Sorry to have offended your sense of (journalistic?) integrity, but really? If people did indeed learn rhetoric they might spot a glaring appeal to authority in your comment, and that is the whole basis of your analysis. You give no explanation about the biases; in fact you make it look like Ars data might be accurate while StatCounter might be off.
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.
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds