×

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!

Nielsen Report Says Internet Usage Flattening

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the adding-to-the-divide dept.

The Internet 105

Ant writes "This BetaNews story says an analysis of major Internet markets revealed that the time netizens spend online at home has come close to hitting a plateau in many major markets. Nielsen//NetRatings, a syndicated rating system for Internet audience measurement, measured markets in Brazil, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States and found them to be maturing. In contrast, Australia, France, Hong Kong, Italy and Japan experienced double-digit growth. According to Nielsen//NetRatings' press release (PDF) and current news story concluded that mature markets are in wait of "the next big thing" whereas emerging markets were rife with opportunity for companies online. Some of the growth engines cited in the report is the proliferation of broadband and societal changes in media consumption..."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

105 comments

My internet usage has leveled off, too (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11985524)

Apparently it's impossible to average more than 24 hours online a day.

Re:My internet usage has leveled off, too (3, Funny)

datastalker (775227) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985540)

Plus, since you apparently never sleep, you'll be dead in a week. ;)

Re:My internet usage has leveled off, too (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11985546)

But at least I'll die happy in the knowledge I got first post on Slashdot. In fact, I want that on my gravestone.

Anonymous Coward
1977-2005
First Post

Re:My internet usage has leveled off, too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11985617)

1) Anonymous Coward
2) 1977-2005
3) First Post
4) ???
5) Profit!!!

Re:My internet usage has leveled off, too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11988059)

I've lasted a week with only 5 hours sleep. I'm sure it's possible to manage it without any.

Re:My internet usage has leveled off, too (1)

notque (636838) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985760)

Apparently it's impossible to average more than 24 hours online a day.

Thankfully we aren't still using BBSs, paying with credits/per hour.

We would have never wasted so much of our lives stareing into a bright light displaying images.

Re:My internet usage has leveled off, too (1)

Taladar (717494) | more than 9 years ago | (#11986745)

We would have never wasted so much of our lives stareing into a bright light displaying images.
You know this little invention called TV?

Re:My internet usage has leveled off, too (3, Funny)

johannesg (664142) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985861)

You may be interested in my proposal for a 32 hour day, then. You'll get a few hours of sleep extra (in the middle of the day), and since we'll keep the 8-hour working day there will be a lot of hours to spend on actually doing interesting things, such as downloading and burning even more stuff you'll never find the time to look at.

Who's with me?

Re:My internet usage has leveled off, too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11986223)

Which sounds reasonable. People are hitting the 24/7 online. So it'll need more people being online way longer to make a difference in the statistics. Or am I wrong here? It just seems this isn't waiting for the next big thing. I guess internet is just hitting some saturation point where people just can't be online more than they are.

Re:My internet usage has leveled off, too (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 9 years ago | (#11986689)

Phineas Fogg would beg to differ. Start booking your plane tickets now. :)

Re:My internet usage has leveled off, too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11988835)

Two word solution to increasing the amount of time spent online: more pr0n.

Does this mean we get to keep IPv4? (3, Interesting)

Nice2Cats (557310) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985537)

After all the song and dance about how we all have to switch to IPv6 because we are running out of numbers right now, or tomorrow, or next week for sure, does this mean that we can stick with IPv4 instead?

I'm still waiting for things to fall apart with IPv4...

Switch to IPv6? Not gonna happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11985550)

CIDR and NAT took care of the IPv4 address shortage boogeyman a long time ago.

Re:Switch to IPv6? Not gonna happen (2, Insightful)

jrcamp (150032) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985684)

As far as I'm concerned NAT is a workaround, not a solution to IP address shortages.

Re:Switch to IPv6? Not gonna happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11985710)

NAT is a way for me to CONTROL MY address space, you think ISPs will hand out handfuls of IPs to private users? Not alot me thinks, with all these appliances, why cant a single home have a single IP number and we manage those privately at the router?

Makes sense to me, NAT is not just a fix, its also a way for US to CONTROL our OWN network at HOME.

Just because we go IPv6 does NOT mean we dump NAT. It will still be around. It has its uses.

Re:Switch to IPv6? Not gonna happen (2, Informative)

kryptkpr (180196) | more than 9 years ago | (#11987281)

I have a "pretty much" static IP. It's changed only two or three times over the past 4 or 5 years.

