But the issue here is that you are comparing fundamentally different pieces of technology, and yes, yes, a smart phone is a computer too, but I don't see anyone using them for general purpose computing right now and to be honest, I don't see it any time in the future.

Go in to any office, literally, any office, and you won't find anyone working on an iPad or their Samsung Galaxy, they will be working on a PC or a laptop, most likely running Windows and for the most part they are happy with it.

Comparing the sales of Windows against the sales of Android is like comparing the sales of Toasters against the sales of Microwaves, sure, they might be at some level similar appliances but they are used for completely different reasons.

A smartphone is used for consumption, it is a luxury most people have or aspire to have and while the PC or Laptop may fall in to that department at home, in the office, they are used for creation (except from when we are bored of course...) and for the foreseeable future, that's how things will remain until the space is completely "disrupted" (whatever that means.)

I'm going to put it like this, I don't live in Silicone Valley, I live in a small town in the north of the UK, and every person I know and who's house I have been to. Every single one has both a smart phone and a PC, that's not just me saying it, that's every single person.

The reason why the numbers are so different is something crucial and so simple that we always seem to overlook it:

Normal people[1] only need one computer for their home and they share it, but they want to be in contact with their family via phones at all times, and the kids these days don't want a Nokia 3310, they want the newest, most expensive model, because they are COOL.

You can attribute it to whatever merely visible swing in the market you want to, but that is the simple truth.

[1] - By which I mean people who aren't in the tech industry.

You're missing something big here: Software support. In the past it was completely reasonable to develop all your stuff Win-only. Hence the lock-in, hence the market share. Nowadays, even in forward looking big corps, when new software projects are planned, Android and iOS support is usually not only considered but a priority. That's why we see more and more software becoming POSIX compatible. And once this is all done, the OS becomes completely interchangable, at which point MS looses big time, they basically loose their long time business model of domination through Windows market share.

Once this transition has been completed, MS will become a Software company like all the others, they won't have any home turf advantage anymore.

For this reason I'm very skeptical whether MS will allow the Office port. It would basically show that they have accepted their fate (which would be a good sign for their management however).

Okay, I just wandered the halls of my company, a privately held insurance/financial services company.

Most of us drones are issued standard Windows desktops or notebooks. But the story is far different in the VP suites. Many of them have iPads with keyboards. They use them, love them for meetings etc.

This has driven our company to find more and more ways to support them, since when a VP says "Support my device" things often happen.

Eventually this will trickle down to us unwashed masses, and we'll be able to use iOS and Android without having to suffer with Citrix Receiver.

Anectdata is fun...

It will, but it will take a long time, I think that's what the grandparent is saying. The VP doesn't care what the people 2 floors down in their cubes are using, so they'll continue to use the safe, cheap choice until Windows is no longer the safe cheap choice for office work.

Actually, when the VP mandates that any web app he purchases support iOS and Android, it trickles down pretty quickly.

Angry Birds is already on iOS and Android.

"A smartphone is used for consumption" is just a bad generalization. Is making calls, sending emails and text messages "consumption"? No. And for tablets it's an even worse generalization. But still, _most_ computer usage _is_ consumption! And most of it that is not (like word processing) can be done by attaching a keyboard to a tablet. The office workers that actually need a workstation (like graphics designers, engineers and programmers) is only a small fraction of the workforce that uses a computer today. Business use is one thing (and changes there always happen a a glacial pace). But my parents and my girlfriend now rarely uses their PC.

They either use a tablet, or their smartphone if the tablet isn't nearby! So the key here is convenience, which incidentally is why the laptop became so popular in the consumer market. When that PC dies, they will take a hard look at whether they really need to replace it.

> And most of it that is not (like word processing) can be done by attaching a keyboard to a tablet. The office workers that actually need a workstation (like graphics designers, engineers and programmers) is only a small fraction of the workforce that uses a computer today

The fraction of worldwide workforce that sits in an office doing work that requires both a keyboard and a screen larger than 10" includes about any office-person whose actual output is not just talking...

Thanks for writing this up. Too often I hear the numbers quoted in sales and think this exact thing. How often do you buy a PC? Every 3 years or so (probably more for most families)? A phone though.. Every 2? The price points of phones and tablets allow a total upgrade a lot quicker than a desktop/laptop.

I agree with you that this seems silly. But Microsoft itself seems to buy it. Why have they created a "mobile" interface for Windows 8 that annoys desktop users? And now Office for Linux. That's a surprise.

Windows is everywhere, but Microsoft only gets money when they sell a new version. New computers are cheaper and cheaper, so they have to lower Windows price also.

With Windows 8, it seems Microsoft itself is ready to bury the desktop. It's a tremendous mistake, but MS has a long history of completely failing to recognize trends.

The mobile market is enormous and MS missed it (so far), but the desktop/laptop market isn't going away any time soon and they seem to be missing that, too.

Windows is a good desktop environment for the most part. But by trying to make Windows a monolith on all platforms, they seem to be rushing towards making it suboptimal for all platforms and ceding a market they are the undisputed owner of. Or maybe the mass of computer users will just accept Windows 8 as the new normal and put up with it no matter how much they hate it. After all, they've been doing that with Office for 20 years.

A lot of people are still getting their first smartphone. They already have a Windows laptop or desktop at home. Also, desktops and laptops tend to last longer (for regular users, I'd suggest around 3-5 years) than a smartphone (lifespan of which is usually about 2 years, after which you're upgraded). Finally, a smartphone is "free". Well, not really, but it can certainly feel like it - you can go into a store, pay nothing up front and walk out with a £600 smartphone. People tend to pay up front for desktops and laptops, however.

There were also more loaves of bread sold than window machines in 2012Q3.

Oh, sorry, I thought we were just comparing unrelated things to 'prove' Microsoft is in trouble...