Windows 8 March, 2014 Market share

Sales of PCs are down. That's not news. Of course, the reasons haven't changed. The core issues are iOS and Android. As people moved day-to-day tasks to tablets and smartphones, they started needing to replace PCs less often. If people replace PCs every four years instead of every two, PC sales drop 50% even though everyone still has a PC somewhere in their household. The fact that many Core 2 Duo machines are still running well today only amplifies the issue (like my wife's 2008 Macbook Pro, still chugging along with a third battery and a second HDD but otherwise 2008 parts).

Should Microsoft have made the UI of Win8 more flexible? Sure. My own devices in my sig demonstrate the issue: Windows 8.1 is breathtaking on a device like the Duo 11 and "meh, works just fine once you change some settings" on the traditional F23. But that's not the core issue here. Start menu, start screen, start hologram, start puppy...it doesn't matter, so long as people are moving their day-to-day tasks to iOS and Android and replacing their traditional PCs less and less often, PC sales are going to decrease. They're not going to decrease to zero, because people still use 'em, but as replacement cycles get longer and longer, PC sales will remain slow.

So these monthly posts for the past two years attract off-topic discussion more and more quickly each month because the on-topic discussion has been rehashed over and over and over.

 

Ok, so what would be an appropriate response to your "Market Share" reports?

You seem to be just baiting us, to somehow prove you wrong. Ok,ok, the market share is down! I give up. So, does that make you feel any better? You lay into any poster who deviates from your point of view. Would you have issued me a pass, were I to say "Yeah, hey der, they really messed up Windows by making/forcing us to use 8, for sure" in my post? As I've said, I've been in your "boat" for over forty years, and most of the corporations, and governments (to include the Army Security Agency, and NSA) I worked for, didn't use MS for any type of their mission critical computer systems. Even IBM uses a Unix based OS to control their firmware on their mid-range power 7 systems. We built the programs from the ground up, using FORTRAN > Cobol > RPG > RPG III > Java > PHP > C > C++ > C# > html5, and so on, and so on. I pity the fool who runs their business only with MS Servers, and their cloud computing. So it makes sense if Win 8 is not universally adopted for these critical platforms. Even when I had a Windows machine sitting at my desk, it was only there to interface/display my IBM Client Access software, to control the CL (Command Language) that the Power 7 was operating under.

If you ask me, all of the current crop, of commercially available systems, are only being produced to enhance some users gaming bench mark, or to gobble up the ton of video/audio files that the young user set so desperately need. That, along with a much easier interface to their social media sites, and you have the real market share MS is going after. Real business does not eat quiche.

I guess the point is, what is your point?

It's certainly not to "debate" why their market share is down. You already have that answer, or so you think. It could be the debacle you call Win 8. It could also be that the market has become saturated, with more choices, less consumer interest, and tight economic conditions.

So what is "on topic" for your monthly report? It just can't be, so you can have an exchange with the usual suspects. What would be in one of your "long, unpolluted threads"? Play your own devils advocate. Give me one example of a proper response to your reporting. I've read every month, and I mostly agree with Mitlov. Are those the kind of "on topic" replies that you want? A few pages back, I remember a lively discussion about image dithering. Was that on topic?

I'm not trying to "shoot the messenger", but I'm wondering what happened when Chicken Little met Foxey Loxey, and "They all go in the Foxes den, but they never, never come out again."

You'll have to excuse my posts today. I'm really not trying to flame your reporting. I really had a very bad day. I shouldn't have hijacked your thread with my insane/inane post about my experience with Windows. Fuget about it! I truly apologize for the intrusion.

Carry on with spreading the good word. :hi2:

Outta here.. :SLEEP:

 

I am sure it works well on proper tablets and may even hold some wow factor, I think I would have held it short of being breathtaking though. I am not pointing to sales figures but to market saturation. This is why I chose this data to begin with, how well it is at replacing other OS's not its actual sale figures. Windows 7 did well to replace the prior vista and to some extent XP very quickly. IMHO is it would have done much better in the same quest if the UI were better accepted by the consumer. I know myself and quite a few others locally that would have done so either on their present systems or with the purchase of new hardware. On the same point I know of quite a few as well that have avoided new purchases just because of windows 8 specifically.

Actually I find they attract less off topic each month, but it usually sneaks in somewhere. What seems to draw in more off topic is as each update iteration does not do its promised fix for desktop users. So again the message is slow market acceptance of the OS not slow PC sales.

Edit;
I'll apologize, I am not trying to lay into anyone. I never said ANY of your points are invalid, not a single one. Others here I am sure will but like yours, that is their opinions. Not trying to rub it in other than the fact IMHO it could have been way different. if for whatever reason Windows 8 all of a sudden becomes a success I will be posting that as well. Do I get pleasure from the failure, absolutely not! I wanted, even from the time of the beta, for the OS and UI to be a success.

as far as a proper response, I am not sure what is appropriate so long as it is somewhat on topic, maybe such as my last link?

 

Two things really hurt PC sales. The first one was the move by game developers moving to consoles and Xbox Live. The was the first silent kill for PC sales. All of those frequent updates by gamers to buy the biggest and best CPU along with the best videocards went to purchase a PS3 and Xbox 360. Within a few years in the life cycle it put a lot of pressure on the market.

The final blow was Apple. Once people began to use smartphones and tablets became mainstream it was over for the PC industry because what a good portion of people do on PC's translates even better on tablets.