NAT allows me to not have to pay an extra $15/mo to my cable company to get 3 additional systems online, and it allows me to run servers for different things on different machines (for example, Apache and Samba run on the gentoo box, but VNC ports forward to my desktop machine and another set of ports forwards to each desktop computer for bittorrent use) while keeping one easy-to-remember hostname.

The truth is, my 4 systems don't all need their own IPs. I simply don't allow my windows machines to be exposed to wild traffic floating around on the internet .. and with a Linux firewall/NAT box, I've never gotten a worm, despite always being way behind on patching, and can do a clean XP re-install for someone without worrying about infection within those vital first few minutes.

So I'd say NAT is a pretty good solution, and unlike IPv6, it's here now.

Re:Switch to IPv6? Not gonna happen (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 9 years ago | (#11987442)

So I'd say NAT is a pretty good solution, and unlike IPv6, it's here now.

Also, why does the grandparent assume that NAT and IPv6 are mutually exclusive?

They're actually orthogonal--I'm sure we'll see NAT on top of IPv6, and I don't see anything wrong with that, for exactly the reason you described: to be able to install XP without getting immediately infected. And to be able to continue to use older devices which cannot be upgraded to IPv6 for whatever reason (closed source, manufacturer dot-bombed, etc.).

Re:Switch to IPv6? Not gonna happen (1)

gnuman99 (746007) | more than 9 years ago | (#11987508)

They're actually orthogonal--I'm sure we'll see NAT on top of IPv6, and I don't see anything wrong with that, for exactly the reason you described: to be able to install XP without getting immediately infected.

I think you don't understand what IPv6 address space means. You get 2^64 addresses. Pick a random one. Now, what is the probability that a random scan of the 2^64 block will find you?

New XP boxes would NEVER get infected by random worms. Internet worms (not the email type) would be obsolete. You would have an almost infinate amount of time to get to windowsupdate to patch your box (unless you go to getmystupidemailsmileys.com and get infected from that site :).

IPv6 also puts an end to spammers easily finding fresh open relays. You can't scan a given address block for hosts listening on :25.

NAT and IPv6 or not mutually exclusive. But NAT's main purpose is obsoleted by IPv6.

Re:Switch to IPv6? Not gonna happen (1)

toddestan (632714) | more than 9 years ago | (#11987692)

That won't work as well as you think. All a worm would have to do is sniff the packets on a network (even easier if it is a wireless network). From there, they'll know your IP and be able to infect you as before.

Re:Switch to IPv6? Not gonna happen (1)

gnuman99 (746007) | more than 9 years ago | (#11987572)

NAT allows me to not have to pay an extra $15/mo to my cable company to get 3 additional systems online

IPv6 allows you to have a minimum of 2^64 addresses. You would never have to pay for extra IP addresses. (unless you want to run multiple networks or something)

The truth is, my 4 systems don't all need their own IPs. I simply don't allow my windows machines to be exposed to wild traffic floating around on the internet

That's what a firewall is for. Furthermore, there would not be any random network traffic with IPv6. The address space is 2^96 bigger! Random IP traffic would not work.

So I'd say NAT is a pretty good solution, and unlike IPv6, it's here now.

Go to tunnelbroker.com [slashdot.org] and get your free /64 IPv6 addresses. You will need a static IPv4 address though.

IPv6 "is here" 5 years ago. You don't hear about it because it is much better for your ISPs to sell off one IP for $5/mo and only offer real static IPs for "business" acconts.

FAT Key Space. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11987749)

"That's what a firewall is for. Furthermore, there would not be any random network traffic with IPv6. The address space is 2^96 bigger! Random IP traffic would not work."

Well people use to say the same about "key space", and now with technology we have to make that bigger.

Re:Switch to IPv6? Not gonna happen (1)

ErikZ (55491) | more than 9 years ago | (#11988000)

IPv6 allows you to have a minimum of 2^64 addresses. You would never have to pay for extra IP addresses. (unless you want to run multiple networks or something)


"Wow! Now that we've completely converted our ISP to IPv6, we can stop charging our customers for IP addresses and loose buckets of money!"

Re:Does this mean we get to keep IPv4? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11985606)

I'm still waiting for things to fall apart with IPv4...

Things have. I can remember a time on the internet when the e2e principle was upheld for all hosts. But, with NAT, PPPoE, and other "innovations", we no longer have an Internet with e2e.

Now, perhaps you don't care. But what else has to fall off the IPv4 truck before you "get it"?

