On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 11:24:01 -0500, Linonut wrote:
> * Kelsey Bjarnason fired off this tart reply:
>
>> As far as I'm aware, nobody has undertaken an actually meaningful attempt
>> to establish usage about all we get, usually, is some bonehead comparing
>> "market share" based on revenues - which is stupid ...
>
> Actually, for most purposes, companies care only about the revenue
> measurements. So there's some logic there.
Some, perhaps, but not _good_ logic.
Consider: analyst A pokes around, sees Linux amounts for, say, 2% total OS
revenues and writes it off. Analyst B counts seats - as much as he can,
at least - sees say 5% usage and contemplates that this is both large
enough to be worth some effort, and apparently growing. Let us not forget
the example of the Mac - it, too, was a perennial bit player, yet
generated considerable revenues for interested parties.
So which analyst is going to get the lion's share of the Linux market for
his app or service? It certainly won't be the first one - despite his
"correct" analysis based on revenues.
> Where I think they make the mistake, though, is that they miss the
> measurements that would indicate a very large potential market for
> Linux-based products and services.
Zackly. You can't count dollars on a product which is by and large free
you have to "count noses" - but you have to do so meaningfully.
> It would seem that DELL and Walmart, among others are waking up to the
> market potential of the GNU/Linux population.
And their units - Walmart's, at least - apparently sold out almost
immediately. Whether this is because people want _Linux_ or because they
want _inexpensive_ and this means forget Windows, who knows, but the fact
is the beasts are selling.
> Microsoft will not go quietly into the night.
>
> And that's actually a good thing, as it keeps up the pressure for
> quality.
On the principle that an opponent with a limp noodle keeps the pressure on
to keep your sword sharpened?
