PDA

View Full Version : Online Mac share at 7.46%


MacBytes
Mar 2, 2008, 09:57 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: News and Press Releases
Link: Online Mac share at 7.46% (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20080302105704)
Description:: iPhone usage is up again, Firefox continues march to the sea

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

Blue Velvet
Mar 2, 2008, 09:59 AM
Firefox continues march to the sea


I don't quite get that bit. Is that like the march of the lemmings or down to the beach early to grab the best place to sunbath?

Queso
Mar 2, 2008, 10:06 AM
You can see the snowballing against IE beginning to take hold now. Firefox up to 17%. I wonder what it'll go to once version 3 is officially released. And nearly 6% for Safari is pretty damn good too :)

Is there any area in which Microsoft is actually growing? HD-DVD dead, the PS3 overtaking XBox sales, iPhone overtaking WinCE phones, MSN share down. Even Windows market share can't stay above 90% for much longer.

Teh Don Ditty
Mar 2, 2008, 11:12 AM
Note to Microsoft:

See, competition is good. It usually makes you realize you need to be more innovative.

I salute Mozilla's continued efforts to constantly improve their browser. Well done to them.

apple_iBoy
Mar 2, 2008, 11:27 AM
I don't quite get that bit. Is that like the march of the lemmings or down to the beach early to grab the best place to sunbath?

Like General Sherman's march to the sea, I think, burning everything in its path and taking no prisoners.

BongoBanger
Mar 2, 2008, 12:14 PM
Eh... I would take these stats with a pinch of salt as they don't represent global trends - Net Applications' data is kind of restricted to bits of the world with a heavy bias towards the USA and misses a lot of the Asian markets. I'd say a more realistic global figure is between 2 and 5%.

However, Firefox's increased market share is encouraging.

elppa
Mar 2, 2008, 12:43 PM
Let's not forget WebKit is lining up to be the defacto standard for mobile browsing.

Apple prefer it for iPhone and Google will use it for Android.

Whilst Gecko may be making headway on the Desktop, the mobile space looks like where the next battle will be and WebKit has made a great start, whereas Mozilla's contributions don't look as compelling yet.

The other big player in the mobile space is Opera.

clevin
Mar 2, 2008, 12:59 PM
both safari and osx share actually dropped a bit in Feb.

any guess?

PKGuy323
Mar 2, 2008, 02:11 PM
I'm glad to see FireFox up to 17%...MS is trying to copy them and FFox just keeps staying ahead of the game. Safari is a decent browser, but FFox has ALL the features I need....and then some! :)

Queso
Mar 2, 2008, 03:12 PM
both safari and osx share actually dropped a bit in Feb.

any guess?
More people back at work for the full month is my guess. During the holiday period what people have at home is going to take more of the overall percentage.

AlmostThere
Mar 2, 2008, 04:09 PM
I don't quite get that bit. Is that like the march of the lemmings or down to the beach early to grab the best place to sunbath?

March of the Penguins?

DannySmurf
Mar 2, 2008, 04:35 PM
Eh... I would take these stats with a pinch of salt as they don't represent global trends - Net Applications' data is kind of restricted to bits of the world with a heavy bias towards the USA and misses a lot of the Asian markets. I'd say a more realistic global figure is between 2 and 5%.

However, Firefox's increased market share is encouraging.

Err... so you're dismissing the Safari numbers because they are biased, but then say that the increased Firefox numbers (from the same source) are encouraging, even though their validity is suspect due to the exact same bias?

I don't get it....

BongoBanger
Mar 2, 2008, 05:30 PM
Err... so you're dismissing the Safari numbers because they are biased, but then say that the increased Firefox numbers (from the same source) are encouraging, even though their validity is suspect due to the exact same bias?

I don't get it....

The Firefox numbers are backed up by other sites with a more global spread. Again, it varies from site to site but it consistently increases.

clevin
Mar 2, 2008, 06:22 PM
Err... so you're dismissing the Safari numbers because they are biased, but then say that the increased Firefox numbers (from the same source) are encouraging, even though their validity is suspect due to the exact same bias?

I don't get it....

no, most website register 17% as lowest # (onestat.com) for firefox. EU has higher numbers, as many individual tech websites.

but 5% registered by NetApplications is probably the Highest number anywhere for safari. Onestat and others register it at about 1~2%.

