Slashdot Log In
Mac Install-Base Shown to Be 16%
Posted by
Zonk
on Sun Jun 05, 2005 03:37 AM
from the thats-a-lot-of-fruit dept.
from the thats-a-lot-of-fruit dept.
Kelly McNeill writes "MacDailyNews has an editorial which summarizes reports from various research groups that analyzed the number of computer users affected by viruses. The conclusion was that 16 percent of all computer users are not affected by viruses because they use Macs. The lack of viruses on a Mac is commonly known, but the interesting thing is the fact that the results finally provide the first set of conclusive numbers which illustrate the Macintosh's install-base. So far only "market-share" statistics are commonly published for the public and do not convey install base. (If for example 2 people are using computers and one replaces his 2x in a 3 year period and the other only does once, market-share dynamics dictate that one demographic has 75% market share while the other has only 25% -- even though install base is still 50/50.)"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Who made the claim? (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, I won't worry too much about bias now, though if someone has a reason to think the SPA is off-base, please let us all know. This is truly something to celebrate. Now, let's get the Linux installed base to 16%...
Why this preoccupation with 'bias'? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are several ways to test the validity of a statement, and none of them have to do with who made the statement. In this case, you could ask how the statistic was collected and how large the sample was. You'll notice the number 16% is a fantasy based on an assumption that has no base in any evidence. It's bunk, 'bias' or not.
I can understand how someone would dismiss out of hand something coming from Rob Enderle or a politician, but not how it's possible to accept something just because the source seems neutral. That's just stupid, and shows an incredibly unscientific mindset.
Parent
Re:Why this preoccupation with 'bias'? (Score:4, Insightful)
I completely disagree.
We don't have the time (or skill) to research the validity of every study ourselves. Even large and well designed studies can be biased by its choice of question. In other words, if a study was funded by an interested party, they will find a way to get the answer they want.
So, we must look at the source, and the funding. So 'who made the statement' is very important.
Parent
Re:Why this preoccupation with 'bias'? (Score:3, Insightful)
Suppose Apple sells half the number of PCs (yeah, I know it's not anywhere near that, it's an easy number)
Now assume Apples get replaced every 4 years and PCs get replaced every two. Now, who has the larger install base?
Re:Why this preoccupation with 'bias'? (Score:4, Insightful)
We do see PCs come in that are getting near 10 years old, very very rarely, and it's almost always to do a data transfer to a new machine. You just don't see someone with a 10 year old PC that says "this machine still does everything I need it to." Now that might be a statement about the user or about the computer, but I tend to think it's a mix of both.
For that reason I would expect the install base for macs to be surprisingly large. All said and counted, I might go as far as to say that 30% of all macs manufactured, ever, are still in use today. If I had to guess wildly on PCs, I'd place that number at somewhere closer to 10%.
Parent
Re:Why this preoccupation with 'bias'? (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.geekculture.com/blurbs/reviews/XLR8G4P
Not only is that G4/550, but check out the memory. It's not a new laptop, but it's still not too shabby.
Upgrading a PC, you usually replace the CPU, the logic board, power supply, memory, and the optical drive. That means you're keeping... the case? heh, what's the point?
Parent
Re:Who made the claim? (Score:3, Insightful)
And I still find the 16% really hard to believe, no matter which way it is intended to be represented.
Re:Who made the claim? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't find it hard to believe, although I think the figure is (A) an upper limit and (B) has probably 1 digit of precision.
The thing is, I guarantee you there are a lot people who are happily working on macs that are five or even ten years old. They don't show up in the market share figures, and they don't happen to be the kind of people you associate with, that's all.
Re:Who made the claim? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the truth is that 16% is divided up among Mac, Linux, BSD, Solaris, and probably a few more. There have been other reports in the last few years showing Mac and Linux roughly even, at up to 7% each, which doesn't seem at all unlike
Re:Long live closed source (Score:5, Funny)
My mom's mac is a PCI machine. I may not be able to fiddle in it, but I can install and change cards. She's running OS8. I'm running OS7 on mine.
Neither one of them gets counted in the market share statistics, although at least my mom's gets counted in web statistics. She's never gotten a virus. Neither has my Mac, but I cheat . .
