Mac Marketshare at Universities Booming?

[Eidorian]

I don't believe you're right about this. I think Microsoft Office is, by far, their biggest cash cow. I've heard this from a lot of sources, but the only direct evidence I can provide is this...

Microsoft donates a LOT of software to the university where I work (I'm a web/IT person) through MSDN. They provide virtually all of their software to students, staff, and faculty - for free. Windows XP and Vista, Visual Studio, Sharepoint Server (pretty much all of their server offerings), etc.; there's something like 150 different packages available. But you know what's NOT there? Microsoft Office. People can buy it for a discount through MSDN; but Microsoft is adamantly opposed to giving Office away.

I have to agree here. Microsoft does a good job of pushing its software on college students. I don't believe that there's any software that's more then $45 from them. Office 2004 was $11 for me.

I'm cheap so I got Visual C# 2005 Express Edition for free.

I like how it just merged the registration into my TechNet account.

 

[GoodWatch]

I don't believe you're right about this. I think Microsoft Office is, by far, their biggest cash cow. I've heard this from a lot of sources, but the only direct evidence I can provide is this...

Microsoft donates a LOT of software to the university where I work (I'm a web/IT person) through MSDN. They provide virtually all of their software to students, staff, and faculty - for free. Windows XP and Vista, Visual Studio, Sharepoint Server (pretty much all of their server offerings), etc.; there's something like 150 different packages available. But you know what's NOT there? Microsoft Office. People can buy it for a discount through MSDN; but Microsoft is adamantly opposed to giving Office away.

I can't argue because I don't know where I put the article where I've I read this What I do 'know' is that MC receive about 35 Euro for every PC with (or without?) Windows. And a lot of PC's are being sold world wide.

Anyhoo, I'm an IT clown as well and I have to sign the yearly bills for using MS software on our site. I know why Mr. Gates has a 54 billion dollar bank acount and why I had so save up for my iMac

 

[Westside guy]

Anyhoo, I'm an IT clown as well and I have to sign the yearly bills for using MS software on our site. I know why Mr. Gates has a 54 billion dollar bank acount and why I had so save up for my iMac

Yeah, all the free stuff we get from MS - including regular, free trainings for our IT manager - is likely one of the reasons our group won't support Macs (an executive decision made by the aforementioned IT manager). That may have to change, though, because right now something like 1/4 of our faculty are now using Macs for their personal machines; most of them having just joined the Mac community within the past few years. Generally what faculty want, they get - and that'll probably mean we'll offer some level of Mac support. Up until now, I've been (unofficially) helping them.

The argument has been "we don't want to create more work by adding another OS to support". But the thing is, not supporting Macs is creating support issues! For instance: we (my department, not the computing group) put out several different publications each year. The UW's Publication Services is all Mac; our outside designer uses a Mac; but our in house press person is forced to use InDesign on a PC. Quite often fonts don't cross platforms correctly (or we have to buy them extra for PC), there are occasionally image and/or layout issues, etc. - problems the computing group ends up spending time to resolve - simply because we wouldn't give our press person a Mac. When I load the docs up on my Macbook Pro there are no problems.

I guess I should just be happy that I'm allowed to bring my own Mac laptop in for use.

 

[cjcamilla]

The DailyPrincetonian reports on a growing trend amongst at least some universities.

The Princeton University newspaper reports that Princeton's Mac marketshare has been rising dramatically, with 40 percent of students and faculty currently using a Mac as their personal computer. This number is up from only 10% of Mac users on campus only 4 years ago. And this number could still be growing. This year, the University's Student Computer Initiative reportedly sold more Macs than PC's, with 60 percent of students choosing a Mac, up from 45 percent just last year. Students were offered a choice of Dell, IBM and Apple computers.

This follows a recent report that looked at a similar trend at many other colleges. According to a separate Pioneer Press survey, Dartmouth is up to 55% freshman with Macs (up from 30% in 2005), University of Virginia with 20% of freshman with Macs (up from 17% in 2006), and Cornell with 21% dorm network users with a Mac (up from 5% between 2000-2002).

