6 ms·

Goldman Sachs: Windows' true market share is just 20%

88 points by Cbasedlifeform 14y ago

tzs 14y ago
Earlier post about same underlying story, take from a different site: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4904151 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4904151
codeulike 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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 14y ago
      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 14y ago
        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.
bobsoap 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    Can you define what a computing device is, per say?
    - ucee054 14y ago
      per SE
    - belorn 14y ago
      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.
      - 14y ago
DougWebb 14y ago
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 14y ago
  The article specifically talks about the "global computing market" ... So it's referring to market share, not number of devices. Nothing misleading here.
  - highwind 14y ago
    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 14y ago
      "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.
recoiledsnake 14y ago
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-201111-201211 http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_vs_desktop-ww-monthly-2011... 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-morgan-stanley-are-backing-the-truck-up-for-nokia-shares http://seekingalpha.com/article/1023231-goldman-sachs-and-mo... Then we have the Register writing flamebait articles with linkbait headlines, completing the circle of worthless blogspam flamebait junk.
- lutze 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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 14y ago
      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.
kalleboo 14y ago
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.png http://regmedia.co.uk/2012/12/13/goldman_platform_chart_lg.p...
- chris_p 14y ago
  The iPod, maybe?
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- Smirnoff 14y ago
  Most probably iPods. They were selling like hot cakes in those years.
- Rexxar 14y ago
  They probably changed their methodology but forgot to say it.
  - aleyan 14y ago
    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.
- jwoah12 14y ago
  There's no way they could possibly consider that generation of iPods "computing devices."
dlokshin 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    Wow. RIM hadn't even entered my thought process. Funny how quickly things change.
desmondmonster 14y ago
"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 14y ago
  "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 14y ago
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.
Quarrelsome 14y ago
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.
snake_plissken 14y ago
"if you don't know, now you know" whatever Goldman says, do the opposite.
talmand 14y ago
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.
newishuser 14y ago
Why would anyone trust that statistics released by Goldman Sachs weren't designed to manipulate the market in their favour?
epa 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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...
dragonbonheur 14y ago
Goldman Sachs: the crooks that funded Spinvox. Absolute frauds and liars.
meric 14y ago
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?

tzs 14y ago

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

codeulike 14y ago

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 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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 14y ago
      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.

bobsoap 14y ago

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 14y ago
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 14y ago
  Can you define what a computing device is, per say?
  - ucee054 14y ago
    per SE
  - belorn 14y ago
    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.
    - 14y ago

DougWebb 14y ago

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 14y ago
The article specifically talks about the "global computing market" ... So it's referring to market share, not number of devices. Nothing misleading here.
- highwind 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    "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.

recoiledsnake 14y ago

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-201111-201211 http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_vs_desktop-ww-monthly-2011... 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-morgan-stanley-are-backing-the-truck-up-for-nokia-shares http://seekingalpha.com/article/1023231-goldman-sachs-and-mo... Then we have the Register writing flamebait articles with linkbait headlines, completing the circle of worthless blogspam flamebait junk.

lutze 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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.

kalleboo 14y ago

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.png http://regmedia.co.uk/2012/12/13/goldman_platform_chart_lg.p...

chris_p 14y ago
The iPod, maybe?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
Smirnoff 14y ago
Most probably iPods. They were selling like hot cakes in those years.
Rexxar 14y ago
They probably changed their methodology but forgot to say it.
- aleyan 14y ago
  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.
jwoah12 14y ago
There's no way they could possibly consider that generation of iPods "computing devices."

dlokshin 14y ago

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 14y ago
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 14y ago
  Wow. RIM hadn't even entered my thought process. Funny how quickly things change.

desmondmonster 14y ago

"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 14y ago
"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 14y ago

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.

Quarrelsome 14y ago

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.

snake_plissken 14y ago

"if you don't know, now you know" whatever Goldman says, do the opposite.

talmand 14y ago

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.

newishuser 14y ago

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

epa 14y ago

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 14y ago
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 14y ago
  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...

dragonbonheur 14y ago

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

meric 14y ago

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?