Paul Thurrott's math regarding mac marketshare

soulseek

soulseek

It's set to groove
http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20040126144410

it seems this guys math is not that good... i suggest he goes back to school.
or is it a common feature among pc fanz to make wrong calculations in theyre advantage???

But let's say it's 1 billion. If there are 1 billion PC users worldwide, and 10 million OS X users, what is the Mac's usage share? It's one-tenth of one-percent (or 0.1 percent). Not a huge number.
Click to expand...

im sorry to disappoint this guy. but NO.
last time i checked, 10 million in 1 billion is NOT 0.1 percent. is 1percent u ..... ! right?
so i suggest he just deletes the whole article, if he doesnt want ppl laughin at him :)
 
These guys are running scared.

They liked the idea of mac users bumbling along on OS 9 and all of the incumbent crashes and instability that came with it, plus the dog-slow G4's.

Now we're running OS X and G5's, the pc is looking a tad tired and these people know this.

It doesn't matter that the figures don't make any sense, they're irrelevant .. just like the author of the article.

They're adopting the mantra of Microsoft, they're spreading their choking miasma of fear, uncertainty & doubt to cloud peoples minds; if you can't beat them, lie and do it with a smile...
 
Also don't confuse marketshare (% of sales) with installed base. The Mac's installed base is a lot more, around 25 million I believe.

Edit: his most blatant error is first counting "OS X users" and then jumping to total mac marketshare: the Mac platform still counts many happy OS 9 users. That would be like counting only XP users as PC marketshare (there's a lot of people out there on Win98SE). OS X is ~40% of the installed base, so this would fit nicely with the figure of 25 million installed base: if 10 million is 40%, then 100% would be exactly twenty-five k square! :D
 
Why bother? We all know that the Mac's market share is low. 0.1% is low, 1% is low, 2.5% is low, 3.5% is low - even the 5% figure that some people are (mistakenly) using is low.

Just look at it the other way around. There are 100% of people. And if you're reading this, you are probably one of those very few lucky enough to be able to use a Macintosh. Which is the best computer brand in the world. Got a friend who thinks Macs are too expensive? So he's the loser who can't afford a _real_ computer. Rub it in.
 
What is sad is that by us all being here gabbing on about this retard, we're dignifying his blatant stupidity.

Look at the mac market share this way: it's nearly proportional to the number of people in the general populous who are creative.

And as for the rest? Well...
 
soulseek said:
http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20040126144410last time i checked, 10 million in 1 billion is NOT 0.1 percent. is 1percent u ..... ! right?
so i suggest he just deletes the whole article, if he doesnt want ppl laughin at him :)
Click to expand...

True, 10 million out of 1 billion is 1%, but that's the wrong math to calculate market share.

If you want to know market share, you take the total number of Mac users and divide that by the total number of users, regardless of platform.

The correct math is 10,000,000 divided by 1,010,000,000. That gives you 0.00990099, which rounds off to 0.01, which is still 1%.

The math you're doing (10 million / 1 billion) will give you the ratio of Mac-to-PC users, which is about 1%, meaning that for every 100 PC users out there, there is 1 Mac user. That's not the same as market share, although the percentages are about the same.
 
What I'd like to see is stats on home user market share. Overall market share is slightly misleading in that it factors in corporate use. So, for example, if you look at the bank I used to work at, you've got 200 PCs and most of the users barely know how to Launch Word with them. It doesn't show us true preference, but rather a whitewash corporate economic viability decision.

The home user base would at least give us a better idea of preferred usage of an individual or family. Granted, it's still skewed because most people are sheep so they get the cheap PC cuz that's what they know from work.

Anyway, I think it would be intersting to see those numbers. They'd still be low, obviously, but maybe it would break double digits?
 
Mindbend has a point. I see almost as many Apple notebooks on campus, then I do PC's, yet, when you take into account the several hundred PC's that UTA just bought, that really makes the Mac using Students, seem insignificant. But the difference is, the people who actually chose to use the Mac.

What is funny, is that when the Macs were upgraded to Mac OS X, all 20 of them. There was a line to use them, while Windows XP machines were empty, and ready to use.
 
Who cares about market share? As long as there are enough of us out here who keep buying Apple products, Apple will keep innovating and providing us with awesome hardware and software. If 1% or 5% is enough to ensure Apple's viability, do we really care that 95% of the population is frustrated with their computer? I certainly don't. Some people make wise choices in life, most do not. Just be happy you are included in the wise category and enjoy youself.
 
speedfreak said:
Who cares about market share? As long as there are enough of us out here who keep buying Apple products, Apple will keep innovating and providing us with awesome hardware and software. If 1% or 5% is enough to ensure Apple's viability, do we really care that 95% of the population is frustrated with their computer? I certainly don't. Some people make wise choices in life, most do not. Just be happy you are included in the wise category and enjoy youself.
Click to expand...
wise words indeed!!!

:D
 
If Apple wants to go after market share, they need to have a low cost, power system. The eMac is cool for home, but not really appropriate for corporate users.

Think High-end G4 or Low-end G5 cube, 256MB, 30GB HDD, no montior (vga connector), USB, Firewire, 10/100 Ethernet, MacOS Panther - $599. No iLife, no Games, no Appleworks, no Modem. With MS Office v.X OEM $799.

