Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 23, 2013
An "enum" for Python 3
An unexpected perf feature
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
Painfully obvious truths
Posted Feb 26, 2013 9:12 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)
Anyway, what matters for the argument is the tendency in market share: Firefox is dwindling while Chrome is improving.
Posted Feb 26, 2013 16:16 UTC (Tue) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
In any case, the comments on his articles have indicated that he's actually pretty rough on Microsoft, not a blind follower (I don't read a lot of his stuff; mostly just the ones about changes to the dev environment since I use it at work).
The numbers Are has gotten over time showed Chrome catching Firefox, but both have pretty much flat lined in the past few months.
Posted Feb 26, 2013 18:52 UTC (Tue) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
While I agree that different websites can have vastly different distributions of browsers I am disappointed in your unsupported assertion that just because someone writes news about Microsoft that they have lied about the browser distribution numbers. I think Ars has a little more journalistic integrity than that. I know it is fashionable to make these kind of serious accusations in a completely off-hand manner but it provides a confusing and inaccurate picture of the world, making it more difficult to pick out and recognize the real biases, by using rational, logical thought.
I wish more people learned rhetoric so that they were better equipped to spot BS and didn't fall back to using such inaccurate methods.
Posted Feb 26, 2013 19:24 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)
At the very least you may look at some other independent market share analysis, from the first page of Google results for browser market share: Wikimedia foundation, w3schools, Clicky. None of them are even close to the ones from NetMarketshare.
To answer another commenter, apparently there is a big difference in methodology between NetMarketshare and StatCounter. Personally I think that the methodology of NetMarketshare is atrocious; basing your research on the CIA factbook to make up for missing data looks like a bad idea. The discrepancy would mean that IE users surf the net about 3 to 4 times less than Chrome users, which is odd and a bit demeaning. Picking NetMarketshare data to report looks like a pro-Microsoft bias at best (from Ars or from the reporter), and plain old ignorance at worst. If you have any other enlightening views about why the bias, please let us know.
Finally, given that I was talking about dwindling Firefox market share, which is confirmed by all sets of data, this is a very unnecessary discussion, entertaining as it may be.
Posted Feb 26, 2013 20:56 UTC (Tue) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
> If you have any other enlightening views about why the bias, please let us know.
I suppose if and when Ars does a NM/SC comparison article would help with this.
> Finally, given that I was talking about dwindling Firefox market share, which is confirmed by all sets of data, this is a very unnecessary discussion, entertaining as it may be.
Well, seeing as my comment spawned this subthread, I agree that Firefox isn't looking strong in any of these datasets. I was more surprised at the difference between the stats I had seen before. Plus, it's not like I have much of a horse in the race as a developer of Uzbl (which will forever be relegated to a fraction of "Other").
Posted Feb 26, 2013 21:03 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
This makes sense. IE is already on the machine, Firefox (or any other browser) will need bandwidth (i.e. time) to download.
If you don't really need it, and surfing the web is slow and painful in any case, why bother?
Posted Feb 26, 2013 21:03 UTC (Tue) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
They usually compare the third party aggregate stats with their own site stats which are often wildly different, much less IE, way more Firefox.
Posted Feb 26, 2013 23:15 UTC (Tue) by Lennie (subscriber, #49641)
Most of the time you see 2 organisations quoted in news articles for statistics.
gs.statcounter.com and marketshare.hitslink.com
hitslink always has a much higher IE-share than statcounter, there are several reasons for that that I know of:
1. hitslink seems to be on more business oriented, IE is bigger in business than at home (just look at statcounter and compare the numbers for weekday and weekend).
2. IE is still bigger in China than in western countries. The country with the largest share of Windows XP is also China I believe. Probably Google isn't such a household name in China as their searchengine does not have a large share. A large part of Chrome users are Chrome users because of Google advertising and them being a household name. The reason China is significant for the statistics is because hitslink mangles their statistics based by adding a weight based on the number of people in a country. And China is a really large country.
3. statcounter measures by pageviews and hitslink counts by 'visit' (per session of pageviews). IE users are the 'dumber' users, users that don't know alternatives exist or how to install new software. My guess is these are users which visit a whole lot less pages per website. Chrome and Firefox users click much faster thus visit more pages.
Counting the missing
Posted Feb 26, 2013 22:44 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091)
Posted Feb 26, 2013 23:07 UTC (Tue) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds