Apple is Killing Linux on the Desktop
2008 is upon us and we’re greeted with the news, from NetApplications, that Apple Macs running OS X account for 7.3% of computers used to access the web.
More than a few Mac sites have mischievously quoted this as Macs having 7.3% market share. Market share of course is based on computer sales, as OS X’s own dictionary states. Not that market share accurately reflects the actual install base, and nor do these internet access figures.
However, as is also being noted, it is the trend of these figures that bears consideration. In the last two years, OS X has seen continual growth, from 4.21% in Jan 2006 (the first month of figures), to 5.67% in December 2006, to 7.31% in December 2007.
In the same time, Linux’s percentage has risen from only 0.29% to 0.63%. Although depending on how you apply the maths—you can put a positive slant on that by saying it’s more than doubled—the cold truth is Linux on the desktop is still barely worth mentioning. To paraphrase: reports of its life have been greatly exaggerated.
These figures are quite disturbing from Linux’s desktop perspective and although they have more than doubled, consider the iPhone has already achieved 0.12% in just six months. The iPhone has the potential to become the third most popular internet connected device! That deserves an exclamation mark.
The Linux figure is quite surprising considering the coverage Linux gets in computer magazines. Of the consumer computer magazines available in my part of the world, most of them give Linux a significantly disproportionately larger coverage than its desktop install-base demands, but none have specialist columns for Macs. That’s always seemed unfair, and now seeing these figures proves it so.
Linux has obviously not been helped at all by the Mac’s resurgence, and probably most importantly, Apple’s decision to switch to Intel CPUs.
Early in the decade it seemed that if you wanted a Windows alternative, Linux was it. Nowadays, an Apple Mac is undoubtedly the alternative and, with its resurgence and its Intel base, a very viable one.
Not that long ago there was almost a consensus that Linux would soon over take Apple. Several commentators suggested a few years ago that Apple’s biggest threat was not Microsoft, but Linux. Apple has taken care of that threat!
It’s not hard to understand why Linux has failed to live up to the promise of being a viable desktop alternative to Windows. Linux’s problems are many. For example: Apple has Microsoft Office, Linux doesn’t; Apple has Adobe Creative Suite, Linux doesn’t; Apple has easily accessed and easy to use service and support, Linux doesn’t; Apple is driven by someone who has some understanding of end-user needs, Linux is not.
Unfortunately though, it’s not necessarily a good thing for Linux to be struggling on the desktop, as the Linux community has so much to offer desktop computing. But with Apple and the Mac flying, Linux may never get the chance again.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
Its a question of vision. Whether you like them or not, the Apple and MS both have a cohesive vision for their platforms. Linux does not. You have Linus driving kernel develpment and a whole host of others developing applications for it. How often do they get together and discuss how they see the platform moving forward? How often to they coordinate development for the progress of the platform? That’s the difference.
Linus is only responsible for the kernel. All the other developers are only responsible for their parts. Its like saying that the makers of the Mach kernel or the FreeBSD developers should have a say in how Apple markets OSX. The lack of vision is squarely on the shoulders of the linux distribution makers. Apple has done a splendid job combining hardware and software to make desktop computers that work well and what end users want to buy. Linux distributions are all variations of the original theme that SLS and Slackware put together back in the 90’s. Some are put together better than others, but are all just the same. Linux kernel, GNU glue, X-windows, with some window manager.(KDE, Gnome, or XFCE) The Linux distribution makers are the ones that actually create an OS based on the linux kernel. They are the ones that should get together and define standards for the progress of the linux platform. At least the leaders, Novell, Redhat, Ubuntu and Mandriva.
spindizzy, you mean like the Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit meeting?
Good idea.
I think the ‘Linux’ numbers are basically flat. The variations are just statistical noise depending mostly on whether or not Ubuntu had a bad upgrade cycle (i.e. your display stops working—a notorious problem with Linux upgrades) for the year in question.
Anyway, ‘Linux’ means squat to most people (even Windows users who follow Apple) because there is no firmly identifiable interface for the user (or the applications programmer, for that matter). Only interfaces that system programmers (Linux hackers) use get any respect, while GUIs need to be able to disappear in a millisecond when hitting Ctrl-Alt-Bksp. Imagine if Linux selectively and instantly killed the entire contents of /dev by pressing three keys… but that would never become a standard feature because it would be unthinkable to Linus’ clique of hacks. People don’t care about ‘distros’, they care about their chosen platform, so its no wonder most people wouldn’t know a “Linux” if it hit them.
#16 has a good point, except that Linux cannot be considered a platform in this context. It’s a pile of parts, with no set of pieces fitted more slipshod than the GUI elements. That is desktop death.
