×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Internet Explorer Use Slips Below 55%

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the slowly-but-surly dept.

Chrome 104

rfc1394 writes with this snippet from an Infoworld report: "Internet Explorer's market share continues to drop like a rock. Net Applications published its numbers for May, and Internet Explorer's total share declined yet again, from 55.11 percent in April to 54.27 percent in May, a drop of [0.84 percent] in one month. Contrast that with Google's Chrome, which rose from 11.94 percent in April to 12.52 percent in May, an increase of [0.58 percent]. In the past year, IE's share of browser usage has dipped from 60.32 percent to 54.27 percent. How long before IE usage drops below 50%?'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

104 comments

Oh really (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36331972)

For optimal user experience, we suggest viewing this first post using Internet Explorer 9

That's odd (2)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 2 years ago | (#36331980)

I've read elsewhere that it's already below 50% on weekends. Either way, good news for web designers everywhere.

Re:That's odd (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 2 years ago | (#36332008)

Yeah, wikipedia pegs it at median 43%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers [wikipedia.org]

Re:That's odd (4, Informative)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 2 years ago | (#36332078)

Net Applications bases their numbers on Fortune 500 companies (or something like that) so its REALLY slanted. IE actually already is well below 50%. It was also shown that while people were forced to use IE in the workplace, the second they left work, IE stats dropped dramatically as people started surfing at home on their personal computers.

Re:That's odd (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#36332484)

So Net Application numbers are of IE Mind share vs. Market share. I wouldn't say the numbers are Really slanted. If you need to use IE at work, then you are using IE. So if you are making corporate web software you need to know what browsers are used at work.

Re:That's odd (1)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 2 years ago | (#36333874)

The fortune 500 does not represent the market as a whole; they are sluggish and slow moving whn adopting technology while the rest of the world moves much quicker. They are actually a very poor indicator of technology adoption. It's like measuring the military for technology adoption; we'd all still be on mainframes according to those statistics (which alot of fortune 500's still are oddly enough).

Re:That's odd (1)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 2 years ago | (#36332042)

I can confirm that -- IE numbers for my employer (mainstream, VERY high volume) hover around 51% Mon-Fri, and around 46% Sat/Sun and Holidays.

Re:That's odd (-1)

TheSunborn (68004) | more than 2 years ago | (#36332226)

And you would be wrong. There currently don't exists any useless feature in firefox 4. Just because you don't use it does not make it useless or bloated

Re:That's odd (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 2 years ago | (#36332712)

What are you trying to say? The writing of that post is... very poor. I think you're tying to defend firefox 4 which makes no sense because I didn't post about it and am in fact an obsessive firefox user who enjoys firefox 4. Not to mention that firefox is actually currently suffering from chrome syndrome. The problem is not bloat, it's anti-bloat. They're removing features left right and center.

Re:That's odd (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#36332516)

"I've read elsewhere that it's already below 50% on weekends"

That disparity is because China and Korea heavily use IE 6 and 7 which skew the numbers higher for IE. In North America IE had less than 50% marketshare for awhile. It is even lower in Europe.

Most machines in China are pirated and therefore do not get Windows Updates which mean they use IE. Korea is IE because all banks and e-commerce sites force users to use activeX controls due to the lack of SSL thanks to US export controls with encryption. This is no longer a problem but Ebay and the banks do not care and still require it.

Even if everyone but China dumped IE tomorrow, you can bet a good 25-35% of IE marketshare would still be there thanks to that market. In other words ignore the IE statistics for the world if you develop websites and just focus on North America. If you need to make an Asian site just write it for IE only.

Re:That's odd (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 2 years ago | (#36332804)

I know that most Chinese machines run pirated copies of windows, but wouldn't that make them not want to use IE? Or is there another factor?

Re:That's odd (1)

cyfer2000 (548592) | more than 2 years ago | (#36333762)

Chinese online banking systems are heavily relying on ActiveX because of the same reason of South Korea. So every time I recommended some one in China use non IE browsers, they would say "Duh, not working with my bank..."

Re:That's odd (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 2 years ago | (#36334758)

Korea is IE because all banks and e-commerce sites force users to use activeX controls due to the lack of SSL thanks to US export controls with encryption.

Huh???? SSL is an openly-published standard with many free sources for various versions, as can be verified in seconds by googling "SSL specification" and "SSL source code". You'll get back thousands of links that include lots of versions of the source. There's no way the US government could be blocking all of them; the code is easily available anywhere there's IP access. And since you can download the spec, you can have your staff hackers do as much checking of the code as you're willing to pay them for.

