2008 was a pretty awesome year for Web browsers, the Web itself, and for everyone using the Web.
The major factor in all of those, I believe, is the increase in browser competition and the choice and innovation that came out of that. 2008 saw the "performance wars" heat up. It saw the "standards wars" heat up. And it saw new vendors joining the fray. It really was an awesome year for the Web.
So how did the year wrap up? Net Applications has just released their December monthly browser market share report so here's a look at what it says.
First, it looks like Firefox picked up over 1/2 of a point to put us at 21.34%. That's not quite as good as our November growth, but still a solid month for Firefox and probably puts us out of danger of ever dipping under 20% unless something pretty dramatic happens. (I mention this just because there's a lot of month to month wobble and it's nice to not be right on that edge :-)
After three months of availability, Chrome broke out of the sub-1% club, landing at 1.04%. That's a healthy gain of 0.21 points for them over November, and it may get some press attention for being above 1%, but it's worth keeping in context that it was only about 1/3rd of the growth that Firefox had in the same month, so not really too exciting for them. It was also their coming out of beta month so with that "bounce" and having transitioned ~99.9% of their beta users to 1.0, not as good as what they were hoping for, I'm sure.
Safari had its best month of the year in December, growing just over 3/4ths of a point to 7.93% share. Like us, they've consistently had strong months for November and December. As with previous months, that's all on Mac. Safari for Windows is basically dead in the water.
Opera didn't see any change in December, locked in at a measly 0.71% I suppose it's better than slipping lower, but it can't be encouraging.
The big looser, again, is Internet Explorer which dropped more than 1.5 points to land just above 68% share for the month of December. The good news here, for everyone (including MS?) is that while IE7 growth is leveling off, IE6 continues it's swift downward spiral.
Because this will be NetApp's final report of the year, here's my quick 2008 summary based on their numbers.
Firefox is unquestionably the biggest winner in 2008, gaining approximately twice as much as its closest competitor and taking more share from Microsoft than all other browsers combined. Adding more than 4.5 points (a ~25% improvement) to where it started the year, Firefox couldn't be better positioned for 2009 and the upcoming round of releases from all the major vendors.
Safari had a decent year too, adding about 2.3 points to their share of Web browser usage. That's a bit better than 40% growth for them and I'm sure the Apple OS X folks will be pleased. All of that is growth of the Mac OS against Windows, though, and none of it at our expense. (Mac Firefox has actually gained about 3 points against Safari and others on the Mac in 2008.) So what you're seeing here is not so much the effect of browser competition, but the advantage of being bundled with the OS. Safari is rising with Mac OS X, though not quite as fast as Mac OS X -- thanks to Firefox :-).
Chrome obviously had a short year and during that time really only did just so-so. It grew just over 1 full percentage point of the market in only 3 months which isn't bad. But that all came during the "good months" for not-IE browsers, and Chrome was easily outpaced by Firefox in those same three months. Not the greatest browser launch of all time that so many predicted.
Opera was mostly stable in 2008, just like they were in 2007, 2006, 2005, etc. I think they're pretty much dead on the desktop. My guess is they're mostly using it as their "real Web" testing platform so that their engine can continue to be strong on Mobile. Mobile-only browsers just don't get enough usage to be well tested enough to stay current with real Web content but a few million desktop users can get you plenty of testing. It can also be a decent source of revenue for a medium sized company like Opera (which, incidentally, is up to ~600 employees.) But stable or falling and well under 1% market share for year after year can't really be called competitive.
And finally, as with the month of December, the entire year has been bad, just awful, really really bad for Internet Explorer. IE has dropped just about 8 points!! since this time last year. That's twice the amount it lost the year before. They're not just falling, they're falling a lot faster. They've got huge advantages owning the desktop and even that isn't saving them. Consider that they've lost 8 points of the browser market in a year where 300 million new computers shipped with IE as the default browser. That can't be encouraging for them.
As I said in the opening, all of this is good for the Web. We've got increased competition, real movement towards open Web standards, and all kinds of innovation that's benefiting Web developers and end users alike.
And 2009 is going to be even more exciting.
Posted by: Daniel | January 1, 2009 5:31 AM
The Austrian paper "Der Standard" reports these numbers in an article and gives the following numbers for its site:
Internet Explorer: 49,65%
Firefox: 37,75%
Webkit (Safari and Google Chrome) 8,95%
Opera 2,77%
Der Standard remarks that this is the first time the usage share of IE has dipped below 50%.
