
Goldman Sachs: Windows' true market share is just 20% - Cbasedlifeform
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/13/windows_market_share_just_20percent/
======
DougWebb
The graph is designed to make it appear that the total number of devices is
constant, which makes it looks like Microsoft is losing ground. What's
actually happened is that the market has grown significantly, considering that
their definition of 'market' includes a bunch of platforms that didn't exist a
few years ago. That growth didn't happen on MS-based devices, hence the
smaller market share.

A less biased visualization would have varying heights of each stack to show
the absolute number of devices.

~~~
pbnjay
The article specifically talks about the "global computing market" ... So it's
referring to market share, not number of devices. Nothing misleading here.

~~~
highwind
Still, the article says "Microsoft is in danger of becoming a small player in
today's global computing market". Which is not backed up by the data provided
by the article. Unless we have the raw numbers, it could well be that
Microsoft has been growing.

The fact that the total share of MS has been shrinking doesn't necessarily
mean that MS is a small player in the global market.

~~~
Bill_Dimm
"The fact that the total share of MS has been shrinking doesn't necessarily
mean that MS is a small player in the global market."

That depends on the context. If you are trying to decide which OS to develop
your software for, market share (with some adjustment for the willingness of
users of a certain OS to actually pay money for software) is the critical
factor. While Microsoft may still be large in terms of number of installations
or dollars, losing on market share is significant. In the past, most software
was developed for Windows first, and then OSX or Linux if the developer got
around to it, which gave Windows a huge advantage in the market regardless of
whether or not it was the best from a technological standpoint. Also, market
share allowed Microsoft to essentially dictate "standards" (remember all of
those websites that required ActiveX?). Microsoft may still be big and
wealthy, but losing on market share really does change things -- it makes them
"small" in a sense.

~~~
DougWebb
If you're a developer trying to decide which OS to develop your software on,
and market share is a significant factor in your decision, you're going to
choose something cross-platform. That's most likely web, but even if you
choose one of the toolkits your choice is going to impact all of the OS
producers equally: their marketshare will not be impacted at all by you,
unless they actively inhibit cross-platform development on their OS. MS used
to do that but not anymore; Apple tries to keep the wall around their garden
but they don't block cross-platform completely.

------
codeulike
Their definition of 'market' being 'all consumer computing devices', so
obviously the picture changes rapidly after 2005 with the smartphone and
tablet explosion. Its not really news that Microsoft are not doing well if you
look at the whole universe of computing devices.

The headline is a bit misleading as it implies something more interesting,
along the lines of 'microsoft not as dominant in desktop as people assume' ...
but thats not what its about.

I wonder if Goldman's count X-Box as a consumer computing device? I bet they
don't, not that it would make that much difference to the stats.

~~~
7952
Agreed. It's similar to comparing Intel to ARM. Outside of business the OS is
becoming less important to the consumer than it used to be. IMHO the key for
Microsoft is maintaining its hold on the corporate market. In that regard the
key product is not Windows but Office.

~~~
crag
That's right, Office is everywhere. And they use that to leverage Sharepoint,
Exchange and other systems. There's no shame in being number 1 in the
corporate world and number 4 or 5 in the consumer market. :)

Though they do have the xbox.

~~~
jwoah12
_There's no shame in being number 1 in the corporate world and number 4 or 5
in the consumer market._

That statement is probably not as easy to swallow for a company that was worth
$850bil (in today's dollar) just 13 years ago.

Edit: clarify value accounting for inflation

~~~
pmelendez
Well, it is a cycle you know? Microsoft in the 90's looked as impossible to
beat down as IBM looked back in the 70's and IBM still exists and it is
strong, but is not longer that unbeatable beast that used to be.

I wonder if, in a few years, I will be writing this statement again but
comparing Apple/Google with Facebook/Twitter/Whatever-is-coming.