Re:Does this mean we get to keep IPv4? (5, Insightful)

gnuman99 (746007) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985681)

IPv4 fell apart long time ago. The problem is people don't see it. A parallel is if you go to heavily poluted areas like Bangladesh, where the leading cause of death for traffic cops is lung cancer, people will not see polution as a major concern! Even on days when you can't see half a mile thanks to smog, people say they need more roads and want a car. They don't even mention they want clean air and a quiet environment.

Exactly the same crap is occuring with IPv4. Sure, there is lots of IP addresses, if everyone gets one number that changes all the time. Then you have to be a second-class "internet citizen", always stuck behind a NAT. Want to run a game server? maybe some bittorrent? Then you have to jump though hoops forwarding freaking ports all the time.

And let's not get started with port scans, virus probes and spammers wasting your bandwith. And that's on a new IP address. Some places can get a GB/mo of crap like this.

IPv6 solves all of these problems. No more NAT cruft or virus scans. A new IP address, when not in use, is acutally *clean* (no traffic). IPv6 solve many, many more problems than just increase number of addresses.

Oh, most people might not know or care, but has anyone seen some of the enormous routing tables on the internet? IPv4 is soooo fragmented, that the routing tables are now a serious problem in scallability of the internet. And everyone is paying higher prices thanks to this.

Re:Does this mean we get to keep IPv4? (-1, Offtopic)

value_added (719364) | more than 9 years ago | (#11986114)

A Grammar Lesson for Slashdot Posters (the first of a continuing series) ...

Rearranging the first sentence in the original post yields:

[I]f you go to heavily poluted areas like Bangladesh ... a parallel is.

Duh. Like ... is what??

The rule is that a gerund [bartleby.com] demands the possesive. e.g. My posting such comments may be indicative of deep-seated frustrations.

Alternatively, the tortured construction could have been avoided and the sentence rephrased to say something along the lines of:

A parallel can be found in heavily polluted areas like Bangladesh.

Much better, innit?

Re:Does this mean we get to keep IPv4? (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#11986383)

Proper (or even adequate) grammer is required only when the poster wants the reader to understand their message. On Slashdot, the motivation is merely to post. So Slashdotters never read our own messages before posting them, "Preview" button or otherwise. Even when we know proper grammar, it offers us nothing.

Re:Does this mean we get to keep IPv4? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11986978)

More like a parallel is [that] ... people will not see polution as a major concern.

Learn what a subclause is.

Re:Does this mean we get to keep IPv4? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11986473)

Yeah, no one would ever span or port scan if there were *more* numbers. Naw, that would *never* happen.

Re:Does this mean we get to keep IPv4? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11987461)

With IPv6, you can't portscan all DSL users on a given network. You can only portscan hosts you know addresses for. Anything else is futile. :P

This alone would bring an end to all viruses spreading by random IP hopping.

The Plateau (1, Redundant)

yotto (590067) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985545)

What they don't say is that the "time online per user per day" plateau they have reached is 24 hours.

Re:The Plateau (1)

lanswitch (705539) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985598)

a lot of homecomputers are actually working 24/7 on things like seti@home (setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu) and folding@home (folding.stanford.edu).

Time online in February? (5, Interesting)

wasted (94866) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985554)

The statistics in the news article show time online in February 2005. I would expect a decline in time online compared to February 2004, since February 2004 had 29 days and February 2005 had 28 days.

Then again, maybe they compensated for that descrepancy when computing their statistics.

Re:Time online in February? (2)

daeley (126313) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985996)

I would expect a decline in time online compared to February 2004, since February 2004 had 29 days and February 2005 had 28 days.

What made you leap to that conclusion?

'always on' broadband (0, Redundant)

zmollusc (763634) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985556)

since more people are buying into 24/7 broadband (in order to download linux distro's) then i guess that a plateau of 24/7 usage is going to be pretty hard to improve on.

'linux distros'? (2, Funny)

SweetAndSourJesus (555410) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985656)

Has "linux distros" become the universal euphamism for "porn and music" these days or are people really downloading Linux 24/7?

Re:'linux distros'? (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985688)

Well, if you're installing most distros, you have to download for several hours, and that's on broadband. From what I've heard, people with dialup and in 3rd-world countries often take days to download Linux.