Posted by: ADAXL | January 1, 2009 6:40 AM
Interesting summary. Perhaps this move from Google can help speed up the demise of IE6?
Posted by: David Naylor | January 1, 2009 2:03 PM
@Daniel, yeah, I think that the one of the really interesting things to watch in 2009 and 2010 will be how the IE users split across the three versions. Some questions I'm interested in are 1) is there a floor to IE6, a point at which all who can or will upgrade to IE7 have? 2) how will IE8 be pushed to IE7 users? 3) with three very different IE browsers to cater to, how will web developers cope?
@ADAXL, thanks for the link. That Der Standard article sounds very much like mine :-) It's pretty exciting to see their site's specific numbers. IE fell under 50% in decent number of countries in 2008. Hopefully we'll see a cascade in 2009.
@David, I don't see it having much effect. Google featured Chrome on its front page which is its most trafficked page. They've featured it all over YouTube and advertised around the Web. It turns out that it's just very difficult to move large numbers of people very quickly. Over time I'm hopeful but anyone that thinks Google has some magic bullet for getting Chrome into more hands is misleading themselves. It's gonna be a long had slog and there aren't really any shortcuts. Hell, IE7 shipped on approximately 300 million new PCs in 2008 and we still pulled tens of millions of users from their total during that time. Safari shipped as the default on all new Macs and we took share from them in 2008 too. Even shipping as the default browser isn't a magic bullet. If that's not an easy win, anything short of that won't be either.
- A
Posted by: Asa Dotzler | January 1, 2009 2:14 PM
Opera has more than 1% not .71%
Net Applications admits to skewed statistics
http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2008/12/03/net-applications-admits-to-skewed-statistics
Posted by: Chas | January 1, 2009 5:10 PM
Chas, you and Haavard can keep on pretending that the Opera desktop browser is doing just great but it's not. Net Applicatins methodology is available for anyone to see and yes, it's obviously skewed, like any measure of Web statistics, but that doesn't change the fact that Opera's been essentially flat for as long as anyone can remember.
Perhaps Opera has 2% by some other measure. So what? It's probably been flat at that measure for years. It's clear that Opera's making some Desktop gains in a few of the geographies that they're aggressively targeting, but they've essentially dissappeared in other geos and they've long since become all but invisible on Mac and Linux so they're Desktop browser is really competing with IE, Firefox, and Chrome, the three other Windows browsers. They're in 4th place there and their growth is flat.
If you're convinced that Opera's in good shape on the Desktop, I'm certainly not going to change your mind. It should worry you, though, that whatever market share Opera has earned on the Windows Desktop over the last 12 years, Chrome was able to surpass that in just a couple of months.
- A
Posted by: Asa Dotzler | January 1, 2009 5:33 PM
That depends on where in the world you are looking...
"Chrome was able to surpass that in just a couple of months."
That is the google effect
I'm on a Mac with Opera
Posted by: Chas | January 1, 2009 6:09 PM
Chas, what do you mean by "That is the google effect"?
And yes, of course it depends on where in the world you're looking and which statistics you're looking at.
In this post I'm very specifically talking about global web browser usage share. If you look at Net Applications, TheCounter.com, OneStat.com, and any other _global_ stats you can find, you'll see that Opera is essentially flat in terms of the percentage of global web browser usage.
That's not to say that Opera isn't growing. It has to because the Web itself is growing at breakneck speed and if Opera wasn't gaining more users then it would be losing a lot of ground each year to the growth of the Web.
But Opera is not gaining on the other browsers in terms of usage. It's just not.
As for being a Mac Opera user, that's great. But you're among a very small minority. Opera makes up one quarter of one percent of Mac browser usage and Macs make up only about one tenth of all browser usage. So, you're part of a group that makes up about one quarter of one tenth of one percent of the Web.
- A
Posted by: Asa Dotzler | January 1, 2009 6:26 PM
The thing about Opera is exactly that, it's flat, for 12 years. it has survived for 12 years which is like aeons for the internet business. And it will survive another 12 years just like that, and more. It's something that's never gonna be BIG, but always survive through year after year. It's never dead, so it's wrong to say they're pretty much dead on the desktop, unless you think it's never alive in the first place anyway, in that case it's pretty much the undead browser that just lives on and on and on and... Given another 20 years, Opera and Lynx will be the only two browsers that have survived since the beginning... just a few million users can keep it alive indefinitely.