PioneerPress attributes the uptick in sales to the popularity of the iPod, security of Mac OS X, design and ease of use.

These numbers are much higher than the general population, in which Mac marketshare numbers have been hovering around 5-6%. (All of these figures may not be directly comparable, as marketshare numbers typically represent new sales in a particular time-period rather than the installed base. Regardless, the numbers are still significantly higher than would be expected.)

Article Link

So what? Only reason you guys are getting all horny about this is because iPod sales have increased awareness of a computer company called Apple. You think college kids REALLY went "Hmm, I went to Apple.com recently, and searched iMacs because my friend recommended it. They look pretty awesome.". College kids, in fact, everyone, probably went "My iPod is so cool, I might just get these things called iMacs!"

Now that the Zune got a WHOLE lot better, these statistics won't mean anything. iPod sales will go down, Zune sales will go up, and everything will be the way it was in the 90s.

 

[Lara F]

I agree. I'm 28 and in high school, we were all PC. And even when I was a freshman at uni in 97, we were all PC, with a few departments being Mac-centric. I really think that if there was some "master plan" by Apple reaching back 20 years ago . . . it kind of failed. The late interest in Macintosh computers and the OS are due to recent innovation - not some secret seeds of revolt planted in the children of the 80s.

I'm 29 and would also agree. In elementary school I'd go with my best friend to her Mom's office and we'd play on a Mac of sort sort (Apple II I'm guessing?) But by the time Windows 95 rolled around in high school Apple was pretty much out of the picture, and that stayed through undergrad (97-2000). I did hear a bit about OSX but not enough to interest compared to XP.

What started to convert me was the day iTunes became available for Windows - I still remember the "hell freezes over" headline. I downloaded it out of curiosity, and the interface just "worked" for me. I liked it enough to get a 3G iPod as a result (back when it wasn't a household name) and finally took the leap with Tiger and the 2nd revision G5 iMac. My best friend's yet to be converted back though.

Going to Intel was a brilliant move (especially when timed with a poorly received Vista release), and hopefully today's college students will become tomorrow's executive Mac users. But Apple needs to keep having a superior product to keep their mindshare. And same goes for the kids growing up today using Macs.

 

[WannaGoMac]

So what? Only reason you guys are getting all horny about this is because iPod sales have increased awareness of a computer company called Apple. You think college kids REALLY went "Hmm, I went to Apple.com recently, and searched iMacs because my friend recommended it. They look pretty awesome.". College kids, in fact, everyone, probably went "My iPod is so cool, I might just get these things called iMacs!"

Now that the Zune got a WHOLE lot better, these statistics won't mean anything. iPod sales will go down, Zune sales will go up, and everything will be the way it was in the 90s.

Nice troll
No wait, it's actually pretty poor.

C'mon, you can troll better than that... at least try.

 

[Quiara]

I'm 29 and would also agree. In elementary school I'd go with my best friend to her Mom's office and we'd play on a Mac of sort sort (Apple II I'm guessing?) But by the time Windows 95 rolled around in high school Apple was pretty much out of the picture, and that stayed through undergrad (97-2000). I did hear a bit about OSX but not enough to interest compared to XP.

What started to convert me was the day iTunes became available for Windows - I still remember the "hell freezes over" headline. I downloaded it out of curiosity, and the interface just "worked" for me. I liked it enough to get a 3G iPod as a result (back when it wasn't a household name) and finally took the leap with Tiger and the 2nd revision G5 iMac. My best friend's yet to be converted back though.

Going to Intel was a brilliant move (especially when timed with a poorly received Vista release), and hopefully today's college students will become tomorrow's executive Mac users. But Apple needs to keep having a superior product to keep their mindshare. And same goes for the kids growing up today using Macs.

