Germany's 'Der Spiegel' Magazine Records Increase in Use of Mozilla and Netscape
Sunday August 24th, 2003
According to Germany's Der Spiegel magazine, Mozilla's usage share may be rising (rough English translation courtesy of AltaVista's Babel Fish). In an article about the latest set of Internet Explorer security flaws, the German newsweekly reports that out of 125 million accesses to their website, 15.1% came from users of Mozilla and Netscape, a notable increase since the releases of Mozilla 1.4 and Netscape 7.1. Meanwhile, Internet Explorer usage appears to have declined, with the browser from Redmond now accounting for 83.8% of page requests. Thanks to albano, Julian and Carl Watling for the news.
Which is a more accurate measure of a browser's share, the number of hits by a browser or the number of unique users of a browser? If 1% of users who cause 2% of a site's hits switch from IE to Mozilla, measuring by hits would show a 2% change when only 1% of the users have switched.
While this is true, I don't think this is really relevant for the site(s) in question. The relevant number for everything (attractiveness of a site to advertising, overall ranking) is measured by PI, not unique visits). In addition, even if Mozilla/Netscape users had twice as many PI per visit, that would just make them more attractive customers.
Finally, the analysis was based on 125 Million log entries and they did mention a noticeable increase in Mozilla / Netscape 7 share since 1.4/7.1 were released, so I think overall it points towards more people using these browsers.
Measure by IP address wouldn't be reliable nor is it accurate. Because of two things. 1) More than 1 machines are behind the firewall, they all would be registered as 1 IP address. 2) There are subnets, so Internet Service Provider have unique IP address for everyone, well hopefully. Some people put in a different subnet behind it to make it possible for more machines to use the IP addresses. There is also a possibility of this same thing on a different subnet somewhere in the world.
I like your question and it is a good guess.
#2 Maybe this is true in Germany...
Monday August 25th, 2003 1:09 AM
At the company I work for (U.S.), we get 96% of our hits from Internet Explorer. This might be because we have a corporate website, and most people use IE at work. I don't think one website's usage should be used to authoratatively determine the usage of Moz.
If their stats are right, however, it's great! Hopefully most of the moz. users are using Firebird. ;)
#3 Mozilla DireBird Stripped of too many Features
Monday August 25th, 2003 1:22 AM
> Hopefully most of the moz. users are using Firebird.
I hope not, because MFB is currently stripped of too many useful features (e.g., "Close Other Tabs"); thus forcing too many users to run the "extensins-obstacle-course"(TM). :(
#11 Re: Mozilla DireBird Stripped of too many Features
Monday August 25th, 2003 4:11 AM
Close Other Tabs has beeen re-added in recent nightlies.
...besides many other features, maybe you should get a newer build.
#17 Mozilla DireBird Stripped of too many Features
Monday August 25th, 2003 8:08 AM
> Close Other Tabs has beeen re-added in recent nightlies.
Great! Now they need to put "Offline" mode back, etc...
I might make a list of stuff that should not have been removed in the first place - but why bother? I still just don't see why MFB is supposed to be "better". Splitting the apps is not sooo desirable from my standpoint (although i'm not fundamentally opposed to it). The "plan" should have been to rewrite bloated code while maintaining feature-parity.
Confusing code-bloat and useful features was the biggest mistake this project has made since I've been involved (since 1999). :-\
We should be putting more features in, instead of taking them out. The trick is to implement them so they are not obstructive, whil still easy to find and use. (WordPerfect's context menus are large, but HUGELY useful - let's not imitate MS Word's feature-drought)
#18 Re: Mozilla DireBird Stripped of too many Features
Monday August 25th, 2003 9:17 AM
Really? It's funny, I don't like Mozilla Deamonkey because it's been stripped of too many features. Where's cookie whitelisting? Where's a password manager that isn't annoying as hell? Where are opera and IE sidebar panels? Where are the plugin controls? Where's autoscroll?
Microsoft Word! Feature drought! Hahahaha...It's people like you that spurred the creation of Firebird I mean DireBird.
#20 Re: Re: The MultiZilla project update
Monday August 25th, 2003 9:34 AM
Relax man, note the mozilla part in "mozillaFirebird"
There is no firebird without mozilla, period.
#21 Re: Re: Re: The MultiZilla project update
Monday August 25th, 2003 9:43 AM
Er, I'm relaxed? We just have different perspectives. Peter can't use Firebird because it lacks the features he needs and I can't use Seamonkey beacuse it lacks the features I need. But post with such mature language as "Direbird" (not a typo, he uses it repeatedly) and expect a response in kind =)
As for your statement, that depends on what you mean by "Mozilla". "Mozilla" is shorthand for the company releasing the product (the Mozilla Foundation), hence Mozilla Sunbird, Mozilla Seamonkey, Mozilla Firebird, etc. If you're contending that there'd be no Firebird without the foundation, I pretty much disagree since none of the current Firebird developers and even most of the gecko hackers aren't employed by MF. We'd just have to find a new CVS server, tinderbox, etc. which admittedly wouldn't be easy.
What I was trying to say is simple "There would be no Firebird today without all the mozilla/netscape source code".
And yes, there is a bit to much stripped out for me too, but I still like the work done so far. I guess I still need to get hooked :D
Peter, get a grip on yourself. Extensions are the future, you should know that by now.