Posted by: Klaine | January 1, 2009 9:39 PM
Wow, what a beautiful thing it is to be a part of history and watch IE's market share erode. I am thoroughly enjoying it.
What an amazing story this all is. I mean hello? Firefox is actually hurting Microsoft. Can this be real? Them with their billions of dollars for marketing and development. And the fact that people with new computers aren't just clicking on the blue e, their avoiding it, removing it from their desktops and taking the time to install a whole new application over what's right in front of them is just awesome.
The parallels between the decline of U.S. auto industry and the Web browser industry are remarkable. Just as the Big 3 auto makers blew off the threats from competition and stuck with what they wanted instead of what the American consumers wanted is pretty much the same as Microsoft sitting on IE 6 for as long as it did and ignored the wants and needs of its consumers and it too blew off the competition and underestimated it.
Realistically, IE won't disappear, we all know that, but I predict that its usage will continue to decline to a point where we have something like Coke and Pepsi. One is still dominant, but the other is very much in it and successful too. And then of course we'll have Sam's Club soda (Chrome), and RC Cola (Safari). I imagine that Opera's soda equivalent would be something like Virgin Cola. :)
I used IE for nearly 8 years. I lost data, time, my cool, and Microsoft just didn't give a damn so I'll continue to ride on the fact that adoption of Firefox is just beginning because all that it takes to get a new Firefox user is to get them to try it. It's not a question of whether or not Firefox is good enough to be competitive, it's just letting people know that's it's here.
Now all I need is a Mac.
Anyone interested in helping me with that can send their contributions to:
The Ken Needs a Mac Foundation
2009 Please Liberate Me Ave.
Windows Prisoner, Ma. 20016
Posted by: Ken Saunders | January 1, 2009 10:46 PM
Ken, comparing the U.S. auto industry and the Web browser industry is just projection. They are not alike in the least. One makes (or loses) billions of dollars a year, and the other is largely free.
Posted by: Nuncio | January 2, 2009 2:29 AM
The rise of Safari is easily explained.
If you take a look at Net Applications' OS statistic, Mac OS has reached almost 10%. I think this must be even more worrying for Microsoft:
Not only a browser, but a whole operating system that is about to leave its sub-10% ghetto ;-)
Posted by: Martin | January 2, 2009 2:32 AM
Asa, I think the first Dave (Naylor)'s point was that Google is warning people away from IE6, which will help kill it faster, not that they were pushing them onto Chrome. They also offer a direct Firefox 3 download on their warning page, and mention IE7 and Safari too.
Also, would it not be more correct to say that Firefox was the biggest "gainer" or "grower" rather biggest "winner"?. In most games the winner is the one that comes first, which is sadly still IE.
Finally, does anyone have statistics of how many people use multiple browsers? For example, for sites that you need to log into, do they see the same users on IE during the working week and Firefox at night or weekends?
Posted by: Other Dave | January 2, 2009 2:48 AM
Asa Dotzler the google effect is that google ha google.com which many people use, to which google can use to spread the word about chrome
Posted by: Chas | January 2, 2009 12:18 PM
Chas, Google advertised Firefox on the front page for a time and it did very little. I think you overestimate Google's ability to push desktop software via their highly trafficked pages.
Is there a "Mozilla effect" that's giving Mozilla the ability to gain users at three times the rate as Google even though we don't have google.com to rely on?
- A
Posted by: Asa Dotzler | January 2, 2009 1:39 PM
Asa, congratulations on Firefox's impressive usage share growth and solidly breaking the 20% barrier.
One question though: why do you say that Firefox has taken share from Safari on the Mac? If you look at the numbers for Dec 2007 and Dec 2008, the ratio of Safari users to Mac users has grown:
Dec 2007: 5.59 / 7.31 = 76.4%
Dec 2008: 7.93 / 9.63 = 82.3%
If you subtract Safari on iPhone and Windows from both years it reduces the Safari Mac share a bit but the trend is still in the same direction. So in fact, the fraction of Mac users that are using Safari is going up. I would expect Firefox is gaining users on Mac in absolute terms, but losing Mac share slightly in relative terms.
Safari for Windows and Mobile Safari also gained share in their respective segments, though most of the Safari growth has been on Mac.