I converted the minute OS X was released. I'd been reading about it and I knew if it was half as awesome as the pre-writes made it sound, it was for me. I bought the first iMac that came with OS X in 2001. It made me happy. ^_^

(PS - don't feed the trolls and they eventually die of attention starvation. Maybe s/he'll go find a nice Amish commune and get a life. But I did have to giggle at the whole "now that the Zune has got better. . ." Pfft!)

 

[virduk]

ive only seen about 5 macs at adelaide uni in australia including mine. the whole uni is so "pc". i guess the mac market share hasnt caught on in adelaide yet!

That's my experience here in Newcastle (Australia) too. Even amongst the web development crowd of students and staff there's no Mac usage. A little surprising I thought given the discounts Apple offers compared to other vendors. Though it may just be that with students they are in the cheaper end of the market (sub AU$1000 laptops).

I assumed based on various bits of press that outside the U.S. there really hasn't been much of an uptick in Mac marketshare.

 

[Genghis Khan]

well, at my uni, macs and pcs are pretty much 50/50, with most new ones being macs

but what i think is the pattern we see here is prestige

macs are seen as a luxury item almost, and the two uni's mentioned that have a mac dominance are prestige uni's (Princeton in the article, and Melbourne Uni for me)...just goes to prove that you can't prove something for all uni's by surveying one of them

but they're definitely getting more popular

 

[krunk]

My battery only dropped from 87% to 81%.

There have been instances where I get up in the morning and I may have at most a couple minutes of battery life remaining, instead of the half hour I had the previous night.

Hmm, let's look at these two statements. First, you say in a bus ride home (let's say 30m) your laptop dropped 6% due to hibernation. Next, you say you left your Apple laptop suspended all night with 30m left in battery time and awoke to a couple of minutes (let's say 5m).

For arguments sake, we'll say battery time in energy savings is 5 hours for both laptops. So, for percentage we divide time suspended by total time.

Hibernation: 6% of 300m = 18m for 30m of hibernate time = .6 bat minutes for every minute slept

Suspend: 25m/300m = 8%, 25m/(60*8) = .05 bat minutes per minute slept

Now, hibernate may be far superior but your anecdotal metric is completely off base. In 8 hours of osx suspend time you consumed only 10m more of batter time then the 30m on a bus ride (5% loss, .05*300 = 15m bat time consumed).

I'd be interested in the difference between an entire night of suspend v. hibernation on the same laptop with a totally charged battery before I drew any conclusions of whether the difference was trivial or not. Because if we took your examples at face value, suspend is far superior (which I don't think is true).

 

[Eidorian]

Hmm, let's look at these two statements. First, you say in a bus ride home (let's say 30m) your laptop dropped 6% due to hibernation. Next, you say you left your Apple laptop suspended all night with 30m left in battery time and awoke to a couple of minutes (let's say 5m).

For arguments sake, we'll say battery time in energy savings is 5 hours for both laptops. So, for percentage we divide time suspended by total time.

Hibernation: 6% of 300m = 18m for 30m of hibernate time = .6 bat minutes for every minute slept

Suspend: 25m/300m = 8%, 25m/(60*8) = .05 bat minutes per minute slept

Now, hibernate may be far superior but your anecdotal metric is completely off base. In 8 hours of osx suspend time you consumed only 10m more of batter time then the 30m on a bus ride (5% loss, .05*300 = 15m bat time consumed).

I'd be interested in the difference between an entire night of suspend v. hibernation on the same laptop with a totally charged battery before I drew any conclusions of whether the difference was trivial or not. Because if we took your examples at face value, suspend is far superior (which I don't think is true).

My battery only dropped from 87% to 81%.

This was what I said.

Secondly, I was asleep for more then an hour. The last time I checked the battery it was at 87% and I didn't check it again until I restored the machine. I was still using it after I checked the battery percentage left and before I closed it.

It's not very good data beyond personal observations.

 

[krunk]

Using only one OS in an academics encourages bad development practices (in the real world too, but with the high mac usage in academics, it's even more glaring).

