So far, the most impressive phenomenon is not the level of accuracy/inaccuracy that these figures show, but the extreme silence that has followed it. Unlike what happened all the previous months, in which (Windows-friendly?) journalists used to trumpet the slight market share gains of Windows 8 in virtually every tech news site, right now you can barely find articles about this phenomenon.
Does that mean that, when it comes to Windows 8, a gain of 0.25 deserves a lot of press, but a gigantic market share drop (apparently caused by Windows XP!) is not interesting enough to be discussed or investigated?
So far, you can count with your fingers the articles about this situation:
1. Windows 8 core: Although based in the stats that, as other people like to call it, "had a glitch", this article says the loss Windows 8.1 is "probably the biggest loss in market share since its launch back in October 2013", but it does not go beyond that. Doesn't that deserve a little attention or something? Apparently, not for this writer.
2. Winbeta: This was the best! The writer said that the drop was caused by Windows 10!! Of course, the article was based on the old, "wrong" numbers. Then, when the problem with the figures surfaced, the writer published a very informative "update":
Net Applications has published new revised stats, according to which, Windows 7 holds 56.26% of market share, while Windows XP, which Microsoft stopped providing support for last year, has climbed up to 18.26% of usage. Similarly, Windows 8 now has 4.03% of the market dominance, and Windows 8.1 is now powering 9.49% of systems.
Way to go! That's all? He didn't even bother to modify the flamboyant title:
Desktop market share of Windows 8 and Windows 8.1 suffers as Windows 10 gains tractionI have been questioning this situation at Winbeta, and, besides getting one of my comments censored (I didn't offend anyone; I just pointed people to my compilation of numbers), I've received several replies from other people. Most of them, if not all, are full of technical info explaining why I should understand that the "NT/XP" fiasco was a "glitch", but none to clarify why the big tech sites are not buzzing with activity, either investigating what happened with XP or with Windows 8. Let's put it easily: Readers need to be informed about what is going on. If the press does not inform, then silence itself becomes informative.
3. Techradar: This site suggests (with disbelief) that the big loss was caused by Chromebooks. Why not? That makes sense...at least it does more than saying that it was XP that caused Windows 8's significant market share loss!
4. Investors: This article uses the "corrected" data. Instead of deepening into the issue at question (the severe and "embarrassing" market share loss of Windows 8), the writer devotes half of the note to praise the beauties of Windows 10. Please, that one has not even been released! Can't we talk about the issues we are seeing now?
5. Windows Central: In this one, the whole issue of Windows 8's shameful market share numbers is dismissed to favor Windows 10. Wow! A 0.06 growth of an experimental build (Windows 10, nowadays) is more important than the gigantic loss of the OS people are currently being FORCED to use, as it comes pre-installed in virtually every single PC? (except Italy: BRAVO ITALIANS! HATS OFF TO YOU!!)
Why are writers doing this? Are readers stupid?
Oh, the beauty of irony comes next! Zdnet, traditionally favorable to Microsoft, comes to the rescue! Ed Bott's article there criticizes the numbers and even goes beyond that. He claims that "if the companies involved won't stop publishing this silly data, maybe it's time for the tech press to stop playing along and retire those monthly reports."
Is this a claim for silence? :P You know, some people could take this wrongly. After all, it seems a very clever way to tell tech journalists to stay put when the numbers don't favor Microsoft.
But I think Mr.Bott totally hit the nail in his article.
The problem is that this is what Linux and MacOS users have been saying over and over, that these sites are biased and that their methods are flawed... so the credit is not for Mr.Bott. Sorry.
Now, food for thought. Since when were the numbers flawed? Just December? November? Or was it from the beginning?
Maybe Mr.Bott and all the other tech journalists will want to investigate that now that they will have a lot of free time (because they won't have to be writing those annoying monthly reports about market share!) :)
I sincerely hope so. Let those "tech" journalists write real articles and not those Microsoft advertisements in disguise they have been feeding us with.
DISCLAIMER: Maybe the lack of press surrounding this issue is because journalists at tech sites are on vacation! ^__^