(Actually, it would probably be good advice to do a bit of checking on the nature of the source repositories. It doesn't take a lot of brains to guess that there are likely some "doctored" versions out there with, uh, "interesting" undocumented features. So if you're building a product that includes SSL, even if you're in the US, you might want to observe the usual sort of due diligence to verify that you've got a good SSL package. And you DO want the source; otherwise whoever sent you the link library should be assumed to have access to the innards of everything you're building. ;-)

Any bank that has "standardized" on ActiveX has done so for internal reasons; there's no external reason to make such a decision (and many good reasons to ban ActiveX instead).

Re:That's odd (1)

rfc1394 (155777) | more than 2 years ago | (#36337334)

"I've read elsewhere that it's already below 50% on weekends"

That disparity is because China and Korea heavily use IE 6 and 7 which skew the numbers higher for IE. In North America IE had less than 50% marketshare for awhile. It is even lower in Europe.

Most machines in China are pirated and therefore do not get Windows Updates which mean they use IE. Korea is IE because all banks and e-commerce sites force users to use activeX controls due to the lack of SSL thanks to US export controls with encryption.

(1) Firefox supports SSL. (2) The U.S. no longer has export controls upon COTS (commercial, off-the-shelf) applications. If it's sold or given away publicly it's not export controlled. This has been the case for at least four or five years. See the government's rule page at http://www.bis.doc.gov/encryption/question1.htm [doc.gov] for more details.

Re:That's odd (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#36332724)

"I've read elsewhere that it's already below 50% on weekends"

That disparity is because China and Korea heavily use IE 6 and 7 which skew the numbers higher for IE. In North America IE had less than 50% marketshare for awhile. It is even lower in Europe.

Most machines in China are pirated and therefore do not get Windows Updates which mean they use IE. Korea is IE because all banks and e-commerce sites force users to use activeX controls due to the lack of SSL thanks to US export controls with encryption. This is no longer a problem but Ebay and the banks do not care and still require it.

Even if everyone but China dumped IE tomorrow, you can bet a good 25-35% of IE marketshare would still be there thanks to that market. In other words ignore the IE statistics for the world if you develop websites and just focus on North America. If you need to make an Asian site just write it for IE only.

Re:That's odd (1)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 2 years ago | (#36333056)

I've read elsewhere that it's already below 50% on weekends

That disparity is because China and Korea heavily use IE 6 and 7 which skew the numbers higher for IE. In North America IE had less than 50% marketshare for awhile. It is even lower in Europe.

Most machines in China are pirated and therefore do not get Windows Updates which mean they use IE. Korea is IE because all banks and e-commerce sites force users to use activeX controls due to the lack of SSL thanks to US export controls with encryption. This is no longer a problem but Ebay and the banks do not care and still require it.

Even if everyone but China dumped IE tomorrow, you can bet a good 25-35% of IE marketshare would still be there thanks to that market. In other words ignore the IE statistics for the world if you develop websites and just focus on North America. If you need to make an Asian site just write it for IE only.

I see IE usage drop on the weekends and I get little to no traffic from China.

The biggest difference appears to be from mobile. For most traffic we see a hefty dip on weekends and other non-business days, but our mobile traffic shows hardly any variation by day of week.

Re:That's odd (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36334032)

The main factor keeping IE on the books are the millions of M$ systems in the work place. Users that haven't the privileges to install better software are locked into using IE, even though it is the most sucking browser out there. If I could I would install FF on this machine, but I am not the administrator. By day I use this abortion. Nights & weekends my vote goes to FF & Tbird.

Re:That's odd (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 2 years ago | (#36334592)

That's weird. Computers that I use at school have ridiculously underprivileged student accounts (I mean really- you can't delete your own files on the network drive -it's a joke), but I can install firefox without elevating myself. On XP, Vista and 7. Although it's highly probable that it's just an oversight.

How Long? (1)

Bradmont (513167) | more than 2 years ago | (#36331984)

How long before IE usage drops below 50%?

In the past year, IE's share of browser usage has dipped from 60.32 percent to 54.27 percent.

60.32-54.27 = 6.05
6.05/12=0.504
4.28/0.504 = 8.49

I give it about eight and a half months.

This can only be good for the web. (2)

gurumeditationerror (631201) | more than 2 years ago | (#36331992)

As soon as IE loses majority I imagine it's remaining share will drop at an accelerated pace.

Re:This can only be good for the web. (1)

Monchanger (637670) | more than 2 years ago | (#36332194)

As soon as IE loses majority I imagine it's remaining share will drop at an accelerated pace.