I have the impression that Net Applications's database is biased towards USA visitors. I don't know the detail tho. but 7% Mac, 5% safari, 17% firefox probably reflect more about the usage in the states.

Eraserhead
Mar 2, 2008, 07:14 PM
Err... so you're dismissing the Safari numbers because they are biased, but then say that the increased Firefox numbers (from the same source) are encouraging, even though their validity is suspect due to the exact same bias?

I don't get it....

when I was in south east Asia last summer every Internet cafe we used had firefox as well as ie but they had no macs at all.

DannySmurf
Mar 2, 2008, 09:36 PM
no, most website register 17% as lowest # (onestat.com) for firefox. EU has higher numbers, as many individual tech websites. but 5% registered by NetApplications is probably the Highest number anywhere for safari.

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification.

McBanjo
Mar 2, 2008, 10:48 PM
You can see the snowballing against IE beginning to take hold now. Firefox up to 17%. I wonder what it'll go to once version 3 is officially released. And nearly 6% for Safari is pretty damn good too :)

Is there any area in which Microsoft is actually growing? HD-DVD dead, the PS3 overtaking XBox sales, iPhone overtaking WinCE phones, MSN share down. Even Windows market share can't stay above 90% for much longer.

Oh and not to mention the merely "adequate" sales of Vista.

I've just got one pet peeve. The PS3 is no where near total 360 sales and I doubt it ever will be. It only achieved higher sales in the month where HD-DVD dropped out of the game and that's expected. So there seems to be only one industry where Microsoft is gaining in the eyes of the public.

BongoBanger
Mar 3, 2008, 04:34 AM
You can see the snowballing against IE beginning to take hold now. Firefox up to 17%. I wonder what it'll go to once version 3 is officially released. And nearly 6% for Safari is pretty damn good too :)

Is there any area in which Microsoft is actually growing? HD-DVD dead, the PS3 overtaking XBox sales, iPhone overtaking WinCE phones, MSN share down. Even Windows market share can't stay above 90% for much longer.

I think we need to be clear on a few things here:

1) Microsoft continue to grow well. Sales of Vista, although not brilliant, are as expected - and since 'expected' means in excess of 100 million that's not bad.
2) The PS3 is starting to sell more than Xbox because of market saturation - the Xbox has sold 18 million units to the PS3's 10.5 million so far so the PS3 has a lot of gorund to catch up.
3) MS operating systems will continue to dominate because that's what business uses. Until Apple make OSX available to third parties or a generally accepted and stable versin of Linux becomes available that will remain the case.
4) Symbian dominates the smartphone OS industry. The market share will fall but analysts suspect that this will be due to the introduction of Unix based OS.

I don't understand the glee at the - often false - premise that MS is struggling. What is it to you how they do? It's not as if Apple are the guys in white hats here so why should you be bothered what goes on in Redmond?

If MS didn't exist then the world would be a poorer place. Like it or not they are responsible for making easy computing available to the masses with Windows and Office suite. Yes, Apple may have invented some of the apps that MS stole but MS mass marketed them.

