2000 Free Photoshop Brushes
A massive post with tons of free brush sets for Photoshop.
Shareworthy articles and content syndicated from other sites. These aren’t things I’ve written or necessarily endorse, for the record.
A massive post with tons of free brush sets for Photoshop.
Google’s mantra of launching products early and often didn’t exactly work with Google TV. It hit the ground with a gimped feature set and limited hardware options. The analogy of Android simply hasn’t held true as hardware makers and retail vendors alike simply haven’t picked up the devices. Today, at Google I/O, new hardware partners were announced as well as an updated OS. Google TV might finally be off the starting line.
I post a browser market share report every month or two. I hope you find them interesting or at least revel in the news that IE6 usage is dropping. However, they often result in more questions than they answer. This is my attempt at explaining how browser market share is calculated. It’s a theoretical overview rather than a mathematical thesis and calculation methods will differ from system to system.
…and then there’s web statistics. Collating information from web browsers is notoriously difficult — see Why Your Website Statistics Reports Are Wrong. StatCounter and Google Analytics produce great-looking reports with figures to several decimal places but you should be aware that analysis is based on a hierarchy of assumptions.
That’s not to say web statistics are useless. They’re great for spotting trends, but attempting map results onto the activities of individual users is often futile.
Before we discuss what market share is, perhaps it’s best to determine what it’s not:
1. Browser downloads
The number of browser downloads is not a viable method of comparing market share:
2. Browser installations
Browser installations are similarly flawed:
That’s not to say the figures aren’t useful, but they’re not necessarily indicative of market share.
The first cause of confusion is that market share tables show a percentage of users. In reality, market share is determined from actual browser usage. The figures are probabilities.
Assume browserX has a 50% market share. If you examine a random file hit on a random website, the chance that browserX was used is 1 in 2. It doesn’t matter whether you look at a random hit, visitor session, or an individual user — the same probability will apply.
Since we’re calculating browser usage proportions, the underlying data does not need to record individuals. However, the results retain a direct correlation to users. We could conclude that:
The result is somewhere between those two extremes. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter — we’re analyzing the usage patterns of a group.
When you visit a website, every file request (hit) is logged and your browser is identified from the user agent string passed in the HTTP header. Essentially, if 50% of hit requests are from browserX during period P, it has a 50% market share at that time.
The reality is a little more complex. File hits can be ambiguous because different browsers can download different resources, e.g. IE conditional stylesheets or pre-caching linked pages. Therefore, systems may only analyze the actual page view or make other adjustments.
The next important consideration is the sample size — how many sites and hits are analyzed. There’s no such thing as an “average” website:
Statistical anomalies reduce if you analyze a wide range of websites from many different countries. In essence, more data results in more accurate browser usage figures. StatCounter analyzes traffic from 3 million websites throughout the world — that appears to be a healthy sample size.
There now follows a list of frequently-asked browser market share questions. If I haven’t answered your query, please leave a comment below.
Q: Internet usage is growing.
The number of internet users increases every day. Therefore, it’s possible for a browser’s market share to drop while the actual number of users increases.
Multiply the number of web users by the browser proportion to estimate changes in population … assuming you can find reasonable net usage figures.
Q: Would visitor or user sessions be more accurate than page/file hits?
No. It wouldn’t result in better data because you’re reducing the sample size and introducing unexpected issues. If you only had session data, 3 hours recreational browsing on a single site would equal 30 seconds browsing for a work-related topic. Since many people use IE at work, it would be given an unfair bias over another browser used at home.
Remember we’re analyzing browser usage: it’s not necessary to understand individual user behavior.
Q: I use more than one browser. Am I counted multiple times?
It doesn’t matter. Individuals often have complex browsing patterns, e.g. you may use Firefox 80% of the time and Chrome 20% of the time. That usage is recorded; if you were the only person sampled, Firefox would have an 80% market share.
Q: What about geeks using the net for 18 hours a day?
Market share is a record of browser usage. A heavy user’s browsing carries more weight than someone running IE6 once every month.
However, assuming the sample size is large enough, the effect of an individual or group’s browsing habits is negligible and will not skew the results. For every geek or technophobic, there are thousands of people using the net for an hour or two per day.
Q: My browser uses an incorrect user agent string.
It won’t be identified correctly but, again, you’re in a minority and it’s unlikely affect the results by a significant margin.
Q: How accurate are results for regions or individual countries?
A smaller sample size results in less robust data. I would have more faith in US-only figures than those for Antarctica.
Q: My site’s statistics are different?
They will be. Many factors influence browser usage and few sites can be compared against the global average. Always check your own figures first.
Q: I don’t believe any of these numbers!
A healthy dose of skepticism is good for you. Blindly using a report without understanding the underlying data or analysis is dangerous.
Coming soon — Browser Trends, May 2011.
According to CNET, Google will unveil its cloud music service, Music Beta, at the I/O Developer Conference. The free service will be invitation-only (and US-only) at launch, and it will allow users to upload up to 20,000 songs onto Google’s servers and stream that music to many web-connected devices.
If all that sounds good to you, here’s the monkey wrench: the service won’t work on iOS devices, because Google has (perhaps deliberately) hobbled it by requiring support for Flash Player. While this means the service will work on PCs, Macs and some Android devices, any iPhone, iPod touch or iPad owners will be forced to use alternative services, like Amazon’s Cloud Player or Apple’s presumably forthcoming “iCloud” service.
Like Amazon, Google hasn’t secured licensing deals with the major music labels before launching its music streaming service. Unlike Amazon, Google doesn’t have its own music store to assist in monetizing that service, and by choosing to utilize Flash in its implementation, Google’s also shut out over 100 million potential mobile users from Music Beta. Google, of course, has a “convenient” answer for any iOS users wanting to use Music Beta — buy an Android device — but those of us who are unwilling to do so will either flock to Amazon’s service or hope that Apple comes out with something superior.
Google’s cloud music service to launch without iOS support originally appeared on TUAW on Tue, 10 May 2011 00:20:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.
Source | Permalink | Email this | Comments