Re:'linux distros'? (1)

m50d (797211) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985719)

I am. On dialup one iso takes 30 hours. It doesn't take me that long to be messing around with it a bit, especially with a live cd. However, I do think people use it to cover their other downloading habits, yes.

Re:'linux distros'? (2, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985786)

Yes, it's kind of weird. People justify they're need for tons of bandwidth by the need to download linux distros. I'm using high-speed-lite, which is equlivalent to 5x dial-up. For the one time I need to download a distro maybe every 2 months (that's exagerrating, it does a fine job. I don't know what people are doing downloading a new distro every 4 days, but it seems a little unnecessary to me. In reality, you need about 1 distro a year.

Re:'linux distros'? (1)

toddestan (632714) | more than 9 years ago | (#11987740)

Some people like to play around, experiment, and try different things. Linux is free, so why not? Debian, Mandrake, Redhat, Fedora, Mepis, Knoppix, Ubuntu...

With that said, Linux .iso's still don't count for a huge part of my downloading.

Re:'linux distros'? (1)

Yo Grark (465041) | more than 9 years ago | (#11986321)

I tried downloading several distros lately. Downloading them @ 2-3k/sec means I WAS downloading Linux distros 24/7....for 2 seven's even. :(

Anyone have GOOD FAST sites for distro's where people actually seed more than they leech?

And before you go saying it was me, my ports were forwarded and I routinely get 400-500k on ....umm...."linux distro's".

Yo Grark

Next big thing (0, Offtopic)

zymano (581466) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985557)

is REAL broadband . The 100/megabit - 1 gigabit variety that also gets you hdtv. They already started this in paloalto.

http://ftthblog.blogs.com/ftth_blog/

My only question is from reading another article on Slash is if the internet protocol tcp/ip is right for high speed video since the internet architecture was never intended for it.

Re:Next big thing (2, Informative)

MyDixieWrecked (548719) | more than 9 years ago | (#11986342)

My only question is from reading another article on Slash is if the internet protocol tcp/ip is right for high speed video since the internet architecture was never intended for it.

Typically, streaming audio/video is done with UDP rather than TCP.

Also, Internet2 was specifically designed for large transfers like that.

How? (4, Interesting)

KillerDeathRobot (818062) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985563)

How do they get these net-ratings? A cursory glance of their website didn't reveal much. Is it the same way they get tv ratings? Like, where they send you a little book to fill out and 5 dollars for your time?

Re:How? (1)

gniv (600835) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985657)

That's not how they get the TV ratings. They actually have hardware devices in a number of homes (a statistically significant sample) and they monitor usage.

mnb Re:How? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11985934)

That IS how Nielson conducts part of their surveys.
A (relatively) static group of households get "the box", while another (dynamic) group gets the paper diarys.

so...
shut your pie hole when you simply DON'T KNOW.

Re:How? (2, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#11986403)

With anonymity so important to Internet culture, especially compared to TV viewing, isn't their sample skewed, self-selected by willingness to be recorded? Wouldn't the most obsessive Net consumers, porn surfers, tend to bring the average way up, while also being the most underrepresented in their samples? And how do they rigorously account for differences in willingness to be logged, across cultures like East Asian and Western European? Maybe mostly the willingness to be recorded has saturated in the US.

Re:How? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11985702)

You get selected (much like Nielsen's TV thing), they send you a CD and the program redirects your IE browser to their local proxy, and it also watches for what processes are running on the computer (yes, I have this program, and yes, I'm AC).

Re:How? HAHA Of course it is flattening, then! (1)

6800 (643075) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985818)

With ie usage droping and firefox increasing, this alone would cause the flattening - even in a mild growth scenario.

Re:How? HAHA Of course it is flattening, then! (1)

kieronb (780769) | more than 9 years ago | (#11987747)

If, as the parent says, it's a local proxy, then it should work fine with firefox.

Do I need a diet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11985569)

Internet Usage is FATTENING? Why have you hidden web cams in my house and you've been watching me when I step on my scale? Perhaps you've infiltrated my doctors secret medical computer and you've been graphing my weight on your Open Surce version of Xcel? Maybe you've been talking to my friends who talk way too much... ...oh, wait...
you said FLATTENING, not fattening...
oops, my bad...
nevermind

TDz.

Well Duh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11985587)

Our bosses are finally catching on to the fact that our web browsing at work really isn't the "critical research" we claim it to be.