A better measure of Linux’s installed base can be had via direct measurement, without the thoroughly discredited methodology of NetApp’s “web browser reports” (which depends heavily on the websites selected to “measure” operating system accesses, among other problems).
Canonical measured between 6 and 12 million unique IP addresses accessing their patch servers in 2007 (http://open.itworld.com/4917/071009ubuntu/page_1.html).
Given that NAT allows multiple computers per IP address (I have 4 Ubuntu machines here), and some machines don’t access update servers at all, 12 million is a reasonably good estimate of the worldwide Ubuntu installed base.
Steve Ballmer announced last year the billionth Windows computer installation would occur in 2008 (http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/27/ballmer-says-windows-installed-base-will-top-a-billion-by-the-en/). Taking Microsoft at its word - and would they ever lie to you?
- we’re close to 1 billion total desktops today.
Thus, Ubuntu has an installed base of about 1.2%.
Similarly, Max Spevak of Fedora reported 2 million unique IPs accessing their patch servers in March 2007 (http://spevack.livejournal.com/11416.html). Similar logic yields about a 0.4% installed base for Fedora.
I’d love to go on, except that I can’t find similar measurements for OpenSuse, Mint, Mandriva, etc. - for which I’m a bit thankful, actually.
To slide into the overall installed base of Linux, we can wag that Ubuntu hold 33% of the Linux installed base (a common estimate, though I’ve seen no supporting data better than a NetApp like web analysis), which would put overall Linux base around 3.6%.
This is consistent with Gartner Groups’ estimate of about 4% worldwide installed base for all of the various Linux desktop distributions.
Given that Gartner and IDC estimate that Apple is selling about 1 out of every 12-15 desktops today (http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9043244&source=NLT_PM&nlid=8), a 7.3% installed base isn’t unreasonable for all Macs combined. Gartner put their actual estimate slightly lower, but not enough to quibble.
Since my personal interest is that the Microsoft monopoly begone, and none take its place, having double-digit installed bases for both Mac and Linux looks likely in the near future. I’m happy thus far. And congrats to Apple for its excellent marketing (I *love* the Mac / PC guy ads
).
All right, this is simply some ridiculous article.
I understand that this site being called “applematters” you require to sing victory every once in a while, and since in those statistics windows market share did not drop, and vista already got more market share than apple… you needed an easier target and thus you picked Linux.
So, let’s forget that the statistics you picked are just flawed since they only consider Linux sales. (Most if not all the Linux users I’ve met did not buy a PC with Linux preinstalled…) Even assuming the statistics are right, I think you still need a very tripping mind in order to come up with the “apple is killing Linux” title.
- In order for something to be killing something else, the something else must be dying, yet Linux share is raising even in your flawed statistics…
- In order to come to your conclussion you would have to at least prove that there’s a correlation between apple raising and Linux dropping, but nope, but were raising, and Linux’s raising was bigger than Apple’s (just devide the present percentage between the past one and you’ll see).
In other words it seems you spent most of your article saying why “Apple is killing Linux on the desktop” while you spent zero research or thought to actually verifying the truth value of the “Apple is killing Linux on the desktop” statement.
—
Is the mind behind Mac OS/X the same behind my ipod nano? That mp3 player that is harder to use than my brother’s Taiwanese mp3 player, that ipod nano that crashes all the time? Ok…
Linux has photoshop, about the other apps from adobe creative suite I am not too impresed, inkscape replaces illustrator nicely anyways, the others look totally useless for the average user. Microsoft office 2003 also runs in Linux, not that I ever needed it since I prefer OpenOffice. It is fun that apple’s success is so reliant not on apple but on other software companies…
I would love to test your favorite OS but I can’t run it in my computer, and I have no plans to buy another one.
On the other hand, Linux runs everywhere, could it be an ipod a palm, and old PC or a Mac computer…
—
This article just didn’t make any sense and shows very poor journalism, I request applematters to issue an apology for this.
I think Apple is more on the US market. If you see it worldwide, Linux is more important. In the EU, China, Russia the big migrations are always from Windows to Linux - never heard that a eg. a government or schools migrate desktops from Windows to Apple, on the other hand the administrations of many cities in Europe for example Munich 14000 desktops, Vienna 12000 desktops and so on migrate to Linux.
Hi All,
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Hey, both MAC and Linux are beating up on M$, especially since the launch (?) of Vi$ta.
I’m happily married to Linux and all those open source goodies. I’ve run M$ because it could do everything, but I could not run, through lack of experience, all that sat on my HDD.