Posted by: Maciej Stachowiak | January 2, 2009 7:04 PM
Maciej, go to Net Apps and restrict to Mac. Firefox is at 26.3% at the end of December 2008. Now go back one year and see that Firefox was at 23.5% of the Mac at the end of December 2007.
So, by my math (26.3 - 23.5) Firefox has taken share from Safari (and "other") on Mac over the last year to the tune of approximately 2.8 points.
I'm happy to post a correction if you think that my math is wrong, but I'd need an explanation because the calculation seems pretty simple to me and more tightly coupled to the actual numbers reported by NA.
Safari's growth is not because it's a competitive browser, but because Mac OS X is growing. Firefox is taking share from the default and bundled browsers on both Mac OS and Windows.
Another way of stating that is that people are unhappy with the bundled browser from their OS vendor and are switching to Firefox. This is happening on both Windows and Mac.
- A
Posted by: Asa Dotzler | January 2, 2009 7:40 PM
@Nuncio
If you think that there aren't billions of dollars at stake in the Web browser business, I'd like for you to tell me why Google's total assets for 2007 equaled 25.335 Billion dollars. Companies like Google and every other Internet business gets the bulk of their revenue from Web browser users.
Don't underestimate the role of Web browsers. If there is a trend where X amount of Firefox users visit a particular site or use a certain service more than users of other Web browsers, then that puts Mozilla in a decent position to negotiate with other businesses. They can provide more visibility and direct ways for Firefox users to get to those companies web sites nearly guaranteeing those businesses potential customers.
I'll explaining again the great similarities between what has happened to the U.S. auto makers and what has happened to IE.
The U.S. auto makers ignored the needs of their customers by continuing to stick with large trucks and SUVs because they brought in a ton of a cash, but customers were calling for greener, more fuel efficient vehicles so customers have chosen other auto makers and Microsoft essentially did the same thing.
They ignored the requests and needs of their consumers by choosing to leave Internet Explorer for dead for many years while being fully aware of how unsafe it was, how vulnerable it was to attacks, how out of date its technology was, and that it didn't conform and respect Web standard guidelines. So just as a lot of people have stopped buying American made cars and have chosen other ones, Microsoft's customers have abandoned Internet Explorer to use other browsers.
Do you really think that hasn't caused Microsoft to lose billions in ad revenues, traffic for their affiliates and their own products?
Posted by: Ken Saunders | January 2, 2009 9:35 PM
Asa, I don't have access to the pay-only data, which is what your link leads to. However, the public data supports what I said regarding Safari share relative to Mac share. Let me put it another way. Over the past year, Safari share grew from 5.59% to 7.93%, which is a 25.3% proportional increase. Mac share went from 7.93% to 9.63%, a 21.4% proportional increase. It is mathematically impossible for Safari share to grow more than Mac OS X share, and yet for Safari's share of Mac OS X to fall. It is possible for Firefox share on the Mac to rise at the same time as Safari share rises, if the Other category started out larger than we might expect.
In addition, your remarks that Safari is "not ... a competitive browser" and that Mac users are "are unhappy with the bundled browser" are pointlessly rude and inflammatory. First of all, these are not the kinds of things one could determine from small movements in market share one way or the other, so even if you were right on the math you would not be justified in saying such things. Second, they are not justified by the numbers, as I have shown above - Safari share grew more than Mac share. And third, taking this kind of tone is immature and unbecoming a browser advocate of your stature.
Posted by: Maciej Stachowiak | January 2, 2009 10:39 PM
Maciej, sorry, I didn't realize that was behind the pay wall. Funny, I can access it without being logged in. I suppose they're reading a cookie or something.
The metrics Net Apps has suggest that Firefox gained on the Mac OS platform in 2008. If you want to dispute that with NA, go ahead and do so. I'm going to continue assuming that if I can take one of their numbers, I can take all of them.
Safari is not winning the competition on Mac. Unless you want to discount the NA numbers entirely, you don't have much of a case. Firefox is taking share from Safari and "other" on Mac. It looks like just under 3 points in the last year to me.
As for why Firefox would be taking share from Safari and others on Mac, I don't think it's a leap to assume that means that users were less satisfied with Safari than the were with Firefox. If you think that assumption is immature, offer a better one that explains why Safari, with the biggest advantage in the world - bundling with the OS, is losing share to Firefox.