For example, at my uni there are many, many web management applications that are absolutely necessary for day to day administration that simply don't work on macs (or anything but windows IE). The reason is because a good portion of the IT departments are windows only shops. Test only on windows, design only for windows, and thus are broken every where else. Often this is a direct result of that "free windows training" mentioned above.

Anecdotally, I was contracted to write a patient management web application. I was given the requirements and proposed a solution which involved a MySQL backend. After weeks of work with constant updates and feed back from my client the solution was completed. I was asked if it could tie into another database (migrating the data) and told them that as long as the db they used could maintain the same table/record layout it would be a seemless migration. (database abstraction for the win)

Come to find out the other team was using Access as a back end which was incapable of reproducing the tables. I'm not an access fellow, I protest no deep knowledge of why, but I was informed Access could not handle the table/attribute sizes (this was nothing fancy. in fact, extremely simplistic) and needed to split them across many tables.

This would require a significant rewrite consuming much time, the department had exhausted its funding for my time and so could not afford more. . . . in the end, the Access guys are having to rewrite the whole thing.

Lesson: If your company/school/etc has a diverse environment of users "The Microsoft Way" and the free training they provide will only cost you more in the long run. Your either developing for portability or your developing to redevelop.

 

[Sam0r]

Linux has wide selection of professional software. It might be software that you do not use, but they are there. Hell, the software you recommended, Eclipse, runs on Linux!

Too bad its sh*t and has a user base of about 3.

 

[nadinbrzezinski]

Using only one OS in an academics encourages bad development practices (in the real world too, but with the high mac usage in academics, it's even more glaring).

For example, at my uni there are many, many web management applications that are absolutely necessary for day to day administration that simply don't work on macs (or anything but windows IE). The reason is because a good portion of the IT departments are windows only shops. Test only on windows, design only for windows, and thus are broken every where else. Often this is a direct result of that "free windows training" mentioned above.

Anecdotally, I was contracted to write a patient management web application. I was given the requirements and proposed a solution which involved a MySQL backend. After weeks of work with constant updates and feed back from my client the solution was completed. I was asked if it could tie into another database (migrating the data) and told them that as long as the db they used could maintain the same table/record layout it would be a seemless migration. (database abstraction for the win)

Come to find out the other team was using Access as a back end which was incapable of reproducing the tables. I'm not an access fellow, I protest no deep knowledge of why, but I was informed Access could not handle the table/attribute sizes (this was nothing fancy. in fact, extremely simplistic) and needed to split them across many tables.

This would require a significant rewrite consuming much time, the department had exhausted its funding for my time and so could not afford more. . . . in the end, the Access guys are having to rewrite the whole thing.

Lesson: If your company/school/etc has a diverse environment of users "The Microsoft Way" and the free training they provide will only cost you more in the long run. Your either developing for portability or your developing to redevelop.

Well I have used PCs exclusively for years... but the Macbook gets here tomorrow

I actually was pleased that the site I wrote for the company looked good on Safari, on the lemon I had to return on Friday. (that was another interesting story)

Now... with all the serious issues vista is having at the user end (at least for power users, if you're only going to use WORD you're fine, or exclusively microsoft products)... the reality is that companies are putting off upgrading to vista... what is more, companies are looking at both MAC and Linux systems. So if you are a student who knows at least Mac and WIN, that's a plus in your resume.

If they go for either, portability will happen...

I will also hazard to say that market share for Macs will only increase after Panther proves not to be a dog.

Me upgrade shy, will not touch the new OS for at least six months.

We were not truly early adopters with Vista (six months into the release cycle since the eight year old gaming machine finally croacked), and I think the wall in the office is begining to develop divots from... me put in installation disk... and wondering... will it run?

Ah the joys of doing IT at home...



Now the comment made up board about Macs seen as a luxury item... absolutely.

And here is where the company has to change perceptions...