Queso
Mar 3, 2008, 05:01 AM
1) Microsoft continue to grow well. Sales of Vista, although not brilliant, are as expected - and since 'expected' means in excess of 100 million that's not bad.
No, they aren't growing. They dominate in two market areas, that of operating systems and office software. Everything else they attempt to break into is failing, often losing them large amounts of money in the process. Vista sales may be within expected numbers, but that's only because they have effectively forced their userbase to abandon the preferred XP. Not a good sign for any company when your customers prefer your previous generation product.
2) The PS3 is starting to sell more than Xbox because of market saturation - the Xbox has sold 18 million units to the PS3's 10.5 million so far so the PS3 has a lot of gorund to catch up.
In what other market sector other than gaming are sales to date a valid benchmark of current performance? The XBox is currently third in sales to PS3 and Wii. This means MS's competitors are catching it or already overtaken it in Nintendo's case. This will have a big impact on game revenues over the next few years, which would lead to the Home Entertainment division of Microsoft suffering increasing losses.
3) MS operating systems will continue to dominate because that's what business uses. Until Apple make OSX available to third parties or a generally accepted and stable versin of Linux becomes available that will remain the case.
Not in doubt at all. But a 95% domination has already slipped to 90% and will continue to fall as Linux continues to gain traction in developing markets. Combining that with Apple's increased sales at the top end of the market, Microsoft are being squeezed. Therefore although they are still very much the dominant player and will remain so for some time, they are not growing, my original point. Competitors are beginning to get a serious foothold, and therefore third party companies are looking to become more platform-agnostic which will only increase the drift towards Microsoft alternatives. This effect is already happening and will only get more pronounced as the alternatives increase their installed base.
4) Symbian dominates the smartphone OS industry. The market share will fall but analysts suspect that this will be due to the introduction of Unix based OS.
Symbian's dominance of mobile phones is another example of how Microsoft have failed to become a serious player in a market segment they targeted, spending billions in the process. That a newcomer such as Apple can overtake installed base of Microsoft phones within months of their first attempt speaks volumes.
I don't understand the glee at the - often false - premise that MS is struggling. What is it to you how they do? It's not as if Apple are the guys in white hats here so why should you be bothered what goes on in Redmond?
Because I work in technology, that's how it matters to me. Read my earlier post again. That's me analysing what is happening in the tech field, not gloating about Microsoft's potential demise. The move amongst web developers towards Firefox and other alternative browsers has stopped the utter stagnation in that area that occurred under Microsoft's IE dominance. That I am happy about, hence the smiley. If Microsoft had continued to improve their product Firefox et al. would be virtually dead instead of thriving, but they chose to sit on their laurels and expect the market to follow them indefinitely. Yet another example of how their arrogance means they will eventually throw their market lead away in most sectors unless serious changes occur in their corporate structure and attitude.
If MS didn't exist then the world would be a poorer place. Like it or not they are responsible for making easy computing available to the masses with Windows and Office suite. Yes, Apple may have invented some of the apps that MS stole but MS mass marketed them.
However, the dominance of Microsoft is now at the stage where it is holding computing back. I don't disagree with this assessment, but there has been a long string of companies that dominated tech and fell by the wayside once the needs of their customers were no longer being met. Microsoft is approaching that tipping point with its current direction, and due to the boardroom being stuffed by people who don't understand where the tech market is going they are being completely out-manoeuvred by their rivals at every turn. Unless there is a drastic change in senior management at Microsoft it will continue its current decline and become the next Novell or Corel. This isn't an Apple fanboy's assessment, but one of a network security professional with over a decade's experience of technical design, planning and support behind him. Take it as you will.

BongoBanger
Mar 3, 2008, 06:01 AM
No, they aren't growing. They dominate in two market areas, that of operating systems and office software. Everything else they attempt to break into is failing, often losing them large amounts of money in the process.

Office and Windows continue to grow though. I would hardly call the Xbox and Xbox 360 failures either. Now the Zune... LOL!

Vista sales may be within expected numbers, but that's only because they have effectively forced their userbase to abandon the preferred XP. Not a good sign for any company when your customers prefer your previous generation product.

Agree, Vista is a disappointment. I'm not sayng it's rubbish because it's perfectly servicable, it's just not what MS uers were hoping for. It remains for MS to convince business that Vista can be used in much the same way they had to with XP when it came out.

In what other market sector other than gaming are sales to date a valid benchmark of current performance? The XBox is currently third in sales to PS3 and Wii.

It's currently third in month to month sales but still leads overall although I expect the Wii to overtake before long. You have to remember that consoles have pretty defined lifecycles and the Xbox was launched a year before the Wii and the PS3. I expect MS will look to release the next iteratrion around 2010, again leading the development cycle.

This means MS's competitors are catching it or already overtaken it in Nintendo's case. This will have a big impact on game revenues over the next few years, which would lead to the Home Entertainment division of Microsoft suffering increasing losses.

Doubt it for the reasons outlined above.

Not in doubt at all. But a 95% domination has already slipped to 90% and will continue to fall as Linux continues to gain traction in developing markets. Combining that with Apple's increased sales at the top end of the market, Microsoft are being squeezed.

True, but not hard enough to materially affect their dominant position. As mentioned, Apple need to release OSX to third parties and there needs to be a universal accepted version of Linux for this to happen.

Symbian's dominance of mobile phones is another example of how Microsoft have failed to become a serious player in a market segment they targeted, spending billions in the process. That a newcomer such as Apple can overtake installed base of Microsoft phones within months of their first attempt speaks volumes.

Agree on this one. Symbian will continue to dominate here. Apple will carve a limited niche unless, again, they release to third parties.

