XPost: comp.sys.mac.advocacy   
   From: recscuba_google@huntzinger.com   
      
   On 1/14/26 20:12, CrudeSausage wrote:   
   > On Wed, 14 Jan 2026 17:11:07 -0500, -hh wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 1/13/26 17:29, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:   
   >>> On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 15:54:46 -0500, -hh wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> On 1/13/26 14:46, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> If you take Steam usage as a proxy for market share, then macOS has   
   >>>>> long been left in the dust by Linux.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Steam isn't required to run Microsoft Office, Adobe, etc.   
   >>>   
   >>> Given how minuscule Adobe’s market share is, I would say that is an   
   >>> even less useful proxy for overall market share.   
   >>   
   >> Adobe had over 40M paid subscribers in 2025.  That alone is already   
   >> 55%-70% of the estimates for the total Linux PC user base, plus there's   
   >> also Adobe's free reader products that many additional PC users will   
   >> have installed.  Its therefore reasonable to conclude that there's more   
   >> Adobe users (paid+free) than there are total Linux PC users.   
   >   
   > Admittedly, Adobe has no reason to even consider catering to the Linux   
   > userbase. Companies have actually tried to sell their software to Linux   
   > users in the past, and they've been attacked by some disreputable people   
   > for not providing the code. Considering the circumstances, I can imagine   
   > their reluctance to try again.   
      
   Agreed, although that wasn't really the point of mentioning Adobe here:   
   it was to note that if the argument is that Adobe is "minuscule" then   
   because of comparable magnitude, then Linux is too.   
      
      
      
   >>>> Effectively, Steam is a platform for PC based gaming.  For all of   
   >>>> those PCs which aren't used for games, Steam's OS shares are   
   >>>> irrelevant.   
   >>>   
   >>> Nevertheless, if you’re trying to argue that the proportion of Mac   
   >>> users running Steam is less than that for desktop Linux users, then   
   >>> you’re trying to argue that Mac users are less fun-loving than desktop   
   >>> Linux users. Do you think that’s a credible argument?   
   >>   
   >> I think it bears looking into, yes.  As I already had noted about there   
   >> being likely correlations on games vs OS use on customer demographics.   
   >>   
   >> For example, Linux users trend heavily male, hardcore PC gamers trend   
   >> male too...but Mac OS consumers are biased female.  Smoking gun?   
   >   
   > I know for a fact that there is genuine interest from Mac users to play   
   > games on their machines. However, most Mac users usually surrender to the   
   > fact that their hardware wasn't conceived with gaming in mind.   
      
   Which as per Steam's reported statistics, roughly 3% of them do game,   
   and if one runs the numbers for Linux PC users, its ~7%.  Since both   
   numbers are single digits, is this proof that both sets of users have   
   'surrendered'?  Or just that there's also market competition from non-PC   
   hardware based games (X-Box, etc)?  I doubt that it matters, because   
   that's reverting to the lame old "Mac vs Linux PC" fanboy wars.   
      
      
   >>>> With reportedly ~100M active Mac users ...   
   >>>   
   >>> That’s pretty unlikely. That could only happen if Mac users are keeping   
   >>> their machines in use for, say, an average of a decade.   
   >>   
   >> Nowhere close to a decade, because Apple reports quarterly sales in the   
   >> 6-7M range, which is ~25M/yr, so 100M units took just four (4) years of   
   >> sales.   
   >>   
   >> Similarly, even if one adjusts sales down to 5M/quarter for 20M/yr to   
   >> claim that it requires five years of sales, that's been achieved too,   
   >> because Apple hasn't had a quarter where they reported less than 5M in   
   >> sales since June 2018...and seven years at 5M/Q = 140M units.   
   >   
   > I would suggest that there are probably a lot more Apple users today than   
   > there were even a decade ago, especially now that people have had a long   
   > period of time to try Android and realize that it isn't a paradise of milk   
   > and honey either. Android manufacturers only recently starting supporting   
   > their units for more than two years. In fact, only a few of them do.   
   > Meanwhile, Apple has been good about supporting their hardware for at   
   > least seven years. That's why I got an iPhone myself.   
      
   Probably; its been years since I've bothered to keep track.  Ditto with   
   smartphone OS's.   
      
      
   >>> Given how short Apple’s backward-compatibility window is, they would   
   >>> have to demonstrate a stubbornness and an independence of mind which is   
   >>> not at all characteristic of Mac users.   
   >>   
   >> Irrelevant, because Apple's support policy is a minimum of five (5)   
   >> years since last sold, and per the above, sales volumes to have 100M   
   >> units have very readily met that.   
   >   
   > You're actually selling them short.   
      
   Oh, I agree that it is a conservative lowball estimate, as that was all   
   that was necessary to debunk Larry.   
      
      
   > On my $30, 2013 MacBook Air, I notice that the latest update it received   
   > was dated 2020. Seven years is more accurate.   
      
   Fair enough & agreed.  I used what Apple's policy is for minimum, not   
   what they typically exceed that by.  My last Mac tower was a 2012 and it   
   is currently running 10.12.6 from 2019 = 7 years.   
      
   > That's not to say that a system released seven years after the   
   > machine was sold will run all too well on hardware with only 4GB of RAM,   
   > but that's still a long support time. I'm used to the PC side where   
   > manufacturers forget they ever built the hardware you bought the moment   
   > you take it out of the box. I'm exaggerating, but it really feels like   
   > that.   
      
    From a business use case perspective, PCs (& Macs) are assets which   
   have a 5 year/60 month depreciation allowance, so their cost is written   
   off over six tax years (five years, if one bought exactly in January).   
   After that point, any remaining life is gravy.  Ditto residual value   
   (FYI, Fed tax rules changed on 'trade ins': their value is no longer   
   invisibly subtracted off to a Net, but is separately itemized).   
      
      
   >>>> ... and 2.18% of them on Steam per your cite ...   
   >>>   
   >>> Basic arithmetic trouble? That’s 2.18% of Steam users being on macOS,   
   >>> not 2.18% of macOS users being on Steam.   
   >>   
   >> No, not a math error at all:  2.18% of 132M Steam users = 2.8776M, which   
   >> I rounded to 2.9M:  "...this suggests ~2.9M active Mac+Steam users..."   
   >>   
   >> And of the estimated 100M Mac active user base, that 2.9M active   
   >> Mac+Steam users is 2.9M/100M = 0.029 = "which is ~3% of the Mac users."   
   >>   
   >>> The most reasonable conclusion doesn’t change: macOS market share   
   >>> has declined to well below that of desktop Linux.   
   >>   
   >> MacOS marketshare on Steam, sure, but there's data sources other than   
   >> Steam, and as I've already noted (twice now) there's likely differences   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)