Like blake says, everyone has different needs and uses from a browser. So i find it really hard to believe when you say that MFB is "Lacking usefull features", I believe that Mozilla Seamonkey is the one lacking here, but that is my personal view point.
What I think you fail to realize is that Extensions are the answer to your problems, find mozilla/FB lacking? Get the functionallity from an extension. Almost all of the extensions at extensionroom.mozdev.org are working, and if you run into one that doesn't, let us know and we'll either remove it or contact the author for you.
Thirdly, while this is a matter of personal opinion. I find it great that I can hang around with my perfect chosen nightly build of my browser, stay with it as long as I want, and still be able to get the latest improvments of the mail client (thanks to thunderbird) without having to upgrade my browser counter part.
"I believe that Mozilla Seamonkey is the one lacking here, but that is my personal view point."
Sure, but that's the same issue, everyone has different....
"What I think you fail to realize is that Extensions are the answer to your problems,"
Not for everyone it is. Go buy yourself a Lego type of car, and build it all togetter yourself. Is that what IE users do? I don't think so.
"Thirdly, while this is a matter of personal opinion. I find it great that I can hang around with my perfect chosen nightly build of my browser, stay with it as long as I want, and still be able to get the latest improvments of the mail client (thanks to thunderbird) without having to upgrade my browser counter part."
Well, isn't that simpy because the mozilla installer sucks?
#7 Re: Maybe this is true in Germany...
Monday August 25th, 2003 2:18 AM
It's true that one website should not be used to measure browser share. What makes Spiegel's results significant is that it is a major general-interest (news) site. I believe it is either Germany's largest (or second largest) news site.
#9 Re: Maybe this is true in Germany...
Monday August 25th, 2003 3:03 AM
With the website that I help run ( <http://www.deviantart.com/> ), in the last 5 days 92% of the hits were from IE and 6% were from Mozilla and derivatives, while 90% of the IPs were using IE and 7% were using Mozilla. We also recently (in the last 3 weeks) switched to a primarily CSS based layout with XHTML 1.0.
It is a slighly techy site, beyond average users would mainly access that site. Meaning they know how to install software.
What i mean by average: someone who knows what Internet Explorer is but not a Browser.
It's a news site, not a techy site.
It's not only a simple news site, it's one of Germany's most popular web sites. "Der Spiegel" is a news magazine like "Time Magazine" and has a great influence in Germany. On the other hand, Netscape always had a greater market share in Germany than in other countries. According to <http://www.webhits.de/deu…ml?/deutsch/webstats.html> the Netscape/Mozilla market share ist about 12.5 to 13% with 6.0-6.5% Netscape-old and 6.0-6.5% Gecko-based. Gecko's market share has doubled since last december.
#10 What level would be good enough?
by timothyr <email@example.com>
Monday August 25th, 2003 4:03 AM
What level of share would be good enough? I think if Mozilla got to 10% at half of the top 1000 sites it would be a tremendous achivement, enough to safeguard web standards, but this is obviously a subjective number
#13 We should be tracking GECKO usage
Monday August 25th, 2003 4:22 AM
There seems little point in separately tracking Netscape 6/7, Mozilla, DireBird, etc. This just serves to keep the respective usage numbers low; and it doesn't reflect the percentage of users who would be able to properly see advanced W3C web pages (and isn't that why web developers look at these numbers?).
What we should be encouraging these web-statistic sites to do (via evangelism), is for them (and us) to make GECKO the top-level statistic, and only break it down into distributions (N7, Moz, FB) in a more detailed breakdown of the statistics.
That way, we have (using the "WebHits" example <http://www.webhits.de/deu…ml?/deutsch/webstats.html>):
+---------------------------------------------------+ | MSIE - 85.1% | | GECKO - 6.6% (N7:3.2% + Moz:2.4% + N6:1.0%) | | Netscape 4 - 6.2% | +---------------------------------------------------+
Now that's a much prettier and more meaningful comparison.
#14 We should be tracking GECKO usage
Monday August 25th, 2003 4:26 AM
ARGH, so much for ASCII art in MozZine. Here's the table again:
MSIE...... - 85.1% GECKO..... - 6.6% (N7:3.2% + Moz:2.4% + N6:1.0%) Netscape 4 - 6.2%
#15 We should be tracking GECKO usage
Monday August 25th, 2003 4:27 AM
OK, this is getting frustrating. Aparently, MozZine doesn't respect single linebreaks. Last try:
MSIE...... - 85.1%
GECKO..... - 6.6% (N7:3.2% + Moz:2.4% + N6:1.0%)
Netscape 4 - 6.2%
#19 Re: We should be tracking GECKO usage
Monday August 25th, 2003 9:19 AM
A slight problem with this very good idea is that Apple includes "Gecko" in the UA string for Safari. Easy to work around, but still something to take note of.
IE usage for me for the current month has been at around 96%. It typically hovers in the 96-98% range, so this is in the normal range for me. OTOH, it's on the low end of the range, so it could be the sign of a downward trend, but I'll need at least another few weeks of data to see if that's the case.
... and rising ;)
My own site hovering ~4-6% for Gecko currently (distinct IP).
66% of mozillazine users use Macs, why is that?
It's only a first step, but this is great news, imho!