My intuition is the exact opposite for two reasons:
1) IE has for quite some time now not been the "recommended" browser by websites, so there's little holding back users who want to switch to an alternative.
2) The ratio of stubborn&clueless to likely-convert increases with every single convert. These folks aren't watching the metrics waiting to jump ship to keep "rooting for the winning team."

I see three potential exceptions to reason #2: mobile users (though I suspect this market is approaching saturation since app usage circumvents these metrics), businesses producing converts en masse via security policy (though this has to overcome rule #1 and *shudder* Sharepoint adoption) and more potential for "forced-converts" (e.g. my mother & grandmother). But I'm not so optimistic that I would expect these to produce a significant acceleration in alternative browser share.

Re:This can only be good for the web. (1)

gdshaw (1015745) | more than 2 years ago | (#36333924)

But I'm not so optimistic that I would expect these to produce a significant acceleration in alternative browser share.

If you want some cause for optimism look at the StatCounter figures for IE in the Ukraine (4th place, 15.4%), Moldova (3rd place, 14.4%), Macedonia (3rd place, 11.2%) and Georgia (4th place, 13.1%). Not representative of the world by any means, but they show that Internet Explorer usage can sink to very low levels of usage even with the unfair advantages that it enjoys.

(Not that it really matters whether they end up with 20%, 10% or 0%. The important point is that their monopoly has gone so they can't dictate web standards any more.)

Re:This can only be good for the web. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36332230)

why?

And the geeks cheer! (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 2 years ago | (#36331998)

YAY!

It's amazing though how many still cling to Internet Explorer, even after you tell them, "But websites can see everything you do. Explorer, especially versions 6 and 7, has no privacy." One forum poster at AVscience replied, "I don't care I'll keep using IE anyway and _____ your firefox recommendation." Ummm... oookay. Just trying to help you secure your PC there, buddy.

I see Opera rose from approximately 1% to 3%. Yay.
Netscape(!) still holds a 3/4% share.
And Mozilla/Seamonkey is only 1/50 of a percent. Not so great. :-|

Re:And the geeks cheer! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36332150)

See, it's comments like these that really make it hard to determine whether you're a fucking moron or a troll. I mean, this comment has to be trolling. You can't possibly be this stupid and still function as a human being. But if you are a troll, you're the weirdest fucking troll of all time.

Champagne, lightly clad women, and music!!! (0)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 2 years ago | (#36332004)

Champagne, lightly clad women, and music!!!

IE is dropping like a rock. That sounds very nice.

Thanks for the info! It gave me an excuse to open that left-over bottle of champagne!

Basis point != Percentage point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36332012)

You're off by a factor of 100.

Excellent! (4, Interesting)

simp (25997) | more than 2 years ago | (#36332048)

A bit of competition is always good. That way nobody falls asleep and we will see regular updates with new features. The obvious problem is of-course feature bloat: I predict that in the year 2016 all browsers, Firefox 27, Chrome 27 and IE 32, will be so filled with useless junk that a lone, angry, nerd will create a new lean&mean browser, with just one feature: render standard compliant HTML7 pages with 100% accuracy.

According to Wikipedia a Phoenix can rise from the ashes again and again. The future will be the same as the past...

Re:Excellent! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36332392)

According to Wikipedia a Phoenix can rise from the ashes again and again.

Until the trademark dispute hits.

Re:Excellent! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36332472)

Firefox is bloated shitware *today*.
 
I swear that I don't understand the fanbois who are still swinging on the nutsack of FF. FF has become everything that these same people left IE for and now IE is better than FF. But really, it doesn't fucking matter. Fanbois still suck a cock and Chrome beats both of them hands down. These guys who act geek and go around talking about the virtues of FF are just chumps for the fodder. Keep watching G4 and shopping at Best Buy, bitches.

Re:Excellent! (3, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#36332476)

The most important part of this news, which has been true for a while now, is that no single browser is winning in anything remotely like a permanent way. That means that everybody still has motivation to stick to standards, making the old Embrace-Extend-Extinguish routine more and more difficult.

Remember all those "This site is best viewed in ..." sections of far too many sites back in the day?

Re:Excellent! (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#36332586)

"with just one feature: render standard compliant HTML7 pages with 100% accuracy" ... and it has to work with IE 6 or my client isn't interested. ... ducks.

Re:Excellent! (-1, Troll)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#36332638)

with just one feature: render standard compliant HTML7 pages with 100% accuracy.

