This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The Revision as of 04:25, 25 March 2011 by User:Bethlynn introduced the line "Market discussion of these devices may include netbooks but do not include media tablets which was dominated by Apple products." which is mostly relevant until the end where "which was dominated by Apple products." is not useful and only marketing gibberish. If one follows the user's contributions after this edit no more than a month later they edit Guerrilla Marketing which to me says everything about this person and this edit. The current clause stands as "which are dominated by Apple's iPad." and should be removed from the article to remove distractions and clear marketing which has no place on Wikipedia. --7i5 (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there is more to this. There are other "market share" articles on Wikipedia (such as operating systems and web browsers), but those articles go into much more explanatory depth in the importance of the topic and the tabular data simply is used to reinforce that. Right now, I'm inclined to propose deletion of this article under Wikipedia is not an excessive listing of statistics. There is very little text putting this information into perspective, and frankly I'm not sure if this is a legitimate encyclopedia topic or just an attempt to give away for free what Gartner sells. There is a possibility that this is an infringement of Gartner's compilation copyright. Even though some of the information comes from media sources, most of it is from Gartner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanK (talk • contribs) 20:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I am removing the "dated prod tag"
All of this information is culled from Gartner press releases, which are freely available to the public. Those sources are clearly cited at the bottom. The statistics are also ubiquitous in the press every quarter. I confess I'm not familiar with the compilation copyright concept and would welcome direction to an appropriate source. BTW, on the characterization of the article as an attempt to give away Gartner data, please assume good faith.
This is a noteworthy topic. The rise and fall of particular PC companies is an important storyline that runs through the last 30 years of the tech sector and business history generally. It illustrates innovation with respect to business model, changing competitive landscape, creative destruction, and so forth. Admittedly, that story needs to be expounded on here and I hope to do so time permitting and hope others will as well. What's more, since articles on leading computer companies often make claims about market share ranking, it's helpful to have the information in one place where these claims can be verified and put into context. Cc68 (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
It is suspected that this article (specifically this version) may be a copyright violation, but without a source this cannot be definitively determined. If this article can be shown to be a copyright infringement, please list the article on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If you are certain that the article is not a copyright violation, you should give evidence below. Please do not remove this tag without discussion. (July 2011)
You can research compilation copyright. The news articles you refer to come under fair use by only including small parts of the Gartner data. Using extensive portions or entire data sets can violate the copyright. I certainly didn't mean to imply any bad faith, but good faith is not a defense against copyright infringement. To quote Wikipedia:Copyrights, "If you want to import text that you have found elsewhere or that you have co-authored with others, you can only do so if it is available under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license." I also agree that this topic is noteworthy, but in it's current form it's little more than a list of statistics with very little information putting it into perspective. Wikipedia still is not an excessive listing of statistics, but this article is. I respect your explanation, but even though the information is important, the article is still little more than a compilation of statistics, and you have not expanded the article to change that fact.
I have added a Oldprodfull tag below. You were supposed to do so so the article cannot be re-tagged for deletion. I will be continuing my deletion proposal on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Please understand that this is not because I don't find the information interesting or informative, but because in it's current form, the article does not fit Wikipedia's criteria of being suitable material for an encyclopedia and may be a copyright violation. I suspect the more knowledgeable editors on that page will be able to provide better guidance. AlanK (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be interesting if we could find some statistics about how other PC architectures such as Apple products (Apple 2, etc.), Commodore products (Amiga, Commodore 64), Atari products (Atari ST), and others found their way to the market and then lost their market share. It would make this article a lot more interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikitei (talk • contribs) 15:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I have never seen a WP page with so few links to sources allow verification. Most sources are likely to be available on the Internet. The "Cite" button on the editing tool bar make this quite easy. Could editors adding to this page please provide a linked source? --220ofBorg 02:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
The table would be even more interesting by including the notebook and desktop PC sales too. For the moment I will add here the data that I will find. When the table will be completed, the Laptop#Sales and Desktop computer#Sales can link to this article. — Ark25 (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)