Yet another example of how their arrogance means they will eventually throw their market lead away in most sectors unless serious changes occur in their corporate structure and attitude.

I agree here. Having missed the opportunities presented by the Web MS need to diversify. I suspect that's why they so desperately want the Yahoo tie up.

However, the dominance of Microsoft is now at the stage where it is holding computing back. I don't disagree with this assessment, but there has been a long string of companies that dominated tech and fell by the wayside once the needs of their customers were no longer being met.

Again agree. I just don't see any of its current competitors being the ones to step up to the plate. Now Google...

This isn't an Apple fanboy's assessment, but one of a network security professional with over a decade's experience of technical design, planning and support behind him. Take it as you will.

I agree with a lot of what you say and I do think MS needs to raise its game. I'm not sure that they're as vulnerab;e as Novell or Corel were though but, like you say, that may not save them if something better comes out.

Time will tell.

Eric5h5
Mar 3, 2008, 02:58 PM
I would hardly call the Xbox and Xbox 360 failures either.

How do you define success? The only thing the Xbox did was lose money, and rather a lot of it. If it hadn't been made by a company with plenty of cash they could afford to lose, there would have been no 360. (Haven't really been keeping track of that one, but I haven't heard any differently about it either, especially since the hardware seems somewhat more failure-prone than average, which can't be helping the bottom line.)

The notion that MS brought "easy computing to the masses" is just plain wrong. Their history is pretty public if you actually want to look into it, instead of just believing their adverts.

--Eric

BongoBanger
Mar 3, 2008, 03:38 PM
How do you define success?

18 million sales. I realise that the original Xbox was a loss leader. So did MS.

The notion that MS brought "easy computing to the masses" is just plain wrong. Their history is pretty public if you actually want to look into it, instead of just believing their adverts.

Right. So MS's market dominance is just an illusion then?

If you read MS's history - as I have - you would be aware of the massive impact Windows 3.0 had on the market with 10 million copies being sold in the first two years and even more when 3.1 came out and became the most used API for consumer software. You'll also recall that Apple blew its market leading position to allow them to do so.

Yeah, I do know my history.

Queso
Mar 3, 2008, 03:47 PM
You'll also recall that Apple blew its market leading position to allow them to do so.
By putting a sales guy in charge and trying to do too much at once if I remember correctly.

Sounds a bit familiar that...;)

BongoBanger
Mar 3, 2008, 03:49 PM
By putting a sales guy in charge and trying to do too much at once if I remember correctly.

Sounds a bit familiar that...;)

:D:D:D

Very true!

Rodimus Prime
Mar 3, 2008, 06:27 PM
I just do not buy the numbers for the broswers on that site.

It has the highest Safari number by far. Most of the numbers I see for Safari market share is still less than 3% and many below 2%

It is the lowest for firefox I have seen. The highest I have see is near 37-38% but 25-30% being a more common number. The high number the site states that it visted by geeks and what not so it will push the number higher.

Thing I know is firefox is a main stream OS and it is no longer than nitch OS. It broke out of that a long time ago. Safari is just a nitch OS and not a main stream one.

elppa
Mar 3, 2008, 08:38 PM
4) Symbian dominates the smartphone OS industry. The market share will fall but analysts suspect that this will be due to the introduction of Unix based OS.

Like OS X, yes.

Symbian is an ageing OS with source code that is difficult to work with.

I suspect Android (if it ever arrives!) will make some headway, but Apple have the best product and the best OS and the best mobile web browser, whose rendering engine keeps getting better and faster.

Eric5h5
Mar 3, 2008, 08:58 PM
18 million sales. I realise that the original Xbox was a loss leader. So did MS.

What good does the number of sales do if you don't ever make money? The point of a loss leader is to make it up elsewhere, not to just make a loss.

Right. So MS's market dominance is just an illusion then?

Hardly, but they didn't do it by "bringing easy computing to the masses". That's revisionist history. They did it by making deals, many of which were, shall we say, of dubious legality. They did very little to actually make computing better; mostly the opposite.

--Eric

clevin
Mar 3, 2008, 10:43 PM
Hardly, but they didn't do it by "bringing easy computing to the masses". That's revisionist history. They did it by making deals, many of which were, shall we say, of dubious legality. They did very little to actually make computing better; mostly the opposite.