Here I mean the Adobe suite. I can do Web Sites with Joomla!, post YouTube videos of my spinning 3D Linux Desktop, Forums with SMF, Blogs with a host of tools e.g. Wordpress, etc. I found my comfort zone, and this is with Linux Mint as my OS, and all those open source applications.
Hey, we are down and dirty, rip into everything that we can, and produce results. Linux has shown brilliant Desktop advances, and apparently so has the MAC.
I think that the argument that the MAC runs M$ Office is weak. So can Linux using Crossover Office. Besides that, we all run Open Office. Free, and open source.
BTW, from the Linux point of view - Games - are what seem to bother use. Although there are tons of Linux 3D FPS games out there. I’ve found a bunch. How does the MAC compare? If I have to, I’ll try using WINE. That is also free and open source.
The Mac is not getting the global response that Linux is as was stated above.
Great article! Let the Force be with us!
JJMacey
Phoenix, Arizona
When you look at the timetable and how often we se a new version of Ubuntu, I think that the day will come, where Ubuntu will have all the MacOS and Windows applications you where talking about. Maybe Wine will bring it some day. I think, Linux is faster in it’s evolution and nature will always give the first price to the one, who is the fastest
.
Great article, Chris and some great comments too. I think an interesting observation from a commenter concerns the success of Linux in the webserver space. Indeed Apple Matters has always been hosted on Red Hat Linux. When the site needed a dedicated server a few years ago I really wanted to have it served on a Mac but it just wasn’t realistic.
I, like many, am getting a little tired and bored with the notion of one operating system over all others. Each have their place, yes, even Windows. For example, if I was building a dental practice, and wanted to have a completely digital practice (digital xrays, monitors in rooms, integrated reservation and finance system, etc), I’d be hard pressed not to go Windows. If I was building a super-duper webhosting company from the ground-up I’d be dumb not to go with Linux.
Where does that leave the Mac? If I was starting an ad agency I’d be dumb not to go all Mac, and if I was looking for the best home computer experience I’d be dumb to not go Mac.
This is not to say that Mac’s don’t belong in server farms (they do for research), or in business (they are awesome business machines), it is just to say there is no one answer for anything and this is ok.
It doesn’t mean that Linux sucks and the Mac doesn’t. Or ever that Windows sucks anymore. It means they have their place.
Great article, Chris and some great comments too. I think an interesting observation from a commenter concerns the success of Linux in the webserver space. Indeed Apple Matters has always been hosted on Red Hat Linux. When the site needed a dedicated server a few years ago I really wanted to have it served on a Mac but it just wasn’t realistic.
I, like many, am getting a little tired and bored with the notion of one operating system over all others. Each have their place, yes, even Windows. For example, if I was building a dental practice, and wanted to have a completely digital practice (digital xrays, monitors in rooms, integrated reservation and finance system, etc), I’d be hard pressed not to go Windows. If I was building a super-duper webhosting company from the ground-up I’d be dumb not to go with Linux.
Where does that leave the Mac? If I was starting an ad agency I’d be dumb not to go all Mac, and if I was looking for the best home computer experience I’d be dumb to not go Mac.
This is not to say that Mac’s don’t belong in server farms (they do for research), or in business (they are awesome business machines), it is just to say there is no one answer for anything and this is ok.
It doesn’t mean that Linux sucks and the Mac doesn’t. Or ever that Windows sucks anymore. It means they have their place.
The numbers are from direct website access’ so this implies desktop access’. NOT SALES, NOT SERVERS! what part of “used to access the web” is unclear? Granted this is not necessarily an accurate web view as NA servers don’t necessarily accurately represent the net… But this is most definitely NOT Linux purchases!
Linux will never have more then a few percent (mostly geeks) as the UI cannot keep up with the start of the art defined (recently) by Apple. I used Windows for years and left in the late 90’s due to frustrations! The only thing more frustrating was the library incompatibilities found in Linux of the time (~1998). From the swaring I hear at work, this problem is not completely gone away even after all this time! That is why I left Linux for FreeBSD and was very happy there. When OSX came out I bought an iMac and have never looked back again for my desktop needs! And the fact that OSX is a full blown Unix OS is just icing on the cake! I use several Unix apps on my Mac’s (under X). The only thing I use FreeBSD is for my home server and my work workstation (we use PC hardware there and I can’t get the IT folks to budge on this).
Linux will never be a main stream desktop OS as long as the current development model is used. You have hundreds of distro’s with thousands of great developers using a shotgun approach to desktop applications… And they quit (for the most part) when the app is 90% complete! I can’t tell you how many apps I’ve installed that were almost there, just needing a few more tweeks and it would be great! But they never come… Very frustrating! there is great waste in time and effort using the current OSS methodology!