Could be a good reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11985594)

the time netizens spend online at home has come close to hitting a plateau in many major markets.

Could be because so many people are surfing the net on their mobile devices now instead of sitting at home.

"Internet Usage Flattening" (4, Insightful)

bigtallmofo (695287) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985610)

The headline of the BetaNews site seems misleading to me. Reading "Internet Usage Flattening", you might come to the conclusion that the use of the Internet is not growing.

It appears that the actual Nielson report is just showing that the amount of time an individual user spends on the Internet is not growing. They don't appear to be making any judgements as to additional users coming online.

From data that I have seen, there are a large number of older people that have no desire to use the internet - ever. As the older population that has never been exposed to the internet and never will dies, they will be replaced by people that grew up with an intimate knowledge of the internet providing substantial organic growth.

Re:"Internet Usage Flattening" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11986064)

It appears that the actual Nielson report is just showing that the amount of time an individual user spends on the Internet is not growing.

Couldn't that be explained by the fact that it takes less time to do what you need to do if you've got a faster connection? Shouldn't bandwidth be the measure of usage? I can be online and 10 miles away at the same time if I have a bunch of downloads on queue.

Re:"Internet Usage Flattening" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11986691)

"As the older population that has never been exposed to the internet and never will dies"

That should at least mean we should see a spike in the percentage of the population being online....

Internet apathy and the thirst for knowledge (2, Insightful)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 9 years ago | (#11986823)

From data that I have seen, there are a large number of older people that have no desire to use the internet - ever. Am I the only one astounded by some peoples' disinterest in the 'net? I mean... kings used to spend a fortune on what, today, would amount to a small local library. And they would consider that a huge resource, in the knowledge is power sense. I'm sure I recall historical tales about the quest for the sum of human knowledge. The Internet, by comparison, really is getting close to the sum of human knowledge, in the sheer variety of information available, the speed at which new events are documented by it, and the level of worldwide, interpersonal communication involved. I can't imagine anyone not wanting to spend time just seeing what's out there, unless they simply don't realise what's out there.

Re:Internet apathy and the thirst for knowledge (2, Interesting)

mati (114154) | more than 9 years ago | (#11989286)

Sadly, I think you're probably overestimating the intellectual curiosity of the average adult human.

That factor, coupled with the stereotypical inability of older folk to really internalize new technological advances (yes I know there are plenty who do, talking about averages here). My uncle is a leader in engineering research but still does all his information acquisition (including the geeky recreational type) the old-fashioned way. There is of course the issue that much of the 'net can't really be considered a trusted, authoritative source, but at least as a place to quickly glean and survey things I find it invaluable.

Other older folk I've talked to, as I stated, just aren't very interested in the possibilities. Although when presented with a specific, practical problem, I'll often remind them that they can likely find a solution on the internet and they seem receptive. But it doesn't seem to sink in.

[don't flame me geezers, I do recognize that some of you can adapt]

Re:"Internet Usage Flattening" (1)

Chatmag (646500) | more than 9 years ago | (#11987096)

You're right about ages reference usage. If I were to graph users of our site, I"d put the mean age at 23. The largest number of users are teens up to about 35. After 35 it declines rapidly, with very few users above 50.

A good check is on a site called Plentyoffish.com Do a search for users in age ranges, you'll see a better representation. Plenty of Fish is the only completely free dating site I know of that has a good user base for reference. I am not connected to it in any business sense, other than we list their forums in our "Romance-Flirting" chat listings.

Being 53 and in the business gets me the "geezer geek" title easily :)

"Internet Usage Flattening"-Crime Explodes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11987764)

"As the older population that has never been exposed to the internet and never will dies, they will be replaced by people that grew up with an intimate knowledge of the internet providing substantial organic growth."

More Spam Kings, and Spyware Villians.

Less use for me. (3, Interesting)

SteveXE (641833) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985614)

I use the net alot less now, got a girlfriend that keeps me happy (as opposed to my ex who kept me miserable), ever since I met her the internet has lost its boredom killing magic and has since become a source of boredom. Of course i still visit /. many times a day, I am still a geek after all.

Re:Less use for me. (4, Funny)

madaxe42 (690151) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985635)

I use the net alot less now, got a girlfriend that keeps me happy

I generally use some kind of pit to catch mine...

Re:Less use for me. (1)

civilizedINTENSITY (45686) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985974)

Nets? Pits? What ever happened to good old fashioned $$$ ?