And I can state catagorically that the installed base of Tandy Color Micros may be small, but it is not zero.
Can't even kazoo in that puppy.
KFG
Parent
Re:Long live closed source (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually since you said 'openness' and not 'freedom', perhaps you are talking within the context of proprietary software - in which case you're right: openness per se is pretty much irrelevant. See RMS for further details.
Re:Who made the claim? (Score:4, Informative)
just FYI
Parent
Re:Who made the claim? (Score:3, Informative)
Well, I'm more than a little skeptical of these numbers, because by nature they're talking about Macs connected to the internet, and these numbers do not jibe at all with any results we've ever seen from web use in general.
I'm responsible for tracking web use at my company (a division of the largest media company in the world, but I'll keep it
a questionable basis for a percentage (Score:5, Informative)
Hmm, the summary of the article seems to include more facts than the article itself. The summary makes a big point of how TFA's 16% number if found from the virus infection percentage. TFA doesn't say that's where the 16% comes from at all. All the article body says is "In addition, the Software Publishers Association (SPA) estimates that 16 percent of computer users are on Macs." The headline says that 16% of users aren't infected because they use Macs, but it doesn't explain that or justify it. Besides, even if the summary was correct, then this would seem a very poor way to guess at install base. The browser's "user agent" header sent to a general interest site like Google would seem a far better way. Admittedly that would be skewed by Mac users using being "forced" to access Google from Windows in a work environment, but still. That seems like it would have to be more accurate than the approach hinted at in the summary. In searching for google stats on this I found on the Mac Daily News site a discussion which included this very topic [macdailynews.com] when the issue of install base was previously discussed there.
further info about google's zeitgeist OS numbers (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:further info about google's zeitgeist OS number (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:a questionable basis for a percentage (Score:4, Interesting)
I run a website that gets a lot of hits due to information links carried on bittorrent sites. I see a startling high percentage of firefox, linux, and various unixes. I therefore conclude that Bittorrent is at this time not for the average idiot, although it is getting more that way every day.
Now google, on the other hand, is not completely without bias. The people in my family who are very clueless about the internet do not use google, they use the default MSN search that comes with Internet Exploder. This is a big deal I think. Lots of people who are clueless use these default searches, not to mention people whose browser has been hyjacked and must use the hyjacked search site. Those people are not (and won't be) running linux, firefox, or unixes.
So I think to really get some meaningful stats about installed bases for Firefox, Opera, Linux, and the like, we must survey lots of sites (1000's) from all manner of target demographics. Any other method of statistical analysis would have some bias.
Parent
no virus != apple. (Score:4, Insightful)
I have several other machines of both windows and linux that are completely clean. They aren't apple. I have a Powerbook, that is clean too, but it is an Apple.
That wasn't the conclusion... (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, the conclusion of the editorial is the following two points:
1)More people use Macs than most people realize.
2) People who use Macs don't get many viruses.
Shock! Horror! What next - "The Sky is Blue"? I'm a mac user, and am all for increading market share, but this editorial seems rather vapid...where's the news?
Re:That wasn't the conclusion... (Score:3, Informative)
If in fact apple has 16% of the install-base, there is a much greater reason for commercial developers to spend the time and resources to port or start their work with the apple platform in mind.
Since one of the major complaints about Macs by people that don't have them (along with "one-button-mouse," "lack-of-expandability," etc. etc) i
Great news, but in a way I don't care (Score:5, Insightful)
*Please keep in mind that I do realize the connection between profitability and new product development. All I'm saying is that the numbers could mean less as long as I'm a happy customer. And boy am I happy.
16%? that seems a bit high .. (Score:4, Informative)
Anyway full stats
Windows XP 495 60.37%
Windows 98 117 14.27%
Windows 2000 85 10.37%
Windows ME 41 5.00%
Other 22 2.68%
Linux 21 2.56%
MacOS X 13 1.59%
Windows 95 11 1.34%
MacOS PPC 6 0.73%
Windows NT 4 0.49%
Windows 2003 4 0.49%
Windows 1 0.12%
Total 820
Re:16%? that seems a bit high .. (Score:3, Insightful)
BOINC says it's much lower. (Score:5, Interesting)
They have
Now, this data is obviously skewed with respect to the total distribution, since the people who run something like SETI@home are probably more technologically inclined than the average computer user. This would mean that the percentage of non-Windows OSes is higher in this sample. On the other hand, the software for BOINC (SETI@home) is still somewhat Windows-centric, which would in turn increase the Windows share in the sample.