Fuck that noise. I happen to like the add-ons feature for Firefox, and I also like the idea that you can add Flash support to browsers and a lot of other mods. You stick with strict standards compliance all you want. But the first time I hit a website that says "Sorry, you can't view this video/play this game/use this utility" because some anal-retentive autistic nerd has decided that my browser will ONLY support some standard that some W3C assholes approved in a committee meeting--that's the moment that I uninstall that browser and go back to Firefox (or Chrome, or IE, or whatever).

I won't put up with Steve Jobs telling me what I can and can't install (that's right, fuck you Steve, I use flash), so why would I put up with some browser that won't let me use add-ons?

Re:Excellent! (1)

Confusador (1783468) | more than 2 years ago | (#36334042)

I believe that was GP's point. Back in the day Phoenix had as its only goal standards compliant rendering, everything else you wanted had to be added through add ons; that made it very light weight and flexible. After Firefox accomplished that goal they started adding things into the trunk, eventually someone is going to have to go back and strip it down to what it was.

related: Microsoft in decline (1)

Onymous Coward (97719) | more than 2 years ago | (#36332906)

The recent /. [slashdot.org] article on what ails Microsoft is relevant here. They can no longer sustain their numbers as a regular, non-dominating competitor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Internet-explorer-usage-data.svg [wikipedia.org]

Five years of rank stagnation of web technology thanks to IE's domination of the market, what I call the Great Languish.

Please do your part to remember the fiasco and to ward against it by discouraging monopolies both with your actions and your advice to others. If you're sticking with the dominant browser/platform because it's more comfortable than using the game-changing upstart, you're part of the problem.


Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003
From: Concerned Netizen
To: Friends
Subject: browser war upset

I get the feeling that Microsoft is about to lose the browser war.
Everyone thought it was over.

        http://mozilla.org/products/firebird/why/ [mozilla.org]

Try it out:

        http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firebird/releases/0.6.1/MozillaFirebird-0.6.1-win32.zip [mozilla.org]

Commoditize the platform. It's good for us all.

Re:related: Microsoft in decline (1, Insightful)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 2 years ago | (#36333442)

So you're suggesting that people should use software they don't like, and are not comfortable with use, and possibly doesn't even meet their needs.. just because you say so.

Yeah.... Good luck with that.

Re:Excellent! (2)

ajo_arctus (1215290) | more than 2 years ago | (#36333142)

According to Wikipedia a Phoenix can rise from the ashes again and again. The future will be the same as the past...

Yep, and Phoenix Technologies will once again force that phoenix to change its name, just like they did the first version of Firefox (which was originally called Phoenix).

Re:Excellent! (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 2 years ago | (#36333188)

Chrome 27? Methinks you underestimate the severity of chrome syndrome. I'd be shocked if the version number is less than 50 by 2016

Dropping like a rock? (1)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 2 years ago | (#36332074)

This is great news, and the change is definitely non-trivial, but saying it's dropping like a rock seems like a bit of an exaggeration. At this rate it's going to be about another 5-10 months before it drops below 50%, and at the current rate it will take Chrome about five and a half _years_ to get above 50%. (Obviously it would pass by IE somewhere in the middle of that time frame, but i don't care to do the math now.)

Look at what happened to Android's market share in the last year or two, and counterpoise it with RIM. That's a bit more like the kind of change you could qualify as "dropping like a rock" or "rising meteorically," and even that's pushing it a bit IMHO.

Re:Dropping like a rock? (1)

Jason Earl (1894) | more than 2 years ago | (#36332260)

At this point IE market share doesn't really matter that much. After all, in a bid to remain relevant Microsoft is finally embracing web standards. Instead of steering developers towards Silverlight Microsoft now putting its efforts into things like having a decent Javascript implementation, workable SVG support, etc. Even if Microsoft manages to maintain its current market share it is finally possible to code to web standards and create web sites that look and behave well across a wide array of browsers and devices.

Heck, not even the most rabid Microsoft fanboys can justify creating IE-only websites these days, and it wasn't that long ago that it was difficult to justify spending any time at all on non-IE browsers. Microsoft was nearly successful in tying the Internet to Internet Explorer (and to Windows), but it is abundantly clear that this effort has failed. The desktop (and Windows) is becoming less important all of the time.

Re:Dropping like a rock? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#36332688)

...Microsoft is finally embracing web standards

Tell me about it. I am browsing this comment with IE 9. Windows update just installed it last night and I am playing with it. I have to say it is stunning and it feels like IE is back in the league with Firefox and Chrome. I find heavily graphic sites like www.msnbc.com scroll very smoothly with IE 9 vs Chrome and Firefox 4. For slashdotters on Windows I highly recommend to download and play with it. ... no you did not misread that last sentance. IE 9 even has a firebug-lite development and script debugger now.

IE 10 from what I read will finally clear most of the annoying bugs that MS has been trying to fix since IE 8, that IE 9 still have. But thank you Mozilla Firefox for making this happen. Without you we would be stuck wiht IE 7 and flash. Shudder.

I doubt Google would dare release Chrome if IE still had 85% marketshare of just 5 years ago.

I find these latest generation browsers exciting compared to the past. HTML 5, hardware acceleration, javascript applets, and cell phone applets are all tying together without flash. Even flash is hardware accelerated on Windows and now the Mac. It makes web development fun again and I love competition. Keep it up.

Re:Dropping like a rock? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36334878)

IE-only websites were never about fanboyism, it was always about it being the platform that everyone and their mother was using. Those were simpler times, and the existence of a single relevant platform was a good thing, because Netscape was both awefull as a browser and as a target to design for.

Web design is a pain in the ass these days, four versions of IE to test against and design for, and the standards compliant browsers (though I would argue that IE was always standards compliant in that it set the standard) all have their share of quirks regarding how they implement the standard (not even all browsers using the same rendering engine render things the same), and to make matters worse, we're stuck with a useless "living standard" being pushed by a standards body that cares more about waging a codec war than providing a useful standard.

Also to say that the desktop is becoming less relevant is baffling, there's more to the world than twitter, email and facebook for fuck's sake.

Re:Dropping like a rock? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36332502)

Amusingly, "meteoric" seems like a descriptor for rapidly dropping rocks.

Basis Points (1)

ZipK (1051658) | more than 2 years ago | (#36332092)

from 55.11 percent in April to 54.27 percent in May, a drop of 0.84 basis point in one month

That would be 0.84% or 84 basis points. 100bp = 1%.

Wait a second... (2)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#36332106)

Wait a second... Isn't this the same Net Applications that is constantly criticized over it's OS market share figures that show Linux as less than 1%? Apparently only the statistics that show anti-Microsoft things can actually be accurate. I would be willing to bet if a submitter made a story showing how Net Applications showed Linux had dropped from .94% to .91% over the same period that it would be flamed to hell as being inaccurate, etc etc yet when it shows IE dropping market share their figures are 100% truth. lol hypocrisy.

Re:Wait a second... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36332236)

Comparing apples to oranges doesn't work very well...

IE users do not change their browser identifiers so that web sites will work; on Linux and Firefox I need to in order to make some websites work (My bank -- which I CAN'T change if I want to get paid is one). I don't know of anyone who changes the Windows Firefox to say it's Linux to make a website work.

So, I would suspect that my 5 Linux boxes (used by my 5 separate family members) all show up as Windows and IE for these stats as well :( Although, truthfully, I haven't been changing the Browser tag to IE lately so with recent updates they may be reporting the browser correctly now.

Re:Wait a second... (1)

Dr.Dubious DDQ (11968) | more than 2 years ago | (#36332258)

Well, if that's the case it can be interpreted as "even with Linux marketshare undercounted by Net Applications, they STILL show Microsoft's browser is still losing market share!"

Not (necessarily) hypocritical.

Re:Wait a second... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36332464)

Wait a second... Isn't this the same Net Applications that is constantly criticized over it's OS market share figures that show Linux as less than 1%? Apparently only the statistics that show anti-Microsoft things can actually be accurate.

In your rush to post that bullshit you completely skipped over the first-poster showing that IE's median marketshare is 43% according to wikipedia, and that NetApp compiled the data using Fortune 500 companies, so its already heavily slanted towards IE5 (because thats what these giant companies' highly audited and change-controlled enterprise crap has been certified to use).

Re:Wait a second... (1)

StormReaver (59959) | more than 2 years ago | (#36332790)

Apparently only the statistics that show anti-Microsoft things can actually be accurate.

If Net Applications is opt-in, and the vast majority of those opt-ins come from Windows, then the vast majority of what Net Applications measures is Windows-based (obviously). So within that data set, the use of Internet Explorer decreases steadily while the use of Windows itself stays relatively unchanged.

That indicates the decline of Internet Explorer within the Net Applications survey base, and is not hypocritical at all. The only question is the size of the Net Applications survey base.

Gee, only 50%? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36332118)

Don't know about the rest of you, but I'd settle for over 50% of the market share.

Uh, "basis point"? (1)

afabbro (33948) | more than 2 years ago | (#36332120)

Did someone just take freshman economics and want to dazzle us with his new vocabulary? Because, while technically correct, "basis points" is only commonly encountered when discussing finance. "Percentage points" fits in that sentence just fine.

