Re: Linux Market share?
From: TokaMundo (TokaMundo_at_weedizgood.org)
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 08:28:52 GMT
On 13 Jul 2005 01:13:18 -0700, email@example.com Gave us:
>> "John Kloosterman" <JClosed_AD_netscape_DoT_net> wrote in message
>> > Well - the problem here is the therm "market-share". It is perfectly
>> > posible to see how many pieces of Windows OS are beeing sold, with Linux
>> > however it is a different story. Most versions (distributions) of Linux
>> > are free for download, so the users dont have to buy or register anyware.
>> > That makes it almost impossible to figure out how many people are using
>> > Linux. What makes it even more complicated is the fact that there are many
>> > pirated versions of Windows, ?nd a lot of people using Windows and Linux
>> > in a mixed environment or as a double-boot system.
>Market share statistics can vary radically depending on what you are
>Count how many machines are "sold" with Linux preinstalled, and the
>number is almost microscopic (since most Linux servers are configured
>by the corporate administrator). Ironically, many of the servers now
>running Linux were originally "Sold" as Windows machines.
>You can count number of servers, which puts Linux at about 30% and
>Windows at about 40%, with UNIX at about 30%, depending on the year
>You can also count revenue, but again, this will skew the numbers
>toward Windows - especially if you make the distinction between License
>fees and Support fees and do not include support fees in the count.
>Again, because Linux usually gets the "leftovers" or "hand-me-downs",
>Linux will be consistently be undercounted here too.
>A very interesting approach is to count "function points" or
>"processing equivalents". A single Linux server typically does the
>work of 3-4 NT servers. A Solaris StarFire or HP Superdome can do the
>work of 5,000 NT servers. A Z-Series e-server running ZVM and Linux
>can do the work of 50,000 NT servers.
>> > So -i think its impossible to get accurate figures. You can only use
>> > statistic methodes, but then it depends on the willingness (and
>> > acuressness) of the "statistical group" involved. It leaves also the door
>> > wide open to "bias" the outcomings (as has happend in the past and w?ll
>> > happen in the future).
>It's possible to get accurate figures, just very expensive. There are
>services who do detailed studies, and gather the numbers a number of
>different ways. Often, "abridged" reports are published about 6-12
>months later for use by advertisers.
>> The term "market share" only relates to the share of some identified market
>> captured by some product provider to that market. It really only pertains
>> to whether or not your product has the largest share of that market because
>> your position in the market somewhat dictates your strategy and what the
>> future might hold for you based on market characteristics that have been
>> determined to be predictable from the past. The most important thing that
>> you can do is to determine just what your "market" consists of.
>This is why it's so important to know the exact methodology used in the
>It's also necessary to have the raw numbers as well as the various
>percentages. It's also important to have the breakdown of anything in
>the "other" classification.
>One of the great classic surveys is the "ip/browser" counter survey. A
>company did a survey of something like 500 sites, all running Windows
>based servers, and doing "browser counts". Further disclosure of the
>details showed that this company was only counting Linux on IP
>addresses that showed ONLY Linux. Furthermore, it was counting DHCP
>pools indescribinately as well. In this survey, Linux got less than
>1%, but this was ONLY browsers that had "Linux" in the browser
>signature. A bit of research into the 3% marked "other" showed that
>nearly all of the "other" turned out to be Linux because Netscape and
>others were not specifically placing "Linux" into the default
>> The market for "Intel compatible desktop client operating system software",
>> which is the market area that Microsoft was found to have monopoly power
>> within, was determined by the Jackson court to specifically exclude Apple
>> computers and their software as well as Linux computers.
>I think that even at the time that the trial started, Apple had less
>than 5% of the established market share. Microsoft claimed during
>their defense testimony that Linux had 14% of the market. It's quite
>possible that Microsoft was counting cookies against signatures and
>tracking all permutations. This would be about the only reliable type
>of count. Even then, you might get dual-boot machines counted as both
>Windows and Linux (since there would be two different cookies), or
>> Apple was excluded
>> then because it was not Intel compatible and Linux was excluded because it
>> was a server product.
>During the trial, Microsoft did try to give Linux a much larger market
>share. I found it significant that no one actually challenged them. I
>might have been grounds for challenging the findings of fact as well as
>the findings of Law.
>They just dropped a big number and everybody let it slip.
>> Given that definition, Microsoft has 100% of the
>> market or very close to it, since today there clearly is some linux aimed at
>> desktops and some money has changed hands on that basis.
>One of my favorite numbers is the number of licenses Microsoft claims
>to have shipped/sold, and the number of PCs the OEMs claim they have
>shipped. Microsoft has about 120% of the market by that count. I know
>from the period of time I was setting next to the cubicle used by the
>Microsoft rep to make calls to a number of customers and decision
>makers that the sales rep was offering substantial discounts to
>corporate customers when they purchased more licenses than they
>Of course, since Microsoft often oversells the OEM and then oversells
>Windows licenses to Corporate customers for the same machines - it's
>even conceivable that Microsoft has over 200% of the market. And since
>Microsoft donates tax deductable Windows licenses to 501C organizations
>when the machines above are donated to charities, Microsoft might even
>have something like 250% of the market. If you think about it, it's
>really quite a feat of marketing.
>> The money is what makes the market. Markets are measured in terms of the
>> money spent to buy products that compete in the same market and market
>> growth or decline is measured in terms of money increases or decreases over
>> time. It has nothing to do with how many people use the products or how
>> often they use them. It only depends on how much money they spend annually
>> for the products.
>This certainly gives Microsoft the advantage. If you figure Microsoft
>licenses and cost about 3 times the price of Linux licenses, and that
>Linux hardware is mostly hand-me-down hardware from Windows, Windows is
>certainly going to have the biggest dollar sign percentage.
>> If a customer purchases a linux based PC to replace a Windows based PC, that
>> is a loss of share for Microsoft.
>The more interesting case is when a customer purchases a new Windows PC
>to replace an older Windows PC, then the old PC is converted to Linux.
>The practice of purchasing a new machine for Linux seems to have
>increased since the availability of AMD-64 bit chip.
>> If the customer switches from Sun servers
>> and terminals to some distributed linux based PC network, that is a growth
>> of the desktop market as well as a share loss by Microsoft, but it is also
>> an opportunity for Microsoft to compete for the business.
>This one is more tricky. If someone were to upgrade from a group of
>10-12 Sun servers with 2 1 billion instruction per second processors,
>to a StarFire with 64 processors each running 4 billion
>instructions/second or roughly 128 times more power, they might not
>need so many servers. By server count, Sun is losing market share, by
>cost, the supporting hardware of the separate machines would make the
>new server cost less - again, Sun loses market share. Of course, in
>reality, the Sun box is actually doing the work of more machines.
>> > So - i guess there wil be no conclusive answer. I think however that the 1
>> > percent mentionned is a far to low figure. In my neigbourhood i have seen
>> > an strong increase of Linux desktop usters in the last half year, so i
>> > think that figure is very dated...
>Again, it depends on what you are counting. The range goes from less
>than 1% of all the machines sold in the United States by OEMs, to as
>high as 35% of the server market based on number of servers. If you
>really want a stretch, you can figure Linux is almost 40% based on
>"function point" counts - essentially "NT equivalents".
Wow... excellent, and startling observations!