So now the PC industry is left with it's core base when it first started out back in the early 80's and I was a part of that trend. The industry basically now caters to essentially professionals, techies, developers/programmers.

At least Steam is still helping the PC industry chug along but to show the state of the industry, Microsoft shuttered Games for Windows Live and Steam is moving away from Windows with their SteamOS.

 

This only has a temporary effect. Every console iteration starts out as the console being superior, PC gaming is dead, etc. Then a year goes by and that console is already starting to show its age, while the new graphics cards are absolutely stunning in whatever new PC game. You would have a hard time convincing people in say, 2004, or 2012, that consoles were superior to PCs. This is despite the PC market getting more and more badly ported console games (complete with "press Start button to play" type stuff).

Oddly enough I did not hear any PC death knells from the console fans this time around.

 

Prior to the Xbox 360 and PS3 you could walk into any retailer like Best Buy, Circuit City or Gamestop and find shelves of PC games. After the launch of those consoles it was a short time after, that Gamestop got out of the PC games business and switched to consoles.

Back in the late 80's and early 90's saw a massive jump in PC popularity because of games like Microsoft Flight Simulator, Falcon Flight Sim, Madden, Links golf, Doom, Wolfenstein 3D. That's when PC's saw massive gains with people either buying new systems or upgrading parts. I saw it all back then because I was a service tech for several major computer mfgs who specialized in data centers and introduced their line of PC's.

And I saw the interest in PC's because most had no clue what to do with it other than to play games on their PC's. It all went away when consoles became the go to format for gaming content. So I disagree, it had a HUGE impact once game developers made the switch to consoles.

 

If someone prefers to do their day-to-day casual computing on an iPad or Android device, saving PCs for occasional use only--and more and more people are doing that--then no desktop user interface is going to convince them to buy a five pound laptop instead of an iPad. Not Win7, not Win8, not OSX, not Ubuntu.

There's two explanations for the decline of PC sales. One of which is that people are upset about the Windows 8 UI and thus not buying x86 laptops and desktops. The other is that people are moving more and more computing to mobile, extending PC replacement cycles. How do we know which of these is the real reason behind PC sales? Well, if it was the former, you would see non-Win8 sales rise dramatically--namely OSX, Ubuntu, etc. If it's the latter, you would expect non-Win8 desktop OSes to also have had a couple of rough years, and mobile device sales to have skyrocketed.

Here's what's been happening to Mac for the past two years. In January 2013, Mac sales were down 21%. Further sliding was recorded later that year. If demand for PCs wasn't declining regardless of the specific desktop interface, OSX sales should have raised dramatically over the past two years instead of declining.

Meanwhile, 2013 was the year of the meteoric rise of the Android tablet. Over 120 million Android tablets were sold in 2013, double the previous year. Source. Although Android tablet sales surpassed iPad sales, that's not because iPad sales were down; iPad sales were up as well.

Comparing the sales rates of Windows 7 and Windows 8 is a complete apples-and-oranges discussion, because neither iOS nor Android tablets existed when Windows 7 hit the market. People primarily used PCs for everything from social networking to email to web browsing back then. That's no longer the case, and that's going to have a very serious impact on how often PCs are replaced (and thus how quickly PCs are selling).

And if someone prefers to use an iPad for day-to-day tasks, a Windows 7 interface in Windows 8 wouldn't convince them to buy a new PC instead of a new tablet. The lack of Aero Glass and lack of a tiered-menu launcher in Win8 are simply not the core issues driving increased tablet sales and decreased PC sales.

 

PC games have switched to mostly online distribution. Console games still have a place on shelves (though lots of game are now available for digital download).

PCs of the late 80's and early 90's were very expensive and had rudimentary graphics and sound. In 1988 a Commodore 64 could kill an IBM 286 for gaming, both on cost and function (without an expensive monitor.. just plug it into your TV). Heck, a Nintendo Entertainment System easily outdid a PC back then. You're talking about a time when hard disks were still "optional" and sound cards were few and far between. I did my time on the PS/2s and Compaqs of the day, it's not unknown to me. To get my first PC I had to take out a bank loan, they were THAT expensive.

In the early 90's the cost of PCs dropped, and sound cards and CD ROM drives started to introduce the concept of multimedia. Between 93-95 was the sweet spot, when computer shows started attracting non-nerds, and the Doom shareware rush drew people to PCs. PC graphics were still pretty horrible before the Voodoo 1 came along in ~1997.

Super Mario Brothers didn't destroy PC gaming. Neither did Gran Tourismo. Nor Sonic the Hedgehog. It wasn't undone by Street Fighter, or Soul Calibur, or Metal Gear.

It won't be affected by anything now. Because whatever Civilization game they make for consoles will suck.

 

It has but it's also made PC gaming even more niche. We'll just agree to disagree but IMO PC games pushed 3Dfx, Voodoo, Rendition, ATI to make better and better videocards which in turn made Intel keep churning out faster and faster CPU's and Microsoft had to keep up as well with their OS's. Which in turn pushed the industry forward and into acceptance in homes. Gaming was a catalyst for the PC market.

I remember either upgrading or buying a new PC every 8-12 months just so I could play the latest games from Origin like Strike Commander, then it was Flight Sim 5.0 (man I sunk a lot of money trying to make that game run good) and then it was Falcon 3.0

PC gaming was a money pit for me and i'm sure Gateway 2000 was grateful for my business. All my friends who owned a PC were just using them to play games.