--Eric

I know windows offered me rich life of internet, global connections, research projects, etc...

Its extremely unfair to brush aside numerous great things windows brings to billions of people.

BongoBanger
Mar 4, 2008, 03:05 AM
What good does the number of sales do if you don't ever make money? The point of a loss leader is to make it up elsewhere, not to just make a loss.

Eric, the PSX didn't initally make money either. It's purpose was a loss leader to allow market penetration which would be recouped with software sales. This is a common business model amongst console providers.

Although I don't rate Wiki as a source, this explains why:

"However, despite these sales figures, Microsoft's gaming division is losing money. Through 2005, the Xbox gaming division had lost over $4 billion. However, Microsoft expects the console will start making money in 2008. The losses are due to the market strategy of selling consoles below cost in order to obtain market saturation and gain profits on software and peripherals that have a much higher profit margin."

Hardly, but they didn't do it by "bringing easy computing to the masses". That's revisionist history. They did it by making deals, many of which were, shall we say, of dubious legality. They did very little to actually make computing better; mostly the opposite.

I'm sorry, but that's wrong. You may not like Microsoft and I agree that some of the mehtods used were morally unsound but they did bring computing to the masses. Their sales and market penetration prove that.

Eraserhead
Mar 4, 2008, 05:59 AM
I just do not buy the numbers for the broswers on that site.

Thing I know is firefox is a main stream OS and it is no longer than nitch OS. It broke out of that a long time ago. Safari is just a nitch OS and not a main stream one.

Safari isn't niche on the Mac, also NetApplications is taking the figures from thousands of websites, although onestat probably has better figures they don't publish them.

Not in doubt at all. But a 95% domination has already slipped to 90% and will continue to fall as Linux continues to gain traction in developing markets.

No Linux has no traction in developing markets. Its just that if the software is all pirated you don't know what they are running, in Vietnam the answer is certainly XP.

Its extremely unfair to brush aside numerous great things windows brings to billions of people.

Being used by billions of people is definitely an achievement.

BongoBanger
Mar 4, 2008, 06:43 AM
Like OS X, yes.

Symbian is an ageing OS with source code that is difficult to work with.

So they'll redo it. As for difficult to work with, wouldn't agree here.

I suspect Android (if it ever arrives!) will make some headway, but Apple have the best product and the best OS and the best mobile web browser, whose rendering engine keeps getting better and faster.

I think you're kidding yourself here unless Apple release OSX to third parties.

clevin
Mar 4, 2008, 06:56 AM
Being used by billions of people is definitely an achievement.

i know what you mean, just remember billions of people, not always torturing themselves like some of the peope here like to think.

I hope facts remain facts, even at MR.:)

Rodimus Prime
Mar 4, 2008, 07:13 AM
Safari isn't niche on the Mac, also NetApplications is taking the figures from thousands of websites, although onestat probably has better figures they don't publish them.

I think you missed the point. Safari has so little market share it is a nitch Browser.

OSX is still a nitch OS. It still has a relatively small user base.

Safari on windows it not used hardly at all. Safari total usage is going to be less than OSX market share. On windows it currently it just a gimic to most people and something only some of the more computer nerd like people will play with a little then go back to firefox. On OSX it loses a lot of ground to firefox.

cyberjunky
Mar 4, 2008, 12:04 PM
Why does everyone keep saying nitch? its spelt niche.

elppa
Mar 4, 2008, 12:06 PM
So they'll redo it. As for difficult to work with, wouldn't agree here.

This was from a Nokia engineer, I think they probably know what they are talking about, but I'll bow to your superior knowledge on that one! :D

Anyway it doesn't really matter whether Symbain's OS is or isn't easy to develop for and maintain (hint: it's not!), because Apple is way ahead of the game from a technical standpoint.

The Cocoa framework is more advanced than what many developers use to write desktop applications, let alone applications for mobile devices!

You're just deluding yourself if you think Symbian will clean rewrite their OS and get it up to the standards of OS X in any reasonable time period.

They'll still be playing in the market in a few years, but they won't have anything like sophisticated Object Orientated development tools Apple is about to deploy for iPhone/iPod Touch.

People underestimate the importance of those NeXTSTEP technologies and the rapid development enviroment they provide. They're one of Apple's biggest assests. In seven years since OS X was launched Apple has used these tools to create so many compelling, exciting Applications.

iPhoto, iDVD, Keynote, Pages, Numbers, iChat AV, iCal, Aperture etc.