An interesting data point, nonetheless.
Re:BOINC says it's much lower. (Score:3, Informative)
X86/Win32 -- 73%
X86/Linux -- 11%
PowerPC/Mac OS X -- 11%
The remaining 5% is divided among dozens of other combinations.
http://stats.distributed.net/misc/platformlist.php ?project_id=8&view=tco [distributed.net]
I have to note that the PowerPC client for distributed.net is very good, a single 1.2 GHz G4 performs on par with a dual 2.4 GHz P4. So, these statistics suggest that ~5.5% of the CPUs is running Mac OS X.
I say bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
"SETI@Home 2.0.4 was the fastest version of SETI for Macs. It relied heavily on the amount of L2 cache on the processor. Since most modern macs have 512K or 1MB of cahe it was able to produce results far better than a PC of the same MHz. But when 3.0 came all that changed. The L2 cache programming was removed and the speed was based solely on the MHz. So then Macs fell behind in WU times." [...]
"The best part of RC5 is that it is Alti-Vec and multi-processor aware, and Macs crunch data 5 times faster than a PC of the same MHz. It is a great way to show off the speed of your CPU."
Parent
Let me see if I can follow this. (Score:5, Insightful)
- The vast majority of studies estimate the installed base of the macintosh at somewhere around three to five percent.
- One study estimates it at sixteen percent.
The conclusion is:
- The studies estimating at three to five percent must have been doing something wrong
D...id I miss something here?
Re:Let me see if I can follow this. (Score:4, Informative)
- The vast majority of studies estimate the marketshare of the macintosh at somewhere around three to five percent.
- One study estimates it (installed base) at sixteen percent.
There is a difference between installed base and marketshare.
If a PC user buy a new PC every other year and a Mac user buy a Mac every four years, you would see that the PC has 60% marketshare, but the installed base is still really only 50%.
Given that Mac users have claimed, for a while, about how long they last (a combination of higher price and higher satisfaction, I'm sure, in that they can't afford to buy a new Mac every other year, and that when they bought it in the first place it met their needs to the point that they didn't need to buy or upgrade a couple years later because it was slow or unsatisfying or virus infected), it wouldn't surprise me if Mac users replaced their Macs every 8 years while PC users have traditionally replaced their PCs every 3.
Parent
Re:Let me see if I can follow this. (Score:3, Interesting)
I bought a G3 tower (beige) in 1998. I still use it. It's a Debian PPC Samba domain controller.
I bought a G3 Powerbook in 1999. I still use it. It's a chat/email/web-surfing machine, running OSX 10.3.9.
I bought a generic PC in 2002 to make Unreal Tournament maps and playing games (like UT, of course). I've since upgraded it and it has become 2 PC's, but I gave the old one away to my dad (for use as a word/excel/notepad-type record keeping machine for his business). Mine
You missed something (Score:3, Insightful)
Incorrect.
The vast majority of studies estimate the market share of the Macintosh at somewhere around three to five percent.
Market share is about current sales volume relative to sales of other products.
Installed base is about deployed systems relative to other deployed systems.
If I own four Macs and buy a PC, then PCs have 100% market share in my home, but 20% of the installed base.
Okay, the submission summary is odd (Score:4, Informative)
One of them is AT&T Natural Voices coming soon for Apple Mac OS X [macdailynews.com]
So cheer up, they only count people buying software, thus most Linux users don't show up hereCertain metrics tilts the board in favor of Macs (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a creeping suspicion that the average Mac users spend more on software than the average PC (and by PC in this context I mean Windows on x86, because it's shorter to write) user. Why is this?
Most PCs sit around in offices and do stuff you'd normally do with Office - word processing, spread sheets, emails. Far from all PCs, of course, but definitely *most*.