Re:Less use for me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11986074)

It is hard to have money when you get fired all the time for reading too much /..

Re:Less use for me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11985781)

I got a puppy, she's smarter than a gf.

They are wrong usage is increasing (1, Insightful)

konmaskisin (213498) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985668)

All major telecoms now route calls over IP; massive private networks now exist that are based on IP technology; my stereo talks to my portable music player using IP.

The internet is one of the most valuable human made public goods on the planet and it must remain open and standards based.

Surveys that suggest that the internet is "over" or was a failed experiment because kids in the suburbs have stopped downloading music are not only wrong they have an ulterior motive.

Re:They are wrong usage is increasing (1)

The One and Only (691315) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985850)

Surveys that suggest that the internet is "over" or was a failed experiment because kids in the suburbs have stopped downloading music are not only wrong they have an ulterior motive.

Translation: everyone who disagrees with me is not only wrong, but also evil.

Re:They are wrong usage is increasing (1)

Dun Malg (230075) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985944)

Translation: everyone who disagrees with me is not only wrong, but also evil.

Heh. That sounds like one of theose weird MMPI2 questions. Like "I would have been more successful if people didn't have it in for me", or "Everything is coming true just like the bible said it would".

Internet and TV (2, Interesting)

Fox_1 (128616) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985670)

Nielsen [nielsen-netratings.com]
has the full report in PDF format, It was a short article

I imagine many people are like me, when I'm hanging out watching tv(which I do on my second monitor mainly), I'm also connected to the internet, either to followup on what I saw on TV, or to see if friends are on IM, or even just because I'm board and just do a sweep of news sites. The article says:

Nielsen//NetRatings concluded that mature markets are in wait of "the next big thing" whereas emerging markets were rife with opportunity for companies online. Some of the growth engines cited in the report is the proliferation of broadband and societal changes in media consumption.

I'm waiting for a more fully interactive TV/Computer/Internet I think, more then TIVO, and Digital Cable has given me.

Re:Internet and TV (4, Funny)

MyDixieWrecked (548719) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985683)

"mature markets?"

"next big thing?"

hmmmm... yeah, pr0n does spur growth in whatever it gets into.

wait, that sounded dirty.

Re:Internet and TV (1)

Fox_1 (128616) | more than 9 years ago | (#11986040)

In so many ways - spurs, growth, whatever, into.
Truely a line that will stand for ages.
I read your comment earlier on the subect of growth
I'd also say that most growth nowadays, in any market, is due to more widely available internet access. It seems that today, most businesses have broadband and have all of their computers online, which allows for employee surfing during slow time/breaks. Open, unsecured, and fee-based wireless access is available almost everywhere you go, and with more people having handheld and laptop devices, and all these portable gaming platforms with access, the numbers are only going to increase.
When I was trying to define connected to the internet where did I draw the limit?
I'm on broadband, so essentially am always connected.
As long as my IM is up I'm online, and I can hear it chirp from most anywhere.
Beyond that though even outside of the house, through SMS I'm connected.
Heck even spam to my inbox is my usage through proxy
I defined those as passive connections - and tried to consider the article in light of active connections - ie actively searching the web, gaming, IRC or IM conversations.
In the sense though of being connected it's increasing common for people to have access to some facets of the internet at all times. Trying to measure our "Usage of the Internet" is likely not truely possible. (unless you go total packets moved per/second divided by total people connected in world, and just get a number per person/second - and that's a useless stat I imagine)

Re:Internet and TV (1)

MyDixieWrecked (548719) | more than 9 years ago | (#11986439)

yeah, that's exactly what i was thinking, too. I mean, I've got 3 computers at home that are always on/always online.

My desktop machine checks for email once a minute and is constantly on AIM. If I'm not home, I get a lot of IMs that I autorespond to, and if I'm home, I may be actively engaged in a conversation and/or surfing the web, sending email, etc.

Frequently, when I pull my powerbook out and open it up, it auto-joins the first available, unsecured network. When I'm in the city, it almost always finds one, but when I'm at a friend's house it'll sometimes jump onto their neighbor's or theirs.

I'd wager to say that a pretty significant portion of internet traffic is actually just pings and brief connections (the AIM UDP "hey, you still connected?" packet, POP3/IMAP email checks, idle torrent seeding "yeah, I'm here and ready to seed" packets, and other general "check up" stuffs).

I guess we really are getting to the point where every toaster, every piece of chalk, and even yer damned carkeys will be internet enabled for easy stats and locating of said items.

I wonder when we'll have IPv8. Although a professor I once had said that with ipv6, there'd be enough IPs for everything that everybody in the world owned and still have plenty left over for the future.

Double-digit increase in Japan (2, Informative)

MyDixieWrecked (548719) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985675)

I'd say that the japanese, and even hongkong (and that entire region) are experiencing such growth due to their proliferation of internet-enabled devices. When I was in japan, our tourguide was showing off on her phone how she can check CNN news and the weather and all sorts of cool things. Of course, I've seen all that stuff before, as current phones have that ability, but the previous year, she said that all the Americans were surprised to see that in a cell phone. Walking around NYC in recent weeks, I've noticed more and more and more people using their SideKicks, so that's more usage right there; that's a full-blown web browser.

I'd also say that most growth nowadays, in any market, is due to more widely available internet access. It seems that today, most businesses have broadband and have all of their computers online, which allows for employee surfing during slow time/breaks. Open, unsecured, and fee-based wireless access is available almost everywhere you go, and with more people having handheld and laptop devices, and all these portable gaming platforms with access, the numbers are only going to increase.

Even though usage seems to be leveling off in the US, I say in the next year, it's gonna spike again. Especially since there's so many regions where broadband isn't available and with cable modem/DSL trying to hit those markets.

Re:Double-digit increase in Japan (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985912)

One of the things that really prevents internet time becoming large in Japan is simply because the cost of electricity is astronomical. People with laptops will literally go to the library to charge it just so they don't have to pay to power it. That is also why in a country that is nominally so rich(2nd biggest economy in the world) a large number of people only use their cell phone for internet access....

Market Research Insights Beyond Me ... (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985689)

From the press release ...
The latest Nielsen//NetRatings global research shows that the majority of usage growth has come from increased frequency of access or user session growth.

Which other type of "usage growth" am I too stupid to think of while assuming that they are talking about "average time" spent on the net on a "per user basis"?

CC.

Not content with content (1)

dilbertspace (845561) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985705)

If the music and movie biz would get their act together and not worry about non-existent lost sales and release non-restricted content on the internet, its use, and their pocketbooks, would still be zooming to new heights.

But that's not likely to happen.

Internet usage is DISAPPEARING. (4, Insightful)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985718)

Actually, it's getting to the point where Internet usage is impossible to measure/meter, because the Internet is increasingly woven directly into the fabric of our lives. The idea of sitting around and "using the Internet" is about as obsolete as the idea of turning on your modem and dialing into your ISP -- in other words, not obsolete yet, but definitely on its way there at a high speed (no pun intended).

We have AIM on our cell phones. Some of us have computers turned on 24/7 with the speakers turned up loud enough that we'll hear it anywhere in the house when we get new mail or someone in real time wants our attention. We have our telephones and even televisions integrated into the 'net now. Internet usage is everywhere, it's always on, and it's going to be impossible to say "I got online at 7:00 and I stayed online until 9:00."

Well of course it's fattening... (3, Funny)

starwed (735423) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985720)

Sitting around all day doing nothing but playing warcraft and looking at porn doesn't burn too many calries... oops, misread the headline. :)

I did my part today, did you? (1)

6800 (643075) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985788)

I just finished downloading MD 10.2 rc1. I thing the debian iso's (the complete set) would have helped more, maybe next time.

Don't believe Nielsen (4, Insightful)

Phayyde (192873) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985925)

Nielsen are the guys that keep TV programming dumbed down by reporting that all consumers want to see is dancing poodles, reruns of sit-coms and bad news.

Don't believe anything you hear from Nielsen. Their studies are unscientific bunk. To the extent they are given credibility, they will dumb down the internet too.

Re:Don't believe Nielsen (1)

pipingguy (566974) | more than 9 years ago | (#11989291)


A recent junk TV commercial I've seen advertises magic, magnetic wrist bracelets (or something like that, I never paid much attention to it - lots of obsure celebrity "personal endorsements" and dubious customer testimonies) and cites Nielsen as a source of marketing research data for the product.

Either the marketing company is misrepresenting or Nielsen has sunk to a new low.

Why did this take a study? (1)

EtherAlchemist (789180) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985952)


Nielsen Report Says Internet Usage Flattening

...Among the users they track.

In case you don't know, Nielsen Net Ratings works by giving a family some software to install that acts as a proxy between them and the rest of the Net. You get paid a savings bond every 6 months for as long as you keep this installed. Your only interaction with it is selecting which user is on the computer by way of a dialog box with radio buttons that appears if the system has been idle for a while and at system start up.

The problem with Nielsen NR (and the TV audience version, too) is that they're tracking only the people they have deployed tracking software/hardware to, which is only a segment of a cross section of the population.

This is like calling say, 150 people, at random from your local phone book, asking them questions about an issue/person/product and calling them your test market.

As someone pointed out, you can't be on much longer than 24 hours in a day. More than that though, once a portion of the population using a tool (the Internet in this case) reaches saturation, further growth is impossible among that group and so new ways must be found to draw in new groups of people.

At each step of the way, you're going to get plateaus.

Re:Why did this take a study? (1)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 9 years ago | (#11986284)

Its not exactly the same.
Your 150 random people from the phonebook will be a relativly good average (although it gets worse, with cell phone only people, ect, a few years ago it was better).
But those kind of messuring they do is higly biased, because IMHO most people who really USE the web wouldnt agree installing their spyware... er "proxy".

Statistics! (2)

mrmike37 (673587) | more than 9 years ago | (#11986320)

There are statistical equations that measure the relative accuracy of your results if you have a truly random sample. The trouble is that it's hard to get a truly random sample.

Re:Why did this take a study? (1)

anakin876 (612770) | more than 9 years ago | (#11986774)

another part of the problem is that in many cases you don't want a truly random sample. You want a random sample that is representative of the population. If their random sample was all white or all male it wouldn't be very good, would it? To be able to say that your statistics represent the american people your sample group has to also be representative of the american people.

They have this backwards. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11985955)

How can they classify broadband in Japan and Hong Kong as "emerging" and then call Germany and the US "mature"? That's utterly absurd. It's completely the other way around.
If anything, this seems to suggest that countries with serious broadband horsepower are pulling away from the gawking pedestrians at an ever faster clip.
Well, it would except that both categories seem to include diverse collections of countries. Nonthless, the conlcusion they imply is hardly reflected in the numbers they gathered.

There are 3 kinds of lies... (1)

Urger (817972) | more than 9 years ago | (#11986208)

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- Mark Twain [Samuel Langhorne Clemens] (1835-1910) American author, humorist

Dial-Up and Broadband (1)

xstonedogx (814876) | more than 9 years ago | (#11986361)

I don't know why the study would be based on time. You can't show a meaningful trend with time.

Think about people who have transitioned from dial-up to broadband. Most folks, at least in my experience, have specific tasks they perform on the internet each day, week, whatever. Transitioning to broadband allows them to accomplish those same tasks in less time.

For these people, their internet usage may actually go up, because they'll be able to get more done, even while the amount of time they actually spend doing it goes down.

Japan has faster connections (2, Insightful)

dweezeldude (861643) | more than 9 years ago | (#11988023)

I think a lot of the growth in Japan is because the connections speeds are much faster. http://bbpromo.yahoo.co.jp/ There are more services such as TV. Japan is already pulling fiber into the home at + 100MBS. http://www.gate01.com/. And of course the wireless 3G networks. It is not uncommon to see mini laptops on trains with 3G Wireless cards at 380KBS. Of course the majority of cellphones are just used as Instant Messaging machines. You are not allowed to talk on cell phone on the commuter trains. It seems to me that the more bandwidth offered is realated to the services that are available. I would not be surprised to see Japan sustain the high growth rates for some time. There is currently a major battle in the media. It is complicated but basically the Internet firm Livedoor is buying up the old business of Radio and TV. The internet firm Livedoor is pursuing the marriage of interactive TV. Conversely, I think the US has reached a plateau on speeds and is still trying to get "High Speed" faster than 56KBS to the consumer. Until the US populace has breeched the boring aspect of waiting for content to load, I think usage will stay flat. If the US brings Fiber to the home there will be a similar effect of high growth rates.

hmm (1)

quaketripp (621850) | more than 9 years ago | (#11988730)

United States trend along the worldwide average of hours spent online per month at nearly 14 hours.

I think I'm quite a few standard deviations from that mean.
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...