And it's "basis points" not "basis point". Hat's off to Soulskill for the usual high quality editing.

Re:Uh, "basis point"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36332390)

no, it's not technically correct. a basis point is 1/100th of one percent.

Re:Uh, "basis point"? (1)

kbielefe (606566) | more than 2 years ago | (#36333130)

The reason it's commonly used in finance is that it makes clear the subtle distinction between "percent decrease" and "decrease in a value reported as a percentage." A 0.84% decrease from 55.11% brings you only to 54.65% (55.11 * (1-0.0084)), a drop of 46 basis points. A decrease of 84 basis points from 55.11% is a 1.52% decrease. The author used it appropriately except for that factor of 100 error.

Basis Point = 1/100 % point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36332126)

So it's dropped 84 basis points. Or 0.84 percentage points.

Uptake in iPads, other tablets and mobile browsing (1)

smist08 (1059006) | more than 2 years ago | (#36332140)

I think this shows that a huge percentage of Internet browsing is now coming from iPads, other tablets, iPhones and Android phones. Certainly pays to make your web site browser agnostic these days. I see many web sites that popup messages saying to install run Chrome or Firefox for a better browsing experience.

Re:Uptake in iPads, other tablets and mobile brows (1)

yuna49 (905461) | more than 2 years ago | (#36332710)

TFA suggests otherwise.

The dark horse in all of this: mobile. Everyone expects mobile Web browsing -- including with tablets -- to soar in the near future. Windows Mobile accounts for a measly 0.02 percent of all hits detected by Net Applications in May, while WP7 didn't even rate a roundoff error. Android ran on machines that accounted for 0.76 percent of all hits in May, and iOS ran on a noteworthy 2.38 percent.

Sure, changes in these low usage rates could have accounted for a decline in share as small as the 0.84% reported for IE. Still it's rather striking that mobiles only account for about three percent of browsers in use.

It looks like a few of Slashdot's servers decided to leave town early for the weekend today!

I'm confused by the market share terminology (1)

greymond (539980) | more than 2 years ago | (#36332164)

I'm assuming that by market share it's some globalish number of IE users and that because of this many users in foreign countries are using IE or something...My main issue for confusion comes from my experience having worked on two city websites, four websites for a major university and several small mom and pop company sites. From the analytics on each of these IE is always the least used browser, often times less than 25% of the users. Granted, I'm working with a small amount of fish in the ocean, but other webmasters I've worked with and talked to about this experience the same thing - so I guess my question is...where are all these IE users coming from and what sites are they going too?

Re:I'm confused by the market share terminology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36332480)

From china.....In Europe Firefox is the #1 browser for about a few months now according to http://gs.statcounter.com/press/firefox-overtakes-internet-explorer-in-europe-in-browser-wars

Firefox Adoption Stalls (1)

jamesbulman (103594) | more than 2 years ago | (#36332182)

Surely of more concern is that the number of Firefox users has stalled for the last year? In the same period Chrome has gained > 5% and it's rate is accelerating.

Re:Firefox Adoption Stalls (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 2 years ago | (#36333094)

Well firefox is holding steady, IE is losing huge. What I'm guessing is that around an equal amount of people are leaving firefox for chrome as are people leaving IE for firefox. Of course, plenty are leaving IE for chrome, too, so...

Re:Firefox Adoption Stalls (1)

kiddygrinder (605598) | more than 2 years ago | (#36334486)

it's not a concern, it's awesome. i think IE 6 being stalled in development for years taught us that competition is good.

include mobile? (1)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 2 years ago | (#36332244)

Is this just desktop numbers or are they including mobile? With the huge rise in people actively using mobile browsers(the majority of which are not MS), it could just be a case of the numbers being skewed because of these new devices and that all people really care about is what is easy to get to and use. They may still have IE only on their PC, but they just don't use it because they're surfing from their couch.

Re:include mobile? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36332590)

I assume it includes mobile since the Blackberry browser shows up in TFA. I didn't see if the mobile vs desktop Safari numbers were combined or separated.

this just in (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36332604)

I just read that lynx is now taking the lead in web browsing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynx_(web_browser)

Lies, Damn Lies, and IE at 24.3% (1)

starglider29a (719559) | more than 2 years ago | (#36332676)

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp [w3schools.com]

I know this is YMMV source, but according to it, IE hit 50% in August of 2008.

I know how browsers are detected. It's about as scientific as a Slashdot poll.

This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.

