of those the Microsoft's market share would reasonably be expected to drop to 50% without that indicating anything negative about the size or health of their market.