And look at all the APIs and functionality you get for free with cocoa:

WebKit, PDFKit, CoreText, CoreData, CoreAudio, CoreImage, CoreVideo and most recently CoreAnnimation.

And the thing is these have been built up over decades. All these thing require serious heavy lifting on behalf of the programmer to achieve on other platforms. And they probably won't end up with as good as a result.

I think you're kidding yourself here unless Apple release OSX to third parties.

There are very few consumer products (outside the PC) where the hardware is separated from the software to such an extent. You don't buy a Washing Machine and then get the software from somewhere else. You don't buy a car from Audi (or whoever) and then get the software from somewhere else. You don't buy a games console and then get the software from somewhere else. You don't buy an MP3 player and get the software from somewhere else…

There is absolutely no reason why a device with tight hardware/software integration can't be the market leader. Apple have proved this with iPod (and contrary to popular belief there were plenty of digital audio players before iPod and are plenty MP3 players since iPod that consumers could choose should they wish).

All this faffing around with hardware partners means: hardware partner can't distinguish their products sufficiently and squabble over low margins (PC industry anyone?), the software company moan because the hardware companies aren't producing the products it really wants to develop for, they also have little control over the hardware that is produced (resulting in problems) and the hardware companies moan because they have little to control over the software. And all the time the users wait and wait and wait…

People are always keen to pick holes in Apple's strategy, but all the past evidence points to the fact they know exactly what to do and exactly how to execute it. Go back over Apple Inc's playbook for the last decade and see how may significant failings or serious mis-calculations you spot. I give you bonus points if you get over five, and when I say "significant", I mean the Blue Dalmatian iMac doesn't count!

They've grown the Mac business tremendously (despite switching operating systems and then system architecture in a 5 year period!), completely dominated digital music and started a retail business which is teaching other companies how to do retail (and they are the first computer company to make it work). iPhone has huge traction in the United States and will surely do so in Europe and other territories once the second revision comes along with a couple of hardware chipsets that bring it into line with other phones (a fairly trivial task!).

Eraserhead
Mar 4, 2008, 12:26 PM
OSX is still a nitch OS. It still has a relatively small user base.

The Mac is important because the users are well generally rich, and also generally good with computers and buy a lot of software. They are also prepared to try no name software (such as shareware) so that this means the Mac is where a lot of innovation happens.

If you want to support the Mac you support Firefox.

Safari on windows it not used hardly at all.

Sure, its still in beta for a start.

Anyhow given that supporting Webkit is very easy given that you have to support Firefox anyway it doesn't matter too much about its userbase size.

No Linux has no traction in developing markets. Its just that if the software is all pirated you don't know what they are running, in Vietnam the answer is certainly XP.

However even though the above is true it still may become successful. The Linux room in Maths is generally pretty full, simply because it has Firefox and is faster to login to than the Windows system.

BongoBanger
Mar 4, 2008, 02:46 PM
This was from a Nokia engineer, I think they probably know what they are talking about, but I'll bow to your superior knowledge on that one! :D

So, an engineer, not a software designer. Care to ask him if he was referring to S60 v3? Because, you know, that isn't that difficult to use which is why it has thousands of developers using the SDK. Oh yeah, and then there's the new touch interface, the UI accelerator and Flash integrated into its web browser. Not bad for an 'old platform', eh?

Anyway it doesn't really matter whether Symbain's OS is or isn't easy to develop for and maintain (hint: it's not!), because Apple is way ahead of the game from a technical standpoint.

Except it actually isn't. You really need to familiarize yourself with what S60v3 does.

The Cocoa framework is more advanced than what many developers use to write desktop applications, let alone applications for mobile devices!

And? What is it actually going to deliver that can:

a) Be run by a mobile, and
b) Isn't already provided by S60 or will be shortly?

You're just deluding yourself if you think Symbian will clean rewrite their OS and get it up to the standards of OS X in any reasonable time period.

You're just deluding yourself if you think they actually have to. They'll continue to improve it though as mentioned above. Do you think Apple completely rewrote OSX between Tiger and Leopard?

You should also be aware that the version of OSX on the iPhone is cut down and doesn't support the full feature set.

They'll still be playing in the market in a few years, but they won't have anything like sophisticated Object Orientated development tools Apple is about to deploy for iPhone/iPod Touch.

