PC operating systems (single user)

Microsoft dominance. Been that way for a long time.

Usage share of PC operating systems, 2009.
Microsoft near-monopoly.
Stats from marketshare.hitslink.com.
Pie chart generated with piecolor.com.
See also Cybernet News.



Usage share of operating systems, 2009.
From StatCounter.com (and see their main site).

PC operating systems

Why did the Mac lose (and Microsoft win)?

DOS and Windows, despite being harder to use than the Apple Mac, soundly defeated the Mac in sales in the late 1980s and early 1990s. By the mid-1990s, the competition was over. Microsoft had won. And it is still dominant today.

The paradox is not why the techies did not use the Mac (I used DOS because it had a command-line). The paradox is why ordinary corporate and home users did not buy the Mac, which would have made their lives much easier.

The docudrama Pirates of Silicon Valley (1999).

Why did the Mac lose? Explanation 1 - "The Paradox of Beauty"

David Gelernter has an interesting theory in The Aesthetics of Computing, 1998 (Ch.2, "The Paradox of Beauty"). He suggests that Windows won because the Mac was too easy to use, at a time when computers were meant to be hard to use.

He makes the comparison with cars, where every advance in ease-of-use, such as electric starters and even closed tops, was resisted by the "macho" car culture, which preferred cars to be hard to use. We see this even today, where computerised control in cars is resisted especially by Europeans, who prefer to do by hand many absurd and tedious jobs - such as managing the clutch and engine speeds - that could easily be handled by a computer.

It could well be argued that even today, for most users Windows is harder to use than the Mac, and people who buy the Mac are being quite sensible.

Why did the Mac lose? Explanation 2 - It was not a better interface for power users

For me, UNIX is easier to use than either the Mac or DOS/Windows because of its powerful programmable command-line. I didn't actually find the Mac easy to use, since it didn't allow me write short command-line scripts.

This leads to another reason why the Mac may have failed: It was too extremist in having (until Mac OS X) no command-line at all, and forcing you to use windows and menus instead of just having it as an option. The Mac had an extremist philosophy, whereas DOS/Windows and UNIX were more tolerant of multiple different styles of interface. I say that the Mac is a better user interface, but of course I'm saying (patronisingly) that it's a better interface for other people. I don't really believe it's a better interface for me.

So maybe the Mac lost because it lost the power users, who preferred UNIX and DOS throughout the 1980s. Not because they were being macho, but because no-command-line really isn't a good interface for power users.

However, the rest of the world can be accused of being irrational for following the power users' line.

Apple Introduces Revolutionary New Laptop With No Keyboard, from The Onion, pokes fun at "extremist" user interfaces.
I love the Steve Jobs quote that people who use keyboards are "standing in the way of human progress".

Why did the Mac lose? Other explanations

  1. Apple OS tied to Apple hardware. Microsoft OS still allows you choice of hardware companies.
  2. (Related to above:) PCs tended to be cheaper than Apples.

  3. Can you think of other reasons?

Operating Systems - A natural monopoly?

Because the OS is so fundamental to all applications, there is a tendency to standardise on an agreed OS. This can be done 2 ways:

  1. An openly agreed, open-source standard developed by co-operation among many organisations, like HTML, XML, and indeed most of the protocols on the Internet.
    It is possible (indeed, likely) that in the long-term there will be such an international standard for an agreed "virtual Operating System".

    or:

  2. One organisation gaining a monopoly, e.g. Microsoft Windows, and everyone agreeing to use their products. This will normally be closed-source.

In both cases, all applications run on a common platform.

The disadvantage of the 2nd case is that you are at the mercy of whatever the monopolist decides to give you.

Usage share of Web browsers, 2009.
Microsoft dominance, but not total monopoly. (Q. Why?)
From here.



Usage share of Web browsers, 2009.
From StatCounter.com (and see their main site).

Free Enterprise

Free enterprise works because competition leads to better products and better choice.

Sometimes, in rare circumstances, this doesn't work, and, for whatever reason, the market turns into a monopoly in which there is seemingly no competition.

For example, who outside Microsoft believes that Word, Excel and IE gained their dominance in the word processor, spreadsheet and browser markets (respectively) by simply being the best products? Rather, these products gained it largely because they came from the company that made the Operating System. No one else had a chance. The latecomer Internet Explorer's rapid and total defeat of the pioneer Netscape is just the most spectacular example of this. Once something is bundled with the OS, competition in that market segment is effectively over, no matter how much of a late entry Microsoft was.

There is a strong case that this is one of those situations where government should intervene to try to restore some competition in the industry.

But what should they do?

Should the state intervene in the OS market?

The state might consider the following options.
  1. The OS monopoly cannot be ended easily. The market is probably a natural monopoly anyway. One could in theory force Microsoft to make the OS open-source, but that would be fairly extreme.

  2. Another solution: Allow Microsoft keep their OS monopoly, but open up the application markets to competition.
    This could be done two ways:

    1. Break up the company into the OS, and the rest.
      This sounds extreme, but was done before with AT&T.
      This would be good for the consumer, and good for the computer industry. It would lead to massively increased competition and diversity, and better and cheaper products for consumers.
      For instance, one of the first things we will see is proper versions of Word, Excel and IE for UNIX, Linux and Mac:

    2. A less extreme solution: Open up the file formats, so it is easy to build replacement apps for Word and Excel etc. that are compatible with them.
      This is a far less drastic solution.
      In fact, this is happening. Microsoft has been pressured to open its formats due to antitrust cases, and governments (and companies) being increasingly unwilling to store their official documents in a secret format.

      • OpenOffice - Word and Excel compatible suite for Mac, Linux, UNIX.

      • Microsoft Office 2010 will include free online versions of Word, Excel, PowerPoint. Microsoft clearly worried about losing business to Google Docs. But how will Microsoft make money from this?