------
desmondmonster
"If left without a meaningful competitor in tablets, we believe Apple's
dominant share of tablets will act as an anchor that pulls its smartphone
share ... steadily upward over time"

Hm, that's not how anchors typically work.

~~~
philwelch
"The sole aim of a metaphor is to call up a visual image. When these images
clash -- as in _The Fascist octopus has sung its swan song, the jackboot is
thrown into the melting pot_ \-- it can be taken as certain that the writer is
not seeing a mental image of the objects he is naming; in other words he is
not really thinking." --Orwell, "Politics and the English Language"

------
Millennium
The first question to ask about any market-share figure is "Of what market?"
Goldman Sachs are defining things using a much broader market than most people
would consider useful. Maybe there's something to it, but to call it "true
market share" at this point is more than a bit of a reach.

------
kalleboo
Does anyone understand what's happening in their graph[1] in 2005? I don't
understand what would cause Apple to jump from 5-25% in one year, 2 years
before the iPhone.

[1]
[http://regmedia.co.uk/2012/12/13/goldman_platform_chart_lg.p...](http://regmedia.co.uk/2012/12/13/goldman_platform_chart_lg.png)

~~~
Rexxar
They probably changed their methodology but forgot to say it.

~~~
aleyan
I agree. 'Other' category jumped from 0 to 29% as well. Likely at this point
they started considering a wider range of devices or something like that.

------
dlokshin
Not that I think this is accurate by any stretch, but what would account for
the massive jump in "Other" in 2005. Smart phones like Nokia before iPhone +
Android?

~~~
antoko
I wondered the same thing, at first glance I thought that was GOOG's slice of
the pie - 4 different shades of blue doesn't make for a good contrast. Then I
decided it had to be RIM/Blackberry.

~~~
dlokshin
Wow. RIM hadn't even entered my thought process. Funny how quickly things
change.

------
epa
Microsoft needs to get back to the basics. Why must they continue to try and
be apple. They are not apple. they are a software company.

Business still use windows for all applications. Excel and Word are the only
things keeping them alive. They MUST come up with a new OS that is similar to
XP/Vista/7 that is more useable in order for them to stay competitive in the
OS market. Imagine when google releases a free OS with free excel/word.

I think Microsoft needs to focus on useability and superior UI. They just keep
cluttering things up more and more and making it harder to do simple tasks.

~~~
Zancarius
While I do agree that Microsoft probably needs to change their direction a bit
(I'm not fan of Windows 8, but then, I'm a Linux user so that speaks for
itself), I don't completely agree with your assertion.

First, think about what you said. "Excel and Word are the only things keeping
them alive."

That's a generalization. Yes, Office is most certainly their _cash cow_ , and
generates tons of revenue from businesses and enterprise in general (to say
nothing about higher education and government). But guess what? Office users
will (generally) have Windows installed, particularly in larger enterprises.
So, using one almost guarantees using the other.

I think it also ignores Microsoft's gaming division (think Xbox _et al_ ). So,
no, I don't think MS is quite as badly done for as some may think. Focusing on
Windows and Windows' success (or failure) exclusively is to ignore the rest of
the picture.