And your crystal ball tells you this? Because, you know, Nokia will just stop any development on Symbian right now and let their competitors get further ahead.

Or not. Once again, you need to keep up.

People underestimate the importance of those NeXTSTEP technologies and the rapid development enviroment they provide. They're one of Apple's biggest assests.

No they don't, it's good but hardly unique.

In seven years since OS X was launched Apple has used these tools to create so many compelling, exciting Applications.

And in the seven years since OSX was launched it has failed to make any meaningful inroads on global OS usage. Do you really think the iPhone will be any different? You're kind of clutching at straws here.

There are very few consumer products (outside the PC) where the hardware is separated from the software to such an extent.

This makes no sense. If you buy an N series phone it comes with S60v3. It's integrated and optimised to use that OS.

There is absolutely no reason why a device with tight hardware/software integration can't be the market leader.

And actually currently is. They're called Nokia smartphones and they have over 50% of the market.

You mean aside from keeping it restricted and not allowing the OS to be ported to other hardware you mean? And need I point out that Nokia actually own Symbian?

Apple have proved this with iPod (and contrary to popular belief there were plenty of digital audio players before iPod and are plenty MP3 players since iPod that consumers could choose should they wish).

Agree. They've failed to do it with the Mac though. Or the Newton. Or Apple TV.

All this faffing around with hardware partners means: hardware partner can't distinguish their products sufficiently and squabble over low margins

And give consumers choice and drive a cost reduction market which is good for... err... the consumer! Plus, of course, allowing the public to have open source access to SDK's allows development everywhere.

(PC industry anyone?)

This would be the computer industry that grew by about 15% last year?

the software company moan because the hardware companies aren't producing the products it really wants to develop for, they also have little control over the hardware that is produced (resulting in problems) and the hardware companies moan because they have little to control over the software. And all the time the users wait and wait and wait…

Drivel. Have a look at the Symbian catalogue. Need I also point out- again - that Symbian is actually owned by Nokia so hardware issues aren't going to be at the forefront here.

People are always keen to pick holes in Apple's strategy, but all the past evidence points to the fact they know exactly what to do and exactly how to execute it.

Not really. They've done very well with the iPod, the rest is so-so to poor in terms of market penetration.

Go back over Apple Inc's playbook for the last decade and see how may significant failings or serious mis-calculations you spot. I give you bonus points if you get over five, and when I say "significant", I mean the Blue Dalmatian iMac doesn't count!

The Newton
The Cube
Apple TV (to be)
The original iMac
The loss of mass market GUI to Windows (OK, that was about 15 years ago)

In fairness that's about it.

They've grown the Mac business tremendously (despite switching operating systems and then system architecture in a 5 year period!)

Or actually because of it. As for tremendous growth, I think you need to be realistic here - Apple's share of the Global market remains about 2%. It's share of the American market is about 6%. That's not tremendous growth.

completely dominated digital music and started a retail business which is teaching other companies how to do retail (and they are the first computer company to make it work).

Right. You do realise that eBay and Amazon - to name just a couple - completely dominate iTunes in terms of e-sales? I'm going to also bet you that Amazon's music site will give iTunes a run for its money in a year unless Apple wake up and drop DRM infested music.

iTunes is good and intuitive but to suggest it's teaching other people how to retail is grossly naive.

iPhone has huge traction in the United States

Absolutely. It's not got a lot of competition in what is a poor market though.

and will surely do so in Europe and other territories once the second revision comes along with a couple of hardware chipsets that bring it into line with other phones (a fairly trivial task!).

Yup, should do. I severely doubt their going to oust Nokia from the top though.

Apple will do reasonably well in Europe if they:

a) Drop the ridiculous tied provider arrangement
b) Allow the phone to be sold with subsidies and on PAYG
c) Allow unrestricted third party development.
d) Realise what Europeans actually want and expect in a phone

Otherwise they'll struggle.

Eraserhead
Mar 4, 2008, 03:10 PM
And in the seven years since OSX was launched it has failed to make any meaningful inroads on global OS usage. Do you really think the iPhone will be any different?

