Its interesting how the best year for the Apple II was the same year the Macintosh was first released. Apple II really was Apple’s best platform and they supported it well into the 90s, they should have just stuck with updating the original Apple line rather than trying to reinvent everything with the Macintosh. They even had IIgs OS which was a color version of Mac OS, and fully backward compatible with all old Apple II software. Steve Jobs was actually kind of an idiot.
What I find interesting about the graph is that the Tech in the 90’s were mostly devices. Naturally they died out because their tech was superseded. In the 2000’s software has driven the success of Tech, they represent software platforms that when broken down would represent a multitude of devices where earlier devices are completely different machines to later models. A Commodore 64 was pretty much a Commodore 64 throughout it’s market lifespan.
you really can’t exclude the Linux kernel, which if it were included (and it should have been) would probably be an order of magnitude or greater than any device class, and still growing steeply.
Where is CP/M (if you lump Windows together you need to do so for CP/M). IMHO Windows/DOS shouldn’t be lumped together – and in fact if you split them the Windows rise is even more astounding. Or perhaps it’s best classed as ‘x86’.
Where is PalmOS
Windows CE
The missed split and the lack of PDA coverage gives a weird middle gap that isn’t there. In the middle you have the lightning rise of PalmOS, the crash of DOS and the amazing rise of Windiows 3 onwards plus various attempts to do otherwise (Be etc)
Where is Sinclair
Amstrad PCW
or should this be labelled ‘*American* computing some of the first 40 years
You also really want to include game consoles in there because half of the story of the rise of the PC was the rise of game consoles. PC’s sucked for gaming and the consoles took chunks from the ‘personal computer’ market
John Hardy Developer 
Missing PDAs, combining MSDOS and Windows, and missing CP/M. Also Windows Surface isn’t a separate category from other Windows PCs.
LikeLike
True
LikeLike
Wow, the 90s was a desert.
LikeLike
It was the decade that everyone bought and IBM PC clone.
LikeLike
I think they have Windows Phone for Windows Mobile PDA and the other lot with Other Smartphone, though they go back much further than Blackberry
LikeLike
Palm PDAs outsold all smartphones in the late 90s early 2000s
LikeLike
I have a Windows phone from 2002 and a Palm V from 1999 or so.
LikeLike
Microsoft mobile?
LikeLike
Interesting that it appears all but Android phones and other smart phones are now on a decline as per volume of shipments.
LikeLike
Its interesting how the best year for the Apple II was the same year the Macintosh was first released. Apple II really was Apple’s best platform and they supported it well into the 90s, they should have just stuck with updating the original Apple line rather than trying to reinvent everything with the Macintosh. They even had IIgs OS which was a color version of Mac OS, and fully backward compatible with all old Apple II software. Steve Jobs was actually kind of an idiot.
LikeLike
They think we have reached saturation point, along with the ever increasing cost of the premium range phones.
LikeLike
Unix? Linux?
LikeLike
Don’t know how many devices shop with Linux or UNIX that are not Android or some kind of Apple
LikeLike
If you have Atarii there and Commodores, where’s the other consoles?
LikeLike
A chart like this was always going to be incomplete.
LikeLike
They have NeXT, but not Palm, they’re trolling.
LikeLike
A lot is missing but it gives a good idea. If you include Microsoft surface to Windows PC, the curve is flat.
The strangest curve is the Nokia/Symbian.
LikeLike
Some of the missing stuff won’t be included because the numbers are too small. eg: PDAs
LikeLike
Emlyn O’Regan I remember how surprised I was when the entire PDA area was taken down in Best Buy…
LikeLike
What I find interesting about the graph is that the Tech in the 90’s were mostly devices. Naturally they died out because their tech was superseded. In the 2000’s software has driven the success of Tech, they represent software platforms that when broken down would represent a multitude of devices where earlier devices are completely different machines to later models. A Commodore 64 was pretty much a Commodore 64 throughout it’s market lifespan.
LikeLike
Executive summary: Android wins. 🤖
LikeLike
They have NeXT, Emlyn, there’s no excuse not to include Palm
LikeLike
Mark Pryor there are only so many Android phones one can buy or carry 🙂
LikeLike
I’m curious about the initial flat line on NeXT. Two initial years of the same volume?
LikeLike
Palm sales in 1998 were about 5mil, and about 10mil in 1999. That’s more unit sales than Mac, and it looks like Symbian only hit 10mil in 2003.
LikeLike
Wow … I can see my life from here!
LikeLike
Crazy that the Amiga outsold the ST — it wasn’t like that in the UK.
LikeLike
you really can’t exclude the Linux kernel, which if it were included (and it should have been) would probably be an order of magnitude or greater than any device class, and still growing steeply.
And where’s the raspberry pi?
LikeLike
Cute but a bit half baked.
Where is CP/M (if you lump Windows together you need to do so for CP/M). IMHO Windows/DOS shouldn’t be lumped together – and in fact if you split them the Windows rise is even more astounding. Or perhaps it’s best classed as ‘x86’.
Where is PalmOS
Windows CE
The missed split and the lack of PDA coverage gives a weird middle gap that isn’t there. In the middle you have the lightning rise of PalmOS, the crash of DOS and the amazing rise of Windiows 3 onwards plus various attempts to do otherwise (Be etc)
Where is Sinclair
Amstrad PCW
or should this be labelled ‘*American* computing some of the first 40 years
You also really want to include game consoles in there because half of the story of the rise of the PC was the rise of game consoles. PC’s sucked for gaming and the consoles took chunks from the ‘personal computer’ market
LikeLike