Oh, and I think you're mistaken in labeling me a "browser advocate." I'm not. I'm a Firefox advocate. If I was a browser advocate, you could expect me to be advocating for IE and Safari. You won't see that.
- A
Posted by: Asa Dotzler | January 2, 2009 10:50 PM
In 2009, I started converting my few personal, non-commercial web site pages to xhtml, instead of html, I started giving my site pages .xhtml extensions, instead of .html. My Macintosh treats .xhtml as xml. My two web site hosts by default serve .xhtml correctly as application/xhtml+xml, not as text/html. So I did not need a .htaccess file to serve xhtml correctly (I did have to use a .htaccess to add some 301 redirects from old html pages to new xhtml pages).
Firefox, Opera, Safari and Chrome are all happy. If I make a markup error, all spit out an error message, for me to fix the page. I no longer include any hacks, conditional comments, bug fixes nor anything else needed to keep Internet Explorer happy. If someone wants to complain that Internet Explorer will not display my pages, I tell them the problem is an Internet Explorer bug, and they should ask Microsoft to fix it. I think this is going to work for me. I am certainly happy.
Posted by: Eric Lindsay | January 2, 2009 10:59 PM
Klaine: "The thing about Opera is exactly that, it's flat, for 12 years. it has survived for 12 years which is like aeons for the internet business. And it will survive another 12 years just like that, and more. It's something that's never gonna be BIG, but always survive through year after year. ..."
Hear, hear. Let's ask ourselves: how would Mozilla profit from Opera's demise? How many features that Opera rolled out first have eventually appeared as out-of-the- box "pioneering" Fx features or as extensions?
I'm a little tired of the market-share fetish, especially coming from Mozilla. I like Firefox, Thunderbird AND Opera...and wouldn't exactly crow if any of the above became extinct.
Posted by: pseud | January 3, 2009 9:10 AM
I've been using Opera since 2001, but most browsers now are of good solid quality and usability that it's really just "what you prefer." -which is really the point of this...
I take issue with Opera being "pretty much dead on the desktop..."
In the many years I've used Opera, I've always stated that I don't care about market statistics. I realize that Opera is a business of course, and they need money, but frankly- if Opera's marketshare consisted solely of me, I'd be fine with that. It's the interface I prefer.
I *thought* when the young upstart Firefox came along as Open Source that things were going to go more this way...this would be the wave of the future- You Open Source types flooded all my favorite sites like Slashdot talking about how with Open Source you can take the code, modify it, and make something your own...that you're not locked into one vendor's idea of what the web will look like, that there won't be a monolith like IE that takes over the web. That we'll have to really change our view of "code for X browser..." and "code to standards." I thought: Perfect! I know Opera codes to standards, so as this grows and grows, I'll be fine whether Opera grows or not.
... finally, we won't be so focused on marketshare, and I can pick a vendor that makes the product that *I* want to use. A user interface that does what I want to do and models and molds the web the way I want it work (which back in the day consisted of: mouse gestures, cached history, tabbed browsing, notes, email client). Sorta like getting a bespoke suit made (not that I have)- I view Opera as my bespoke web browser, but I realize that it won't fit everyone.
But now that Firefox is all grown up- we're not really any closer (in popular culture, or as indicated by calling Opera "dead") to having "standards" be the common ground- we're still talking about market share.
I guess the whole point of all this rambling is that it's really sad for me to see a Mozilla representative advocate the relevance and importance of a product based on market share. I find it within the true letter of Open Source (I'm not arguing that at all!), but not the true spirit.
Posted by: Eddie | January 6, 2009 1:45 PM
Eddie, without market share, what ever standards are implemented are mostly meaningless. Unless web developers believe that more and more people will be coming to their site using a standards-based browser, they will just keep coding to IE.
You seem to miss this critical point. If Firefox wasn't taking market share from IE, most web developers wouldn't give a shit about Web standards. Opera can implement all the standards it wants but unless it's growing its market share, that just doesn't matter.
When I say "dead" I mean that it has no ability to influence the Web. You're free to use it and I don't begrudge you that at all. I do take issue with your assumption that market share doesn't have a direct relationship with the relevance and importance of a product. Opera mostly doesn't matter because not only does it have near zero market share, it isn't growing so it's got near zero mindshare with developers and that means that it isn't advancing the standards.
I think you're just being idealistic here and not recognizing the very real and practical world that we're dealing with. Standards don't mean shit without market share. It's that simple.