It already has a higher web share than all other phones, and 50x more Google searches than its nearest competitor. (source (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/667f13de-da60-11dc-9bb9-0000779fd2ac.html))


The original iMac
The loss of mass market GUI to Windows (OK, that was about 15 years ago)


The original iMac was a massive succcess, it made USB huge and brought Apple back from the dead. And Apple lost the GUI war to Microsoft because they had DOS before that, which was successful as Microsoft wore suits when IBM came round to make their PC.

Frankly anyone at the beginning of the 1980's would have bought a PC, simply because the industry heavyweight IBM was behind it, rather than just a start-up as was the case with the other choices, including Apple. It even looks like a good decision in hignsight, as only one company (Apple) has survived and they nearly didn't in the mid 90's.


Or actually because of it. As for tremendous growth, I think you need to be realistic here - Apple's share of the Global market remains about 2%. It's share of the American market is about 6%. That's not tremendous growth.

They still are growing faster than the rest of the industry. As they already have a healthy amount of software, who cares about marketshare figures.


Right. You do realise that eBay and Amazon - to name just a couple - completely dominate iTunes in terms of e-sales? I'm going to also bet you that Amazon's music site will give iTunes a run for its money in a year unless Apple wake up and drop DRM infested music.


iTunes is the number 2 music seller in the US, and at the current rate of growth will be number one by the end of the year.


Yup, should do. I severely doubt their going to oust Nokia from the top though.

Not from mobile phone sales no, maybe smartphones though, but its too early to tell.

BongoBanger
Mar 5, 2008, 07:13 AM
It already has a higher web share than all other phones, and 50x more Google searches than its nearest competitor. (source (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/667f13de-da60-11dc-9bb9-0000779fd2ac.html))

I know. I think that's more to do with it being the best mobile browser available and having little competition at the moment. Also remember that the browser is one of the device's key marketing strategies.

The original iMac was a massive succcess, it made USB huge and brought Apple back from the dead.

OK, my mistake, fair point. It did do very well in USA and Japan although I remember us Europeans taking the piss out of it.

And Apple lost the GUI war to Microsoft because they had DOS before that, which was successful as Microsoft wore suits when IBM came round to make their PC.

Disagree here. Windows had more features than Apple's GUI and, unfortunately, the guys at Cupertino just didn't keep up.

Frankly anyone at the beginning of the 1980's would have bought a PC, simply because the industry heavyweight IBM was behind it, rather than just a start-up as was the case with the other choices, including Apple. It even looks like a good decision in hignsight, as only one company (Apple) has survived and they nearly didn't in the mid 90's.

It doesn't when you look at market share. I would also point out that HP are still here. Ironic considering they rejected the Woz's original spec for the Apple I.

They still are growing faster than the rest of the industry.

Apple are doing well here but I doubt they'll ever seriously take on the big manufacturers because, frankly, that's not their market. Also 'growing faster' is kind of a pointless thing to say because their still not making significant inroads into global sales.

As they already have a healthy amount of software, who cares about marketshare figures.

That's not a serious question is it? I mean, come on...

iTunes is the number 2 music seller in the US, and at the current rate of growth will be number one by the end of the year.

Entirely possible. We'll need to see how Amazon do though. Apple really need to drop DRM to cement their position.

Not from mobile phone sales no, maybe smartphones though, but its too early to tell.

True. We'll need to wait and see. Nokia's great advantage is S60 is open source to everyone and can be used on a number of manufacturer's phones. I know Apple are releasing an SDK but we need to see how unrestricted it'll be. I also think keeping it on Apple hardware will be a blocker to market domination.

elppa
Mar 6, 2008, 01:26 PM
On Apple's development tools:

No they don't, it's good but hardly unique.


Hear that? It's the sound of BongoBanger's argument shattering into a zillion tiny pieces. This stuff is hot. And the hilarious thing is: these Developers haven't had these tools for very long at all! Some of them hadn't written any Objective C code before! Outstanding.

I don't mean to sound smug, but it's a great feeling all your convictions backed up in such a spectacular fashion.

BongoBanger
Mar 6, 2008, 01:57 PM
On Apple's development tools:




Hear that? It's the sound of BongoBanger's argument shattering into a zillion tiny pieces. This stuff is hot. And the hilarious thing is: these Developers haven't had these tools for very long at all! Some of them hadn't written any Objective C code before! Outstanding.

Nice but, again, hardly original. S60 already has touch development apps out as well as intuitive python script kits.

Come back when there's some substance to your argument. The SDK and API's are very, very nice, but original? Nope.