When you look at two similar machines from the Intel world and the Mac world the Intel machine (just the hardware) is about 200 dollars less. But... you knew it was comming... if you need to buy the software for it... aka Word et al, you are looking at another 300-700 dollars worth of money, depenidng on the suite you choose.

The average one, small business will put you behind round numbers four hundred dollars... I know, this gaming machine has it (and why I don't feel like buying a second licence for Mac)

So once you look at that, and add to your new Mac I-Works, you are either slightly cheaper or even skeeven.

But I only know that since I did a lot of the research looking at machines.

If I had not done that... we are talking about a more expensive machine, a luxury item.

Perceptions, somehow the marketing guys have to change those

The other major barrier is quite frankly the fact that there are not that many gaming programs for it... we looked at a mac earlier in the year for the gaming machine, why we went for the Intel. And there are not that many programs written for the mac for other specialized fields either.

I know why it is almost a closed shop in writing programs and third party are not as widespread as the Windows machines, but.

Selling points for a Mac:

Great for graphic design
Security, the fact that I will not have to buy Nortons or any other suite is kind of great...
And yes, they look kind of cool
And for me, not having to hit my head on the wall with a second box.

But there are many reasons why the market penetration has not been as good. In time I am sure it could be... especially if MS insists on taking that damn shotgun and shooting its foot off... which in my view they have done with Vista...

Drivers, drivers, drivers, I need to find a way to roll back this macihne to XP... been told it ain't as simple as just loading the OS on the drive and turning it on...

Research for another day...

 

[krunk]

But there are many reasons why the market penetration has not been as good.

In my humble opinion, there is really only one major reason why market penetration has not soured.

Business. Corporate is not buying macs. They account for the vast majority of unit sales I'd reckon (I did some brief searching...I'm sure the data is out there).

Why? Probably a lot of reasons, but none that Apple has put even a fraction of the effort into that they have in the consumer gadgets market.

So for the short answer: Why isn't apple souring in market penetration? They aren't trying to.

 

[flopticalcube]

nterestingly, however, I am beginning to see a lot of people who are forced to use Windows in the corporate world choosing Macs as their home platform.

 

[GoodWatch]

nterestingly, however, I am beginning to see a lot of people who are forced to use Windows in the corporate world choosing Macs as their home platform.

No, it has nothing to do with ‘being forced’. From my own perspective, there is no need for Macs on the desks of our users. They all use the same more than capable but relatively simple PC. Al PCs have the same RIS install and contain only six programs. If a PC or anything running on that PC fails we just RIS it, it takes 20 minutes. All data is stored on the network, all other programs that users might need are offered through a Terminal Server because they are exceptions. The desktop is locked-down, users cannot install programs themselves. EPO is used to enforce anti-virus. That’s it, the PC’s costs us about $700. In our particular environment, Macs would only increase costs without adding additional value. And why then, would they choose a Mac for home use? What does the average home user do? Browse the Internet, e-mail, print photographs, write letters and listen to music.

 

[escalinci]

I'm at Uni in Scotland, and I've seen almost as many macs as pcs. Support is great, there's some for Linux too. For instance, soon we'll be able to print things wirelessly from anywhere on campus (or in halls), despite the print server being all windowsy.

 

[rorober]

This helps

http://www.pizdaus.com/pics/MC3KUw7uCDtL.jpg

 

[WannaGoMac]

http://www.pizdaus.com/pics/MC3KUw7uCDtL.jpg

Is that real!?

That's hilarious!

What school is that?

 

[rorober]

http://www.pizdaus.com/pics/MC3KUw7uCDtL.jpg

I found it online and didn't change a thing. The school is University of Missouri.

 

[krunk]

I've heard this speech before. So I'll break it down for you having worked in similar environments.

No, it has nothing to do with ‘being forced’. From my own perspective, there is no need for Macs on the desks of our users. They all use the same more than capable but relatively simple PC. Al PCs have the same RIS install and contain only six programs. If a PC or anything running on that PC fails we just RIS it, it takes 20 minutes.

Netboot and NetInstall.

All data is stored on the network, all other programs that users might need are offered through a Terminal Server because they are exceptions.

Again, there's nothing prohibiting this sort of setup in an OSX/Unix environment.

The desktop is locked-down, users cannot install programs themselves. EPO is used to enforce anti-virus.

This can also be done in an OSX/Unix environment. However, a true multi-user environment with the ability to run software without effecting the core system allows for more versatility in this area in so far as allowing users to install personal software. Especially in conjunction with quota's on home directories. . . if you wish.

That’s it, the PC’s costs us about $700. In our particular environment, Macs would only increase costs without adding additional value. And why then, would they choose a Mac for home use? What does the average home user do? Browse the Internet, e-mail, print photographs, write letters and listen to music.

Depending on if the $700 includes monitors or not, the mac mini or iMac can match initial hardware costs. Especially if you buy last year's models when the new models come out (these are sold at significant discounts).
When you take into account no need for anti-virus licenses and a better overall security record and thus less man hours for maintenance as well as leveraging free software the monetary savings (or lack thereof) is not so clear cut.

I'm not arguing the case that you *should* switch, I just don't think the reasons given were applicable. Issues such as being locked into proprietary solutions which only run on windows, custom in-house windows only software, transition costs (e.g. even if osx has lower TCO, the cost of transition may mitigate it for the short term), a heavily MS services dependent office (Exchange, MSSQL, etc), and other such issues are far more to the point.

I would note that the majority of the above problems come hand in hand with management choices to indefinitely commit to the "one true way" mentality which is arguably a bad choice to start with. So the cost of transition to more open, secure, portable, and versatile platform could be viewed as the penalty for initially choosing a less secure, closed, non-portable, and rigid platform in the beginning.

BTW all of the services you mention don't have to be run from OSX Server. You can actually accomplish everything with a Linux server on the backend.

 

[GoodWatch]

I've heard this speech before. So I'll break it down for you having worked in similar environments.

This was no speach, just the way it is. What you described is a green field situation. Hind sight, "what if". Our storage appliances don't run on Windows at all an our core business runs on IBM iSeries. I needn't say more, I presume. Or should I dump them too for X Servers?

 

[krunk]

This was no speach, just the way it is. What you described is a green field situation. Hind sight, "what if". Our storage appliances don't run on Windows at all an our core business runs on IBM iSeries. I needn't say more, I presume. Or should I dump them too for X Servers?

Now that is an excellent (and heretofore unmentioned) hurdle to switching. I am not an expert in iSeries, but as I understand it OSX and iSeries are a no go.

So that would fall under "proprietary, incompatible software" problem that I mentioned at the end of my post.

All I was saying is that the reasons you *did* mention were presented as if there was no alternate solution for OSX clients. . . which was not accurate. Terminal services, netboot/netinstall, locking down desktops, etc. etc.

There are very valid and real reasons that make transitions to OSX (or any platform) a significant hurdle. It's important to focus on those instead of ones that aren't really an issue.

 

[flopticalcube]

No, it has nothing to do with ‘being forced’. From my own perspective, there is no need for Macs on the desks of our users. They all use the same more than capable but relatively simple PC. Al PCs have the same RIS install and contain only six programs. If a PC or anything running on that PC fails we just RIS it, it takes 20 minutes. All data is stored on the network, all other programs that users might need are offered through a Terminal Server because they are exceptions. The desktop is locked-down, users cannot install programs themselves. EPO is used to enforce anti-virus. That’s it, the PC’s costs us about $700. In our particular environment, Macs would only increase costs without adding additional value. And why then, would they choose a Mac for home use? What does the average home user do? Browse the Internet, e-mail, print photographs, write letters and listen to music.

It has everything to do about being forced. End users usually have no choice in the hardware they are told to use. Do you give a choice to your end users? At home they have a choice.