I do agree that they may need to reconsider what path they're on (they've been
doing some soul-searching to that end) but on the other hand, it's equally
important to remember that Microsoft enjoys a lot of momentum in the
marketplace, most especially with big business and many governments. Could
Windows 8 change that? Maybe. Heck, it might even hurt them down the road. But
terms like "vendor lock-in" exist for a reason, and I believe MS has
previously done a fantastic job at illustrating why. The death of Windows
won't be sudden, and it certainly won't be proclaimed first by Goldman Sachs.

~~~
epa
You just agreed with me. A lot of people use windows because of office. This
is why people have windows installed, particularly in larger enterprises.

Using one (Excel and word), does guarantee the other (windows). .Doc and .xls
are standardized much like .pdf.

Yes, Xbox is a contributing factor, but still...

------
Quarrelsome
I like how they imply that the desktop is dead, imply tablets and smartphones
are the future cause the new generations buys them and then backs Smart
TVs..... which I'm guessing is a generational dead-end.

------
talmand
Does anyone know of any studies that support the article's statement that
Apple, when combining OSX and iOS, has more users than Windows now? If you
ignore legacy devices still in use I could possibly, maybe, see that.
Although, if you count total devices existing in the market, which the graph
seems to ignore, I just can't agree with that notion.

Plus, based on the speed of innovation in this market, making predictions up
to four years into the future is highly optimistic on their part.

------
meric
If they are going to compute market share of MSFT by framing it in terms of
"market share of consumer compute" and including all sorts of mobile devices,
then they should weight each device by the computing power it has accordingly.

Otherwise the number the come up with will underestimate the true market share
of "consumer compute" of MSFT.

Or is that what they are aiming for?

------
snake_plissken
"if you don't know, now you know"

whatever Goldman says, do the opposite.

------
tzs
Earlier post about same underlying story, take from a different site:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4904151>

------
newishuser
Why would anyone trust that statistics released by Goldman Sachs weren't
designed to manipulate the market in their favour?

------
dragonbonheur
Goldman Sachs: the crooks that funded Spinvox. Absolute frauds and liars.

------
recoiledsnake
First, this is counting Android phones many of which are being used as updated
feature phones rather than even a browsing device.

Second, this is counting what are being sold the last quarter and ignoring
install base and the increasingly longer upgrade cycle of PCs.

For a better picture of install base and actual usage, see
[http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_vs_desktop-ww-
monthly-2011...](http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_vs_desktop-ww-
monthly-201111-201211)

The entire mobile devices are at ~15%.

Third, this is Goldman Sachs, they might be shorting Microsoft stock now and
will buy and upgrade it later just like they bought millions of shares of
Nokia when they downgraded it and then the stock more than doubled recently,
and GS made tens of millions at the least. Read the very interesting article
below showing GS not following their own advice and doing a reverse dump and
pump.

[http://seekingalpha.com/article/1023231-goldman-sachs-and-
mo...](http://seekingalpha.com/article/1023231-goldman-sachs-and-morgan-
stanley-are-backing-the-truck-up-for-nokia-shares)

Then we have the Register writing flamebait articles with linkbait headlines,
completing the circle of worthless blogspam flamebait junk.

~~~
lutze
Yeah, there's always an angle with these guys.

Trust what they say publicly as far as you can throw them... And only trust
what they say privately if you have a gun to their head.

~~~
legutierr
Is this really what the Goldman brand is worth these days? Not that I disagree
with you, but you have to wonder: given that they rely so heavily on their
name, this level of distrust must be affecting them. Nobody wants to do
business with the mob if you can avoid it.

~~~
lmm
Who do they rely on their name with? For investors, the image of a company of
scheming masterminds who outthink everyone else in the market and make a
profit off everything they do is probably actively helpful.

~~~
lutze
Yes, there are a certain class of people who actually see this shady bullshit
in a positive light.

Right up until they get stung too, then they have the nerve to be outraged.

------
bobsoap
Since they are throwing desktop operating systems in the same cluster as
tablets and phones, why did they omit all the different OSs for cars,
manufacturing and power plants, heavy machinery, TV sets, satellite boxes, and
so on? At least that would be a true "OS market overview". They are cherry-
picking a slice of the OS market by the common denominator "consumer products"
and lumping a select few totally distinct segments into a single worthless
graph.

Not that I would have expected anything more sophisticated from Goldman Sachs,
though.

~~~
belorn
As someone above said, they limited the scope to all consumer computing
devices. A car is not a computing device per say, even if it has computer
parts. Same goes for power plants, heavy machinery, TV sets and satellite
boxes.

One could argue that electronic calculator should be included, but I am not
sure it would actually change anything.

~~~
seunosewa
Can you define what a computing device is, per say?

~~~
belorn
A general general purpose device that can be programmed by the user to perform
tasks beyond what was initially designed into the device.

This is my view, and not the only definition that exists. But if we want to
avoid having to include every item ever produced in the last 10 years or so,
the definition of a computer device needs to be slightly limited. Some Teddy
bears nowadays has FPGAs in them. If everything from a stuffed toy bear to a
600 ton airplane can be called "a computer", "a computer" loses its meaning.

~~~
lukeschlather
At a minimum, then, that would include graphing calculators.

Also, while most routers aren't exactly intended to be programmed, it's pretty
easy. Easier than reflashing an iPhone, which is considered a general-purpose
device, even though it's not really user reprogrammable.

Heck, the Canon Hack Development Kit makes a lot of 'dumb' cameras as easily
reprogrammable as an iPhone.

And as others have noted, this study apparently excludes gaming consoles,
which seems to me an unreasonable omission by any definition. ( I think the
most reasonable definition that captures what you're trying to say is
"something designed to run third-party applications." )

~~~
belorn
Agree.

