"The total usage share of Mozilla increased 0.24 percent since February 2005."
At this rate, it will be about ten more months before it hits 10%. Oops! :-(

Adoption rates are likely to increase once 1.1 comes.

To make a big impact, I'd think 1.1 would need some flashy new features. All I can think of is SVG.

Maybe MoFo should sponsor an SVG demo competition timed for the 1.1 launch.

Good idea, voting for the SVG competition too, since SVG has already been checked in!

The big feature of Firefox 1.1 for me is faster start times and much faster rendering of webpages. I'm sure people will find that at least as exciting as Livemarks or a downloadmanager.

What makes you think taht 1.1 will load faster and have faster rendering of webpages? Got any stats or news for that? I hope you're right.

Robert: see bug 274784. Blazing fast back and forward is on the way.

Another OneStat report full of the ususal errors... I think 8.69 is mozilla browsers total, not Firefox. At least their free counter doesn't distinguish between the Moz browsers in the UI.

SVG is already in the trunk builds (win and mac, linux coming soon)...

How much of SVG is that? SVG Tiny?

You can see the SVG status page at: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/svg/status.html

When it's completed, Mozilla will probably support most of the SVG 1.1 specification. As you can see, most of the unimplemented portions are in the filter, animation and font module.

There's a sample page with some interesting demos:
http://www.croczilla.com/svg/samples/

This one especially ^_^
http://www.croczilla.com/svg/samples/svgtetris/svgtetris.svg

HAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHA THE WORLD? Don't make me laugh!

One stat.com is only measuring a MEASLY 2,000,000 of users! The world.... HA!

blah: What ARE you on about? What's to say that those 2*10^6 aren't a perfect statistcial representation of the world internet population? (Obviously they aren't perfect, but they probably aren't that far off either.)

"One stat.com is only measuring a MEASLY 2,000,000 of users! The world.... HA!"

It's called a sample: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_sample

yeah. And that sample is SIMPLY too little to say ANYTHING about the World.

OneStat is sucking hard. Even local statistics page, like ranking.pl - a polish site - covers a largely wider audience than the "whole world described by two million cookies". Gemius Statistics track almost 12 Million people every week. And it's still a local statistics engine, and covers much more users than the shitty onestat.com.

You say about ranking.pl, and onestat.com is covering 2 million of such ranking.pls :)

Business Wire reports, based on Janco Associates Inc's data, Firefox has already reached 10% share of the market as of April 26, 2005.

1. Internet Explorer - 83.07%

2. Firefox - 10.28%

3. Mozilla - 3.81%

4. Netscape - 0.92%

5. AOL - 0.85%

6. MSN - 0.67%

7. Opera - 0.41%

A comment: Where is Safari for Mac OS X?

News source:
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/index.jsp?=&ndmViewId=news_view&newsLang=en&newsId=20050426005457

You need free registration to read articles.

That seems low. Right now I'm doing about 13.5% gecko browsers.

Without registration, the same statistics mentioned above can be seen at:

http://www.itproductivity.org/browser.htm

I'm sorry. Asa has already reported the news ;-)

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/008030.html

"yeah. And that sample is SIMPLY too little to say ANYTHING about the World."

No, it's actually a quite large sample. The main problem with the sample is that it's not random at all. Take a statistics class some time. And remember, it's better to keep your mouth closed and look like a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. ;-)

mmm....very strange that some one from mozilla looks at "spying figures".

do not say they do not spy on you, because they collect data they find on your pc!

"No, it's actually a quite large sample. The main problem with the sample is that it's not random at all. Take a statistics class some time. And remember, it's better to keep your mouth closed and look like a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. ;-)"
well, same applies to you. If the samples are not random, the bigger sample is ALWAYS better.

"If the samples are not random, the bigger sample is ALWAYS better."

That would be correct if all the samples had the same sample bias. However, some of the samples are more biased than others.

Samples of one million or more users out of about one billion total Internet users gives about a 0.1% confidence interval. It doesn't give much more accurate results to make the sample size larger than about one million users. With samples that large, the more accurate results will come from the less biased sample, not the larger sample.