A sizable part of the Mac installed base are those who do publishing, or video editing, or DVD production, or something with media in general. These people go out and buy font managers, editing software and plug-ins, each probably running up an average of 80 bucks per product, with the actual editing software running from 200 bucks and up, not uncommonly into 500+ territory. People do this on PCs too, but I would bet on the percentage of the installed base being a lot smaller.
Another sizable part of the Mac installed base are those who sit at home and buy lots of shareware. This has a direct counterpart in the PC world, and they're probably about the same size percentage-wise. Note that games fall in the same price spectrum, that the hard-core gamer is likely to spend more on extra hardware (mice, gpu, keyboard, display) than on software, and that piracy probably helps inflate this segment.
And then there's also the fact that, *for whatever reason*, people seem to use Macs longer. Getting three years out of a Mac isn't extraordinary, it's average. Macs also have a higher value on the used market, so there's no rush to sell it.
I think all of this adds up to a skewing of these statistics.
Math? (Score:3, Informative)
(If for example 2 people are using computers and one replaces his 2x in a 3 year period and the other only does once, market-share dynamics dictate that one demographic has 75% market share while the other has only 25% -- even though install base is still 50/50.)
Let's go over this: Person A buys a peecee but feels compelled to upgrade later (by buying a new computer) resulting in an 2 peecees purchased while Person B buys a Mac only once. The install base is 50/50 but the market share shows that 2/3 of computers bought are peecees and only 1/3 are Macs. Where did the 75%/25% come from?
Now that we've established that your summary sucked (no offense), should I bother reading the article? It is /.
On another note, in the Astrophysics Department here at Caltech, I'd say something like a fifth of the install base is Windows, the rest being Macs and Linux (with more Mac laptops and linux desktops) and several other non-engineering science departments have many more Macs than Windows boxen but if you want me to believe that a macs make up 16% you've better have some really good data out there that no one else does.
Unfortunately, (Score:4, Funny)
Lies, Damn Lies, and "Market share" (Score:3, Funny)
The only browser/OS market share statistics I trust are the ones based on my own first-hand experience. All the others tend to ignore important relevant criteria, produce wildly differing results, and are often colored by ideological and/or financially-motivated bias.
Based on first-hand empirical evidence, it's perfectly clear that Mac users make up about 40% of desktop computer users, and about 60% of laptop users, and that approximately 75% use Firefox as their primary browser. Among Mac users, Safari and Firefox use is approximately 50-50%
Of course, this was the same method I used to predict last year's Democratic landslide...
Re:A bit much (Score:3, Interesting)
this is only tiny sample and I'm not exrapolating from it, just using it as an example how Mac usage is very high in some places so 16% isn't so far fetched imo.
Re:Inaccurate (Score:4, Interesting)
That's something I've never understood.
Mac hardware's nothing special - it's primarily the software that makes Macs so great in comparison to a typical Windows/Linux/BSD PC. Why the heck would anyone buy a Mac and then install a Linux on it? Just doesn't make sense.
Parent
Re:Inaccurate (Score:3, Insightful)
Mac hardware's nothing special - it's primarily the software that makes Macs so great in comparison to a typical Windows/Linux/BSD PC. Why the heck would anyone buy a Mac and then install a Linux on it? Just doesn't make sense.
How come Mac users say something like this, then in the next breath go on about how PPC is a superior platform to x86?
Re:Check the facts again (Score:3, Funny)
Re:New Math? (Score:3, Interesting)
And I'm not making that up as much as I want to, almost every week a customer wants to buy a new box and when I ask them why it turns out their existing o
Re:Virus are not related to OS's SO MUCH (Score:3, Insightful)
Also your point about sending a shellscript to a linux user, you point out that the user has to take extra steps before he can do anything stupid, that's a positive point in favour of the os, in that it makes it harder for people to do stupid things.. And you can only trash his homedir, not the whol
Re:I dunno.... (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree it's nowhere near 50/50, your anecdotal evidence makes a few assumptions. The biggest assumptions it makes would be that macs break down at the same rate PCs do and that mac users require the same amount of technical support PC users do.
Speaking as a mac user I've got to say 16% sounds high, but your 1.5% sounds quite low.
Parent
Re:I dunno.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The biggest assumptions it makes would be that macs break down at the same rate PCs do and that mac users require the same amount of technical support PC users do.
The second biggest assumption is that users are properly identifying themselves. Mac users long ago learned that a large number of support techs slam on the brakes as soon as you say the word "Mac". (Even the ones who say they support Apples.) I use FreeBSD on my primary workstation, and OS X on my laptop. If asked by a support tech, I typi
Sigh ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, can you think of any other reason why that may be? Like making an internet connection is the easiest on the Mac compared to all platforms I know of?
you have to be completely retarded to think that PC/Mac usage is anywhere even in the same ballpark to 50/50
Submitter didn't imply that. That figure was an example.
I constantly hear Mac zealots all excited about their new shiny G5 in some overly pretentious colour like magenta or something
Hmm, now this is a lie. Because for years Apple only made machines in white, grey or aluminium.
Most PC people I know are more interested in buying a $600 video card for their 5 year old PC.
I have the strong feeling you are trying to make a point there, I only can't see what that may be ...
Parent
Re:I dunno.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Most PC people I know are more interested in buying a $600 video card for their 5 year old PC.
You're full of it. No 5-year old PC motherboard can possibly support an AGP 4x or higher graphics card. Might as well chuck out that whole PC if you want a new graphics card.
Likewise, no AGP-based motherboard made today is going to be able to take a (PCI Express?) graphics card made 5 years from now. You will have to chuck out today's PC if you want to upgrade your graphics in 5 years.
The only PC user demogr
Re:users? (Score:3, Insightful)
If the OS itself is completely secure then it's the skills of the admin that affect the infection rate.
For example:
User A is highly skilled, (s)he takes all the proper precautions, but a bug in the network stack compromises the computer.
User B is not skilled, but has a secure OS and competent admin. The user tries to run an executable attachment, but because the admin hasn't signed it it cannot run and the computer stays secure.
Wh
OS 7.5? Give me a break. (Score:3, Informative)
Well, I do. There are zero viruses in the world for OS X.
I seem to remember there being one
You remember wrong. There was a port of a UNIX rootkit floating around, and a couple of theoretical exploits based on holes Apple patched (albeit clumsily) quickly. A rootkit is software that's used after one's already broken into the computer... it's useless without a way to get it into the computer in the first place.
What you remember is probably that Symantec claimed that ther
Re:OS 7.5? Give me a break. (Score:3, Interesting)
These are typical examples of the knd of things I'm talking about.
Cowhand is not a virus or spyware, it's a rootkit component to be installed after you've already used an exploit (virus, direct attack, or social engineering) to get in. If this is an "OS X virus" then so is tinyproxy or socks. Strike one.
Amphimix is a demonstration exploit that can only be used through a social engineering attack. A social enginee
Some more interesting obervations (Score:4, Insightful)
So which category do I fit into then ? Windows XP, fully service-packed and with a single application installed (Xilinx Foundation, approx $2500, it's all I use the machine for), BSOD yesterday after running a place-and-route for approx 10 hours. I would have used the linux box but it has been busy running a similar PAR for about 2.5 days now. Identical machines, same software, one crashes, the other just carries on working...
No, you're assuming they're assuming that. I read it as 'hey, these guys *aren't* paid to lie - fancy that!'. The truth (or lack thereof) of the article rests on its merits.
It works quite nicely, how ? Do you have any example rootkits that work remotely ? As far as I'm aware, a rootkit is only a threat when it can be installed remotely via an exploitable hole in the system. If you have root access to the system, you don't need a rootkit to make it vulnerable! Just as a data-point, linux rootkits won't work on a mac, for the obvious reason that they're running very different software and potential exploits will therefore be different!
Well, this is down to personal taste of course, but I tend to use commandline ftp even on a windows box... I'm a unix-orientated guy and that's the way I prefer to work. OTOH, you can just type 'ftp://user@host' into the 'Finder->Go -> Connect to server' dialogue box and it'll open up the directory just like any other Finder window. It works the same way for 'smb:', 'nfs:', 'afp:' etc. etc.
Sure, XP has *more* software, and there are a few areas where the Mac still lacks (eg: EDA, hence the XP box), but for the 90% of people who don't fall into that category, it's there waiting for the taking.
Parent
Macs in business (Score:3, Interesting)
I've also seen a few den