Revised stats

Results: lower market share for Vista, Mac.

Net Applications has revised their statistics (which the Macalope used below even though he doesn’t take them as anything close to the final word on real market share) to better weight for country, and Vista’s share of the Windows market drops to about 20% (tip o’ the antlers to Adrian Kingsley-Hughes who notes that Safari and the Mac also lost significant share). So, where the Macalope said 65% of Windows users will have a hard upgrade? Make that 80%.

The change in share is presumably because more Vista adopters were in the U.S. and Net Applications considered their previous weighting too U.S.-centric. So, what the revised numbers seem to say is that there are more early adopters in the U.S. than countries like China, which they are now weighting more heavily, which isn’t surprising.

Adrian says:

It’ll be interesting to see how the companies affected take this information and spin it.

Prediction: they’ll ignore it. All of them. They’ll continue to focus on growth and bottom line. Who really cares about overall market share? The trends continue to be good for everyone but Microsoft.

Some stats on upgrading to Windows 7 and Snow Leopard

Relative percentages of who’s affected how by these upgrades.

There were some complaints in the piece below (the nerve!) that the Macalope wasn’t taking everything into account when comparing upgrading to Windows 7 and upgrading to Snow Leopard, so let’s take another look at this.

A quick back-of-the-envelope analysis says about 77% of the OS X installed base is on Intel machines. The Macalope figures this by taking the figure of “OS X” installs given on Apple’s most recent quarterly conference call — 75 million — to mean Macs, iPhones and iPods Touch (sic). Subtract the number given for iPhone and iPod Touch sales to date — 40 million — and you have 35 million. (Note that this also means that the Mac is now a minority platform for OS X which is interesting.) Then add up all the Mac sales since roughly early 2006 – which is about 27 million. Apple started selling Intel machines in January of 2006, but doesn’t break out Intel vs. PowerPC sales so the Macalope chose to simply add up sales from the second quarter on, splitting the difference. (By the third quarter of 2006, all Macs were Intel-based.) It’s not exact, but it’s probably pretty close.

What’s the damage look like on the Windows side? Based on Internet usage statistics (the Macalope doesn’t like using these, but you can’t use sales statistics because Microsoft muddied the waters by counting XP sales as Vista sales) Vista’s share of the Windows market is somewhere between 28% and 40%. So, let’s say 35% to be generous.

(The numbers linked to are for overall market share. The Macalope calculated “percentage of Windows market share” by adding the Vista and XP numbers for a total and then figuring the relative percentages. Again, not precise, but close enough for the purposes of this discussion. Interestingly, the 40% number calculated from numbers on Wikipedia says it’s “as of the end of May” and the reference is a link to Net Applications data that doesn’t work. Which is a little odd because the other number is also supposedly from Net Applications data from the end of May, but it has actual charts from Net Applications. Hmm. Clearly, either the reference is wrong in Wikipedia or the number is. 35% is generous.)

So, what does this all mean? Well, 77% of Mac users will have no trouble upgrading to Snow Leopard. The Internet usage stats also show that 65% of Mac users are running Leopard, meaning the majority of Mac users will pay the minumum fee to upgrade (yes, some PowerPC users are running Leopard — the Macalope even has an iBook in the house running Leopard — but you’ve got to figure that the vast majority of the Leopard users are on Intel machines). 33% 23% (Gah! Math!), however, need a new machine.

Meanwhile, roughly 35% of Windows users will have no trouble upgrading to Windows 7 (other than navigating the overly-complicated decision tree to figure out which version to get). About 65% will have to do a clean install or buy a new machine with Windows 7 pre-installed.

It’s pretty much impossible to tell what percentage of Windows users will have to buy new machines, but the Macalope will admit he was ill-informed about the minimum system requirements for Windows 7. It’s only a 1 Ghz processor with 1 GB of RAM. It’s more likely the graphics requirements that will rule out older machines and once you start saying “Oh, but you don’t have to run Aero!” then you’re making excuses. Still, the horny one readily admits he underestimated the number of systems Windows 7 would run on.

Is it 33% 23% or more of the installed base? Who knows? But roughly two-thirds of Windows users are going to have a harder upgrade path later this year than three quarters of Mac users. Are all Mac users going to be happy? No! Of course not! Have you met these people? Bitch, bitch, bitch. All the Macalope’s saying is that 65% of Windows users have to move their files off their machines. The Macalope keeps hearing that Windows 7 is perfectly lovely and is every bit the husband and father that Vista should have been to your family but wasn’t with the drinking and the whoring and the lying. OK. That’s just a lot of people who’ll have one foot out the door after years of mistreatment.