Krreagan
Hadley,
Out of curiosity, why was OSX not an option for hosting Apple Matters?
I’ve been thinking of getting an old G4 PowerMac and moving my home server to that system (currently on FreeBSD). I’ve checked and all the apps that I use are availble for OSX (Qmail, Courier-imap, Apache, Squirrel-Mail ...) I realize your app package is much different, but what kept you from using OSX?
Krreagan
Krregan,
Its not that it isn’t an option it is just that is isn’t as economically viable. Expression Engine, which Apple Matters, iPhone Matters and Macitt uses works fantastically under OS X, in face, I believe the developers of Expression Engine, by and large, use OS X to develop. What it does come down to is choice, the amount of OS X only dedicated server providers out there is minimal. And when it comes to getting a lot of traffic (say after hitting digg page 1 or slashdot like we did yesterday) having a well-tuned architecture is important. The simple fact is that there are just more software packages and expertise out there with tuning PHP on the Linux platform. As I said, if the numbers worked, and the technology worked, I would host my sites on a Maccentric host. However, hardware is only one component of hosting, there is service, pricing, etc.
Let’s make clear a few assumptions before I proceed with my argument.
I find these to be true and often take them to be facts, and they line
up with my experience well. First: people don’t choose Microsoft
Windows, they choose to buy a computer, and monopolistically Windows
is included. Secondly, as a consequence most people see buying a
computer and buying an operating system (plus a lot of other software)
as the same act. Since Apple, Inc is a hardware company that sells
its software on its own proprietary hardware, people see two
alternatives in the market, typically Dell and Apple. The two options
are hardware-software bundles, though the former is not inextricably
linked to the software it sells with. The important thing is that
this is not a choice of quality, it’s a choice of aesthetic; it’s a
choice between “Hi, I’m a Mac, and I’m a [boring] PC.”
So let’s accept that people who are buying new computers are buying
either a new computer with Windows or a new computer with OS X. In
this scenario are they going to choose Linux? No. Linux is not an
option. Most people, including people who consider themselves
technically highly knowledgeable do not even know about Linux.
Perhaps people who read computer magazines do know about Linux but
there are plenty of reasons not to choose Linux. There are the
software options that you listed, but most of all there’s this: people
view OS X and Windows as “user-friendly” and Linux as weird and
unusable. The Linux Desktop Myth
(http://www.psychocats.net/essays/linuxdesktopmyth) makes the most
compelling case for this. Linux may never be big on the desktop
because monopolies such as Microsoft are a logical consequence of
buying into the idea of proprietary software development (what Eric
Raymond calls “the manufacturing delusion”).
On top of that, most of the time we’re not even talking about
technical “power” users. We’re talking about people who think
Microsoft Office is an operating system. They’ve never bought a
computer that didn’t come with Windows pre-installed. If they’ve ever
used another operating system, it was MacOS of one variety or another,
and they may have liked it, but it wasn’t all that different since it
was still loaded up with Microsoft software. They may have even heard
about open source or free software because of Firefox, but since they
don’t understand what an operating system is, they’re not going to
switch to a different one, even if the idea of free-of-charge software
appeals to them.
People who switch are people like me. People who were almost
successfully brainwashed by the Microsoft monopoly; but for the
glaring fact that their software sucks, I was always on they lookout
for an alternative. I thought I had one alternative:
Macintosh. That’s because Apple is a monopoly, too! They struggle to
maintain the monopoly over the alternatives to Windows, and of course,
they do a pretty good job. They advertise, they use DRM and all the
proprietary tricks—- the same ones as Microsoft—- to maintain the
Rebel Monopoly.
Unfortunately for Apple, there are also people like me: people who
don’t think OS X is a real alternative, because it’s not Unix enough.
Luckily I found out about Linux and since I had previous Unix
experience, I knew I could use it, and I switched as soon as it became
practical. I was astounded at the variety, availability and quality
of the free and open source software I found. I repeatedly marvel at
how good all this stuff is; whenever I touch a Mac or a Windows
computer, I’m reminded of why I switched. And even as technically
knowledgeable as I was, I never knew about it; no one ever said
anything about it to me. It’s that hidden.
So your article makes some good points, and is overall correct;
however you’re yet another prophet of doom for Unix, just another in a
long line that stretches back to the beginnings of Unix, almost forty
years ago. But Unix will not die, no matter how small its user base,
in any market (desktop vs. server) because it appeals to people who
think a certain way and it’s better than anything else out there.
People who proudly use Linux on the desktop are bound to not care. I
care about your article because hopefully some Apple cultists will
hear about Linux from it. I’m sure there are some among you who feel
just like me, and you should try Linux.