Call it the Apple ProStation.
 
TWRayer said:
If Apple wants to go after market share, they need to have a low cost, power system...
Click to expand...

That sounds simple, but Apple are a premium brand. It won't work, they either can't quite get the cost down or the thing is half-arsed.

besides, this is thinking in straight lines. Too obvious.

I have the solution...

It's actually deceptively simple and here's were everyone starts flaming me for heresy, but I tell you this will work!

It's common knowledge that Apple have a point-for-point compatible version of OS X on Intel. Why not make it pay .. but in a different way?

Apple sells OS X on Intel directly into enterprise and corporate markets while at the same time resisting the temptation to run off a consumer version. Also, if you're an IT purchaser, to get your hands on OS X, you have to buy it in units of at least ten.

By selling into markets that they have little or no presence, they have little to loose and everything to gain. They have the potential to grow a segment of their marketing pie chart without damaging their lucrative hardware sales.

Apple don't get to watch their hardware sales ripped to shreds by Intel boxen and the the corporate client don't have to fork out on new hardware.

And I haven't even mentioned how the Xserve could easily nudge out old Microsoft Windows NT systems through the side door...
 
octane said:
....

It's actually deceptively simple and here's were everyone starts flaming me for heresy, but I tell you this will work!

It's common knowledge that Apple have a point-for-point compatible version of OS X on Intel. My not make it pay .. but in a different way?

....
Click to expand...
There is a difference between rumor and common knowledge. It is a fact that Apple maintains a poin-for-point port of Darwin on Intel. Marklar, the Intel port of MacOS X 10.x, is a rumor. If it exists, Marklar can't run Classic. If it exists, I would expect Carbon on Intel to work properly. Strangely though, I have never heard a rumor that relates specifically to an Intel port of Carbon.
 
MisterMe said:
There is a difference between rumor and common knowledge. It is a fact that Apple maintains a poin-for-point port of Darwin on Intel...
Click to expand...

Clearly we've been reading very different things.

Steve Jobs was asked specifically about an Intel version of OS X. His answer was pretty cryptic: 'we like options.'

You should find that somewhere on C|Net.

MisterMe said:
Marklar, the Intel port of MacOS X 10.x, is a rumor. If it exists, Marklar can't run Classic.

Who cares? I haven't run Classic in over two years, why would anyone else running OS X on Intel.

MisterMe said:
If it exists, I would expect Carbon on Intel to work properly. Strangely though, I have never heard a rumor that relates specifically to an Intel port of Carbon.
Click to expand...

I've read of such a thing on O'Reilly's mac developer site. Cocoa was mentioned and in many ways was seen as being more of a problem that Carbon.

The point is -- and you're letting the detail get in the way of the need -- that such a thing is entirely possible. And more importantly, the business model would hold quite well; zero cannibalization of hardware sales.
Click to expand...
 
That's actually a pretty good idea in some respects. OS X for Intel architectures would simply kill Mac sales, or be an R&D drain as there would be no software available for it. But to get it running on servers... that would be nice, as long as people didn't start taking it home and distributing it.

However, Apple are just like BMW. They sell one of the best machines in their market. The difference is that, while there are many different brands, cars all use the same engine structure while computers use different, incompatible engine structures (the processor, and the OS that runs on them). And the Intel/Windows engine structure is the most prevalent, with the only major competitor being Apple. If they were all the same, Apple would just be another Alienware or Falcon.

So they really don't need more market share to keep succeeding; imagine if everyone drove a BMW: where's the fun?
 
octane said:
These guys are running scared....
Click to expand...

of what? a loud minority with outlandish views and stances, cryptic hints from a spin doctor, and more rumours than you can shake a stick at that never materialize?

yeah. scary stuff indeed.

seriously though, however bad this persons math, I always wonder when Macs will lose their niche appeal, and companies like Adobe and what not just stop making their products for it; as well as when the average mac fan(atic) will decide that Apple is not the "in-thing" to support, and basically walk away.

you know, niche groups are fickle like that... sometimes.
 
They're scared because Apple currently has the potential to really break into the computer market and increase their marketshare and good name. They're much, much stronger now than they were oh, 7 years ago, and these guys know it.
 
potential. yes.

will it happen? heck no.

things like a cheaper headless mac to compete with the Dell's/Sony's/Micron's and other PC P.O.G. (piece o' garbage) would be nice. They're making good strides into enterprise... that I'm definitely happy about.

but the rest of Apple's strategy just plan sucks.

and last I checked, 2% total PC share versus the 6-8% they once had a few years ago doesn't equate stronger. In fact, with Corel, Adobe, and other companies not making products for the Mac on some instances, I'd say the power is waning.

This potential in the face of the upcoming lull between WinXP/Win2k3 Server to Longhorn needs to be exploited.

But it won't. ANd I can say that with full belief, I know that this time will not be exploited either.

It's a shame, imho.
 
gerbick said:
of what? a loud minority with outlandish views and stances, cryptic hints from a spin doctor, and more rumours than you can shake a stick at that never materialize?..
Click to expand...

Nice sound bites! You ought to be a politician.

So you're telling me that the avalanche of crap pouring out of Redmond has nothing to do with Microsoft being scared half out of their mind by Linux?

If you expect anyone to believe that, maybe you should to be a politician...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top