.Mac/Google mashup?

Could be.

Business Week’s Arik Hesseldahl asks, could .Mac be moving to Google?

As with all such things, the question is rather over-simplistic. The Macalope doesn’t expect .Mac to be wholly replaced by Google. That’d make for some very angry parents who have their child’s entire life story on their .Mac account.

But .Mac is an anachronism in Apple’s product lineup. Kind of like eWorld was. Admittedly not the only one, but an overpriced and frequently criticized one that marks an unnecessary hole in Apple’s offering. Maybe it made sense for Apple to roll .Mac all by itself in the early aughts when there weren’t necessarily that many ways to easily get your Civil War reenactment group’s pictures onto the web from your Mac, but that’s not really the case anymore.

OK, Uncle Clive who plays the unkempt Confederate with the handlebar mustache in a felt cap and cape (no, the other unkempt Confederate with the handlebar mustache in a felt cap and cape) shouldn’t have to download some kind of utility before he can upload his pictures of 17 middle-aged bachelors attempting to reenact the entire battle of Appomattox, but Apple can handle that part by including the feature in Leopard.

At any rate, you shouldn’t bet anything other than Confederate currency that Apple won’t be updating .Mac next week. And why do it on their own?

Time for an intervention

Full release of Tiger at WWDC? Son, are you high?

Now, the Macalope himself has sniffed a little Leopard glue in the past. But he’s been clean and sober for four months and he’s here to scare MAC.BLORGE.com’s Triston MacIntyre straight!

Jeff Gamet at the Mac Observer said, “When a product reaches the technological feasibility state, Apple typically ships it shortly thereafter.”

That being said, if both items, as Apple said, are “technologically feasible” and Apple is on schedule for its June release of the iPhone, couldn’t Leopard see an earlier release?

What if Apple was planning all along to postpone the release, only to shock the world by throwing an amazing release of iPhone after displaying the final production of Leopard at WWDC?

Triston, just say “no”!

The Macalope knows that Steve Jobs is a diabolical marketing genius, but he’s not insane, and “We’ll announce we’re delaying Leopard and then we’ll look like heroes when we don’t!” is just nuts.

Also, before you kids “get your freak on” or whatever you call it these days, you should meet a little friend the Macalope likes to call “Mr. Google”.

Search on “technological feasibility” and “SEC” and the third entry is from the very same Mac Observer, which quotes Apple’s report to the SEC on Tiger’s release thusly:

Tiger achieved technological feasibility following its public demonstration in August 2004 and the subsequent release of a developer beta version of the product.

Tiger’s eventual release date?

April 29, 2005.

OK.

Triston?

Give the Macalope your keys.

Or at least your keyboard.

Don't hate the phone

A note to those currently dissing the iPhone

Note to all those griping that they don’t care about the iPhone and Apple should be concentrating on OS X and dammit, dammit, DAMMIT!

Products like the iPod and the iPhone are why Apple is still around and, therefore, why the Mac OS is still around and is as awesome as it is.

Macworld’s Peter Cohen makes a similar point.

Yes, it’s bad that Apple told us Leopard would be out in the spring and it will now be out in the fall. Bad Apple! Bad! It’s also a shame that Apple won’t be able to use Leopard to entice PC users who are on the fence about upgrading to Vista. And you can question the veracity of Apple’s contention that the iPhone delayed Leopard (but you’d probably be wrong).

But griping about the iPhone itself — regardless of its relative importance to you, personally — is, ultimately, cutting off your nose to spite your face.

???

Wow.

Leopard May Be Delayed Due to Vista Compatibility

???

Apple’s new “Leopard” operating system, most recently expected to launch next month, has reportedly been delayed until October in order to ensure compatibility with Microsoft Windows Vista.*

???

Spaces, which lets them use a single key to toggle among applications.

???

“[blah, blah, blah, black is white, up is down, blah, blah, blah]**,” Rob Enderle, principal analyst with the Enderle Group, told MacNewsWorld.

???

“You don’t want to sacrifice the second half*** just because you want to get an early launch.”

???

Is Leopard Delayed? Nope, not according to Apple

Just spoke with Apple who confirmed the reports are wrong…

!!!

———-

* Emphasis the Macalope’s.

** Bracketed text the Macalope’s. Obviously.

*** Emphasis the Macalope’s. Note to Mr. Enderle, October is in the fourth quarter.