- A
Posted by: Asa Dotzler | January 6, 2009 1:54 PM
Yes, I am being idealistic, and yes, I understand what drives the market, Regarding your "keep coding for IE" comment, of course IE needs to be dethroned, but I just think replacing it with "coding for Firefox" isn't the solution either.
The fact that web developers don't give a shit about web standards is the real, unspoken source of what's bothering me.
And I take issue with you taking issue with my assumption about marketshare driving relevance and importance. I'm fine with disagreeing on this, but I find it somewhat disheartening to hear (I imply from your words) you say that if I took Firefox code and modified the UI to fit my needs (Flock? Firefox Mobile, etc...) that it's no longer a relevant and important product. That doesn't "foster creativity" and (in my mind) is just more "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" thinking and not really in the spirit of Open.
Posted by: Eddie | January 6, 2009 2:17 PM
...and yes, I do know "coding for Firefox" is "coding to Standards," I was referring to the developer/mindshare in the context of what Asa was referring to- product marketshare and mindshare.
Posted by: Eddie | January 6, 2009 2:20 PM
Opera operates the Open the web portal:
Why Open the Web?
Despite the connecting purpose of the Web, it is not entirely open to all of its users. When used correctly, HTML documents can be displayed across platforms and devices. However, many devices are excluded access to Web content.
http://my.opera.com/community/openweb/info/
IE has been hindering the web a bit to much, if site masters write there sites in web standards code you would not have to worry as much about testing in different browsers
Most people will agree that the Microsft IE team has major catchup to do with other browsers, not just in the support of web standards but also in the speed and performance and security of IE
IE 6 still has over 20 unpatched holes in it
I agree with Eddie people will use what browser that fits their needs for Eddie and I it is Opera for others it my be Safari, Chrome, Icab, Omminiweb, or any of the others. By supporting web standards the other browsers users will not feel left out.
Posted by: Chas | January 8, 2009 11:51 PM
More market share statistics and again you fail to stress an important point. Despite net applications statistics being skewed or not (I think they are, I saw thing changing drastically in minutes), those statistics are only from the american market !
For european statistics you should read for instance
http://www.xitimonitor.com/en-us/browsers-barometer/index-1-2-3-0.html
Quote: IE - 60%, FF - 30%, Opera - 4%, Saf - 2%, Chrome - 1%. Neither google nor apple sellout well here.
And did you knew that Opera+Opera mini have overall 25% market share in Russia ? So you were saying they're dead in the desktop ? Perhaps in the american market, but the rest of the world is well live.
You're trolling against Opera with no good reason. Is that all envy ?
Posted by: christian | January 13, 2009 6:55 AM
christian, either you're trying to mislead readers here or you're mis-informed yourself. Net Applications issues a _global_ number based on 140 million users worldwide.
XiTi Monitor is a strong organization that polls France quite well and the rest of Europe well enough. I refer to their numbers just about every time they release. And, yes, Opera does a bit better in Europe. So does Firefox. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make except that Opera does somewhat better in Europe than it does globally. That's not really in dispute. But just as you can't extrapolate Firefox's global numbers by looking at one Indonesia where it's quickly approaching 60%, neither can you extrapolate Opera's global numbers by picking a country or region where it does relatively better.
And no, I don't envy Opera at all. I don't envy their technology, their product, or their userbase. Firefox beats Opera handily on all of those fronts.
- A
Posted by: Asa Dotzler | January 13, 2009 7:35 AM
> Firefox beats Opera handily on all of those fronts.
Typical flame war from a troll. I'm allergic to that, but I'll make a final effort.
Regarding technology, both Opera and webkit are decades ahead of gecko, both in portability, performance (look at laggy fennec) and standards support, and blah blah blah.
You are the one that misleads and skews everything for the sake of firefox, your beloved no.1 browser. Sometimes leaving all the fanboysm in the drawer provides a clearer less biased opinion.
Back on the 1st point, those stats are from the american market. The typical american consumer is more ignorant (read ignorant, not stupid) than from other markets like asia or europe. You supported my 1st claim, because in those markets people choose browsers better because they know better, and because they're not brainwashed daily with microsoft's nor apple's ads. Firefox obviously is much better than anything MS can provide, hence it's success, but still has a lot to pick up from Opera. The only thing Opera lacks is a strong marketing force deeply rooted in the us which would have given it the market share it needs and deserves.
