OS X 10.9 Mavericks Adoption Continues to Grow Steadily

[bdkennedy1]

10.9 just isn't cutting it on my 2007 iMac. Apple has so many services running in the background, I can only run about 3 apps at once before my 4gb of RAM is completely used up.

 

[chabig]

10.9 just isn't cutting it on my 2007 iMac. Apple has so many services running in the background, I can only run about 3 apps at once before my 4gb of RAM is completely used up.

Your RAM is supposed to be used. That's why you bought it. It would be inefficient not to use what is there.

 

[MacMan988]

It seems people don't have any problems in adopting new versions of OS X as long as they come as free

 

[BiggAW]

Those numbers DON'T add up. One set of numbers shows more 10.9 than 10.8, the other set shows the opposite. And the pie chart doesn't break out other versions. There's some bad math in there somewhere.

Windows 8 adoption vs. Mavericks is irrelevant. Most people don't upgrade Windows once they get a computer. My parents are just getting two new Windows 8 machines to replace P4 2.4 and P4 2.8 machines with new Core i-Series Win8.1 machines. Very different from the Mac.

 

[Michael CM1]

Windows XP...really? These numbers have to include enterprise machines, because that Windows XP number seems rather high for consumers. If it does in fact include Enterprise customers then I imagine there will be a drastic shift after April of next year when Microsoft ends XP support.

We were running Panther (10.3) at work until a couple of years ago when we got new iMacs. I think those are still running Snow Leopard because God forbid we update anything. I should also mention that we were lucky using 10.3 (including Classic apps) because other people were using I think pre-OS 9.

This graph shows how craptastic Vista is. Windows 7 isn't really that much better, but it's definitely better than Vista. Microsoft just needs to let actual designers control the UI instead of 8-year-old kids high on chocolate.

 

[wiz329]

Huh?

Windows 7 is compatible with tons and tons of software. What are you talking about?

Read the quote. The poster was talking about Windows 2000.

 

[bbfc]

Mac adoption just continues to drive higher and higher at the expense of Windows and Linux. I think it will be the dominant computing platform in a few years while of course iOS will dominate the mobile side. These are exciting times to be an Apple consumer.

A few years?? We can dream but that's a pretty silly prediction.

----------

Your RAM is supposed to be used. That's why you bought it. It would be inefficient not to use what is there.

It's pointless explaining it. Some people just don't get it. See the countless threads about it.

----------

That OS was huge, because it merged the 9x (games) and NT (workstation) operating systems. I still have it on a VM somewhere.

I loved it. If I could boot camp it I would! Takes me back.

 

[Analog Kid]

Sadly, one of those 8.1 installs was probably mine under Parallels. What a PoS.

Mavericks is probably 2 good point releases from being praise worthy. Make that 2 good point releases and a rewrite of iTunes...

 

[roadbloc]

Exactly what you say. It's embarrassing that Windows is so expensive that people are forced to stay with old versions.

I'll stop you there. Unlike Apple, Microsoft support their older software. XP runs out of support only next year and it was released the same year as the very first OS X.

Not everybody needs or wants new features. Not everybody wants to upgrade. Most people in the PC world only upgrade their OS when they get a new PC.

 

[Manderby]

For those interested, this is my statistic for the month of november:

I have two websites. Interpretation is difficult, though. The first site is a site which is visited often by technical, programming people, especially young people (Students). Here, the distribution of Mac Systems looks like this:

Mac OS X 10.4: 0.10% Stddev: 0.06%
Mac OS X 10.5: 1.43% Stddev: 0.56%
Mac OS X 10.6: 9.58% Stddev: 1.18%
Mac OS X 10.7: 8.64% Stddev: 0.47%
Mac OS X 10.8: 19.35% Stddev: 0.35%
Mac OS X 10.9: 60.91% Stddev: 0.86%

The other website is visited far less and shows more of a background-noise as people find this site via image-searches. Here, the distribution of Mac Systems looks like this:

Mac OS X 10.4: 2.72% Stddev: 0.58%
Mac OS X 10.5: 1.87% Stddev: 0.36%
Mac OS X 10.6: 46.97% Stddev: 7.26%
Mac OS X 10.7: 11.17% Stddev: 1.15%
Mac OS X 10.8: 19.43% Stddev: 2.57%
Mac OS X 10.9: 17.83% Stddev: 3.75%

 

[bn-7bc]

That's the comparison of operating systems. Microsoft beats Apple easily.

But now compare computer sales. How many computers does Apple sell, and how many does Microsoft sell?

<nitpick>Well Microsoft sells 0 computers (that is PCs), they are mostly a software company (apart from Xbox and their tablet).</nitpick>

 

[rainydays]

It's kind of embarrassing to see that almost as many people are still on a 13 year old (!!!!) operating system as there are Windows 7 users.

Why spend the time and money to upgrade something if it works totally fine for you?

I think it's a good sign that the upgrade cycle is getting longer and longer. No-one really benefits from the quick pace that the industry has been in for years.

 

[flottenheimer]

This is a 2012 rank of automobile manufacturers by production (source).
While Toyota, placed at #1, is a fine mass market automobile brand indeed, I'd much rather drive a BMW, placed at #14. Or a Mercedes, placed at #12. And few people would question the superiority of these cars to all of the brands above them.

Market share data tells only one story. And that is the story about market share. It is important — but not all-important. And in some aspects not important at all.

1 Toyota 10,104,424
2 GM 9,285,425
3 Volkswagen 9,254,742
4 Hyundai 7,126,413
5 Ford 5,595,483
6 Nissan 4,889,379
7 Honda 4,110,857
8 PSA 2,911,764
9 Suzuki 2,893,602
10 Renault 2,676,226
11 Chrysler 2,371,427
12 Daimler AG 2,195,152
13 Fiat 2,127,295
14 BMW 2,065,477
15 SAIC 1,783,548
16 Tata 1,241,239
17 Mazda 1,189,283
18 Dongfeng Motor 1,137,950
19 Mitsubishi 1,109,731
20 Changan 1,063,721

—
PS: I used to drive a Toyota Avensis. Then a BMW 3-series Touring, which I just sold to buy a wonderful new Volvo V70 (they are placed at #34).

 

[gnasher729]

<nitpick>Well Microsoft sells 0 computers (that is PCs), they are mostly a software company (apart from Xbox and their tablet).</nitpick>

Well, exactly. Microsoft is mostly a software company and to a large extent selling operating systems. And they beat Apple at selling operating systems - which is just a tiny tiny fraction of Apple's business. One much much bigger part of Apple's business is selling computers. On average there is one Apple computer sold for every Apple operating system sold, and zero Microsoft computers sold for every Microsoft operating system sold.

I have no doubt that if Apple decided to enter the business of selling operating systems in a serious way, they would make some serious sales. Since Apple doesn't _want_ to enter that business (for various good reasons), comparing sales is rather pointless, still we have a whole long thread about it.

 

[rainydays]

Maybe if Apple lowered prices they might just get their OS out there more!!

Why would they lower their prices to get people to use a product that they give away for free?

I think apples products are very well priced. Running after the low end market would just hurt Apples image.

 

[Solomani]

Who cares? Market share is just one metric and not even in the top 5 of the most important metrics. Mac OS X having a tiny market share means absolutely nothing to the designers and developers I work with who use Macs almost exclusively.

The masses will always have the cheaper stuff. That's always been the case in any industry.

Yup.

Mercedes-Benz and Tesla sportcars have what market share of the automotive industry? Like less than 2% each? They're not going to disappear any time soon. Just because the premium auto brands have tiny market shares compared to the cheaply-made Asian brands doesn't mean companies like M-Benz and Tesla are going to surrender any time soon. They have their markets. They know their customers. They'll be around for a long time.

 

[everything-i]

Windows XP...really? These numbers have to include enterprise machines, because that Windows XP number seems rather high for consumers. If it does in fact include Enterprise customers then I imagine there will be a drastic shift after April of next year when Microsoft ends XP support.

Or when they think they are going to end XP support. I remember that didn't go too well for them last time.

 

[KALLT]

Well, exactly. Microsoft is mostly a software company and to a large extent selling operating systems. And they beat Apple at selling operating systems - which is just a tiny tiny fraction of Apple's business. One much much bigger part of Apple's business is selling computers. On average there is one Apple computer sold for every Apple operating system sold, and zero Microsoft computers sold for every Microsoft operating system sold.

Apple is as much in the software business as is Microsoft. You seem to be saying that Apple's software business is incidental to its hardware business, but I think that this is not really the case. It may very well be true that the more profitable part of Apple's business is hardware sales, but as Apple licences OS X exclusively to Macs it necessarily has to be strong in the software business as well. OS X is what thrives Mac sales to begin with.

The difference between Apple and Microsoft is that the latter does not sell the hardware itself but rather relies on other manufacturers to bundle Windows with each device. Not standalone sales, but bundles. I bet that most Windows copies are distributed in this way. Thus in essence, both companies are distributing their software in a similar way, albeit with a different stake in the hardware business. If you then compare standalone sales of both Windows and OS X, I think that Apple is actually acting more like a software company. The impressive upgrade rate of OS X Mavericks is mostly due to existing Mac users updating their systems, bundled Mac sales are probably only a small part.

Apple's market share is limited because of licensing restrictions: only Macs can/are allowed to run OS X. Windows thrives because it runs on every computer, even Macs. Apple chose this business model, but that does not say that it isn't competing in the same market as Microsoft. For me, Apple is as much a software company as Microsoft, just with a different model of distribution. Even if Microsoft would start producing its own hardware, that does not mean that it stops licensing Windows to other hardware. Very much like Google does with the Nexus phone.

 

[MacScott]

Seeing a chart like that certainly shocks me back to reality. I sometimes start believing the news reports about how Apple has gained market share on the desktop market. Apparently Mac users just buy a lot of computers.

 

[jhvaughan2]

Do these people get paid for this.

Once again someone has come up with a way to draw a pretty picture of the magical market share.

Still no one has shown why it matters.

 

[tkermit]

I sometimes start believing the news reports about how Apple has gained market share on the desktop market.

You should.

2008: ~4%
2009: ~5%
2010: ~5%
2011: ~6%
2012: ~6%
2013: >7%

This is worldwide. Their U.S. marketshare is actually a lot higher than that.

 

[JackieInCo]

WOW! That's still a lot of people on Windows XP.

I'll admit that's what I'm still running on my Windows computer. But I rarely use it for anything...

Gary

All of our work computers are on Windows XP Pro. They bought them like that about three years ago from Dell.

 

[GoldenJoe]

Am I the only one who can look past the XP/7 portion of that chart, and notice that Mavericks and Win8 (the current versions) are neck and neck? Clearly, the old Windows machines aren't updating the OS. I wonder what they will be replaced with.

 

[MyMac1976]

Looks like the FOSS OS's have more market share than OS X

 

[Michael Goff]

Read the quote. The poster was talking about Windows 2000.

Yes, he already pointed out that I had been making a mistake when I said it about 7. Although, to be fair, 7 had been mentioned in the quote he was referring to.