Here's a wild idea: how about we accept that the Statcounter data just isn't any good, should not be used as the basis of any kind of journalism, and definitely

Here's a wild idea: how about we accept that the Statcounter data just isn't any good, should not be used as the basis of any kind of journalism, and definitely shouldn't be amplified by social media? It's incredibly flaky and volatile data gathered by a tracking company with undisclosed methodology. It's rare that a month goes by without clickbait articles about small fluctuations in the data showing up on HN. And that the data is obviously trash. Computers last for years and updates aren't synchronized, so the stats should have a lot of momentum, with changes in sales taking years to materialize as usage share. That's not true of Statcounter's data. Like, just look at the stats for the last year: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide/#monthly-202303-202404 https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide... Does anyone honestly believe that OS X market share dropped from 21% to 16% in a month? Even the idea is absurd. The fluctuations in "Unknown" operating systems dwarf literally every change that these articles get written about. Or drilling in deeper, Windows 8.1 was supposedly 6% of US Windows usage in January, but <1% two months before or after. Garbage. Data.