But your proud clouds your judgement. You are the one misleading readers.
Posted by: christian | January 13, 2009 8:48 AM
btw, I'd like to inspect better what net applications has to say. They only provide the stupid misleading graphics you post monthly for free. For more detailed reports they ask for payment. **shrugs**
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=12&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=119&qpmr=300&qpdt=1&qpcustom=*4&qpct=102
Posted by: christian | January 13, 2009 8:51 AM
Christian, you are simply wrong about Net Applications being American (or even U.S.) only. They survey the entire planet and produce results country by country, even demographic by demographic, as well as a global total. They make the global total public. They charge for (and I pay so I can see) all of those breakdowns.
Your insistence that it is U.S. or American only doesn't make it so. Continuing to push that provably false line discredits most of everything you're saying on this topic.
- A
Posted by: Asa Dotzler | January 13, 2009 10:48 AM
Net Applications is heavily biased towards the US, as they also admitted.
That they actively edit their own stats doesn't help either.
Posted by: heh | January 14, 2009 11:26 AM
Net Applications is heavily biased towards the US, as they also admitted.
That they actively edit their own stats doesn't help either.
Posted by: heh | January 14, 2009 11:27 AM
Opera was mostly stable in 2008, just like they were in 2007, 2006, 2005, etc. I think they're pretty much dead on the desktop. My guess is they're mostly using it as their "real Web" testing platform so that their engine can continue to be strong on Mobile.
Yeah, except that Opera's user base doubled in two years, and grew by 55% from Q3 2007 to Q3 2008. Also, the desktop version makes up 1/4 or 1/5 of Opera's revenue. But hey, who cares about facts, right?
that doesn't change the fact that Opera's been essentially flat for as long as anyone can remember
Um no, you are wrong again, Asa. Net Applications used to show Opera at 5-6%. Then Opera was bumped down to less than 1%. When it climbed back above 1%, closing up on 2%, Net Applications bumped Opera back far below 1%.
whatever market share Opera has earned on the Windows Desktop over the last 12 years, Chrome was able to surpass that in just a couple of monthsNot according to Google. Only 10 million Chrome users, as opposed to more than 30 million Opera users in the same time period.
Christian, you are simply wrong about Net Applications being American (or even U.S.) only.No, he is not. They actually admitted to being skewed towards the US. Now, if only they would own up to manipulating their own stats...
Posted by: jaq | January 15, 2009 2:13 AM
Not to sound critical of everyone here, but has anyone run tests to check the veracity of the stats being spouted? Or do we just take it for granted the the numbers we are given are accurate?
I, for one, have been sick of trying to create websites to satisfy all browsers. I do my best to use web standards. I don't like doing all the hacks to make it look good in IE.
On a recent project I decided to try and do a browser detect that would work in all browsers by using PHP on the server side - too complicated. I also tried javascript, but not everyone has js turned on.
I then noticed something weird. The information received, and displayed, by PHP from the browser was not the same that was being displayed by js.
I don't think the market share being reported by the media is correct. I now know it isn't correct in the weblogs.
Don't believe me? Read my article at http://geek-zone.yourwebreference.com/2009/02/12/Web_Browser_Statistics_Are_Lies_Microsoft_Fraudulently_Alters_Information .
Create your serverside and javascripts and run them in IE, Opera, Firefox, and Safari and see for yourself.
Posted by: CJTech | February 28, 2009 11:21 PM
It's really great to see "real" browsers gaining strength. Well, let me share some of my thoughts for the browser market.
About Internet Explorer: IE8 will be released in the first half of 2009. It will be available to all platforms that IE7 is available for, so I think we'll see IE7 really loosing ground at the end of the year.
Hehe, IE6 lost almost 15 points over the last year. I think we'll see it drop under 10 points (if not under 5 points) in market share. Yay.
I'm really sure we'll see Firefox crossing the 25% mark and Safari crossing the 10% mark. I'm slightly worried about users that still use Firefox 2, I hope the next Major Update will shift those users to Firefox 3.
I'm not so sure about Opera, they may release v10 this year and there are rumors they want to compete with other desktop browsers again. I'd surely welcome that. Besides, with an integrated update system, Opera became a recommendable browser.
I don't really know what to think about Chrome. It just doesn't convince me. It's engine is Webkit, so I don't really fear it. But it's slightly annoying that the quality of their implementation is not that high.
Well, we'll see what 2009 brings.