For example:

  1. I'd bet that Chrome's download page has a much lower percentage of Chrome users than the general populace.
  2. I'm sure M$ could show you stats with IE at 92% and the rest reading the files from FTP.
  3. Corporate vs. Academic sites would probably see great variation for a single browser.

What makes any one set of browser share statistics any better than any other?

Re:Lies, Damn Lies, and IE at 24.3% (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 2 years ago | (#36333330)

Whether the sample is representative or not. The W3Schools site is not very representative because it's aimed at web developers, not the general public. If you look at Wikipedia's usage share page [wikipedia.org] you can find some samples that are more representative. They all show IE above 37% usage.

Re:Lies, Damn Lies, and IE at 24.3% (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 2 years ago | (#36333804)

Any sane user of Firefox has AdBlock installed, which drives down usage measured by advertising and tracking companies by a lot. Thus, from all the datasets mentioned at that page, Wikimedia stats are the only ones I'd bother with.

Re:Lies, Damn Lies, and IE at 24.3% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36333850)

That's because it's w3schools, a site primarily used by developers and script kiddies. Their browsing habits do not reflect the majority of internet users.

Not Seeing it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36332912)

Google Analytics still shows IE at 85% share for my sites (Local government). Guess it all depends on the user base.

Posting as AC since every time I mention IE my karma plunges.

Seems natural (1)

Superdarion (1286310) | more than 2 years ago | (#36332938)

I was under the understanding that most IE users were stil using IE 6 because big corporations didn't want to go through the hassle of updating not only their Explorer, but also any other platform that was dependant on it. Microsoft has been on a crusade to convince its users to stop using IE6, going as far as dropping support and security fixes. Faced with the fact that they must abandon IE6 and adopt a new one, it's only natural that they would choose the "best" explorer there is out there, and by "best" I mean the one that better suits their needs. That may or may not be IE9.

Re:Seems natural (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#36334132)

It's as much CAN'T as it is don't want to go through the hassle. A bunch of corporations drank the MS cool-aid back in the '90s and used MS tools to develop web apps that (shockingly) only worked with IE. Since IE6 was so bizarrely incompatible with standards, even MS couldn't manage backward compatibility without declaring IE to be a special app viewer rather than a web browser.

Smartphones, tablets, etc. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36333184)

Can any of this be credited to the fact that people are using many other non-microsoft OS devices? I wonder how many Windows users have abandoned using IE. Obviously, some have, but sometimes numbers can be misleading.

I don't believe it (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 2 years ago | (#36333216)

The average Internet user is fairly clueless.

The average clueless user doesn't go installing an alternative browser.

The idea that approaching 50% of Internet users are savvy enough to even consider an alternative browser, let alone choose one, is implausible.

Therefore I question the methodology.

Bundling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36333362)

Go download programs (especially free ones) and install them. Just as with toolbars, more and more programs try to install alternate browsers that set themselves as the default.

Perfect example, my mother called me and asked why IE looked so funny. Turns out she was using Chrome. I looked through the reliability manager (which tracks installs) and found out that she recently installed a new program that slipped on Chrome.

A similar thing happened with my sister and iTunes, which lead to her calling me about Safari.

Re:I don't believe it (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 2 years ago | (#36333370)

I think it's mostly experienced users installing Firefox and Chrome on their friends' and families' computers. It cuts down on the amount of work spent cleaning up malware attacks.

Re:I don't believe it (1)

LordThyGod (1465887) | more than 2 years ago | (#36333670)

The average user does not spend all day in front of a computer. Those that do, have more discriminating tastes and account for a disproportionate volume of web traffic. I also question the stats, but only because I can't think of anyone I know who actually uses IE.

Re:I don't believe it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36333730)

The average internet user is looking more and more like someone using their cellphone, iphone, ipad, etc.. none of which use IE.
Thank gawd

Re:I don't believe it (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#36334158)

In the EU, they're presented a simple menu to pick one from. That's not enough to account for the big drop, but combine that with people who do know better installing just about anything but IE for friends and family and the smartphone browsers (definitely not IE, nobody uses Windows 7) and it looks a lot more plausible.

Re:I don't believe it (1)

tgeek (941867) | more than 2 years ago | (#36335782)

The average Internet user is fairly clueless.

The average clueless user doesn't go installing an alternative browser.

The idea that approaching 50% of Internet users are savvy enough to even consider an alternative browser, let alone choose one, is implausible.

Therefore I question the methodology.

I respectfully disagree. The average clueless user installs any and every thing they can get their grubby little paws on. Browsers, freeware, malware, whatever - it doesn't matter as long as it's easy ("click here", "run now", etc. are clueless's best friends). Usually ol' clueless will have at a minimum: IE (whatever version), Firefox, Safari, and a bouquet of unsubscribed virus protection programs installed at any given time.

"less clueless" users OTOH (in my experience) are the ones more likely to stop and ask themselves or somebody more knowledgeable "Why do I need to install this browser?" or "Is this the right thing to do?"

Becoming a missleading stat (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36333630)

So, the ignorance and bias of Slashdot is alway apparent with news like this.

What people perceive is happening. Users are switching to Chome or Firefox and not using IE. Ha Ha, Windows sucks, IE sucks blah blah blah

What is really happening? A huge explosion of phones, tablets, and other devices have entered the market where IE is not the browser on those devices.

It is apparent because the "adoption" of Fire Fox is also stalling. Does this mean people are choosing not to use Fire Fox? No, simply put that Android phones and iPhones use Chrome or webkit based browser that is not Mozill or IE based, period.

What is most misleading here is assuming people are "choosing" to dump IE in favor of another browser, and this is simply not factual. People are choosing other devices which largely do not offer a choice or, or there is no need to choose a different browser. Get a phone with a built-in browser, why bother downloading or using another browser. Game consoles, tablets, appliances all have a pre-installed browsers, largely not optional or selectable in many case.

What really should be made more clear is to break down browser usage per hardware platform, and the only platform to gauge IE acceptance or abandonment is the PC platform. Comparing IE usage across all platforms that run a browser is irrelevant these days.

What is most obvious about stats like this is that people are opting to view web content on non-PC hardware. Since Microsoft is not bothering to port IE to Android or iPhone or whatever, yes IE's perceived market share is diminishing. Every comment suggesting people are choosing not to use IE "because it is crap" are hugely ignorant about what is going on in the world of high tech.

And on a final note, who fucking cares? Is Microsoft worried about how many people use IE? IE has never generated revenue for Microsoft, period. So whether it has 90% market share or 10%, its of no consequence to Microsoft's bottom line other then pride. Microsoft should be more worried about the erosion of the traditional PC market in favor of mobile devices of which Microsoft has not been a strong contender in, until recently.

And I mean come on Slashdot! Microsoft has made significant announcements about Windows 8 and IE 10 and people are more interested in knowing whether IE 6 is still the dominant web browser. I would rather get into a nice heated debate about whether Mosh is a great way to front an OS rather then worrying about what fucking web browser you prefer to use.

Re:Becoming a missleading stat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36333974)

That doesn't make sense.

The mobile space doesn't really have any firefox browsers, nor does it have IE browsers. If the decrease is due to the explosion in mobile devices, both would decrease. The fact that firefox isn't, means that if IE is holding steady, firefox must be increasing. If firefox is holding steady, IE must be decreasing. Attributing it to wholly to mobile apps cannot explain the behavior.

Besides, I think the importance of the mobile devices is being hugely overstated by most pundits and tech sites. Only about 20% of cellphone users have anything like a smartphone; and 25% of adults still don't even have a cellphone. It's an area that is still waiting for actual mainstream adoption. Just because you and your friends in IT have smartphones doesn't make it truly commonplace. What are the stats for most websites? I think generally, fewer than 5% of their hits are from mobile devices.

I find IE9 to be useful (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | more than 2 years ago | (#36334680)

I've got a domain registered and use Google Apps for it. Due to changes Google made in Feburary 2011, I'm no longer able to have FF open my Domain Apps and Personal iGoogle pages at the same time. It forces me to log-out of the domain apps every time.

What I've found though is that IE9 works nicely with Google Apps and I now have it configured to deal with my business apps while keeping firefox for my personal browser.

Re:I find IE9 to be useful (1)

satuon (1822492) | more than 2 years ago | (#36336262)

Yes, but IE9 has the disadvantage that it's not compatible with XP, so for 50% of the users the best version of IE they can access is IE8. I don't know how fast XP will fade but that alone might help Chrome and Firefox pick some converts who can't upgrade to IE9 because they're on XP.

Market Share (1)

jakartus (1287248) | more than 2 years ago | (#36334700)

I think when you look at the chart and add the numbers together you get a different story. Sure IE has 54%, but if you add other MS properties like Pocket Internet Explorer and the Danger Web Browser you get a total of, oh, never mind.

Development Environment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36335942)

On one end IE has worst experience for end user, and on the other it has poor developer environment. Your standard HTML/CSS compliant website may not work on IE well and on top of that, their debugging tool, I don't know what purpose it fulfill.

These stats could be a great relief for designers, if MS could learn from his downfall and make more user and developer friendly web browser.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...