More People Pick Their Religion Than Their Browser?
February 28, 2008 at 4:05 pm | In Browsers | 1 CommentI blogged yesterday about how IE is still maintaining a tight hold on the browser market (see IE is Still Beating Mozilla and Generalissimo Francisco Franco is Still Dead). Today I wanted to explore the question “why?” Not that I think IE is a bad browser or that Mozilla is categorically superior - I really don’t have a strong preference. But I find the selection process interesting. So did the New York Times in a recent technology blog post (The Browser Choices We Make) which wondered “why people choose the browsers they choose. Let us know about what’s behind your choice in the comments section.” So what did they find? Well, culling through the 170+ responses didn’t help explain why IE is popular. In fact, on the surface it did just the opposite. Almost all the responses are about why they chose Firefox, Safari, or Opera, yet IE owns ~80% of the market.
Of course, the reason is that the majority of IE users didn’t explicitly choose IE. They use it because their computer came with it (and they don’t know they have a choice or know how to change it) or their employer requires it. Some do make a conscious choice to use IE, mostly because of compatibility. I guesstimate that in the US only about a quarter of the IE users explicitly selected IE at best (19% of all users). So combined with the 23% represented in other options (if you assume all those were explicit choices which may not be the case for Safari either), a conservative estimate is that only 42% have explicitly thought about and selected their browser.
Since choices about browsers or Java and .NET are often figuratively referred to as “religious” decisions (for example, see this posting on “The Firefox Religion“) that brought to mind a recent study on religion. According to the recent Pew study, 44% of Americans have changed religions (if you include switching between different forms of Protestantism). This means that more people probably change their religion than change their browser. Strange. One would think it’s easier to install Firefox on your laptop than to convert your religion. Still, both numbers are pretty high when you consider how often we tend to stick with the status quo in other areas of our lives. To me, this propensity to change shows that Americans are not afraid of replacing whatever comes installed on their laptops or their souls.
IE is Still Beating Mozilla and Generalissimo Francisco Franco is Still Dead
February 27, 2008 at 5:22 pm | In Browsers | 3 CommentsI just checked the most recent browser stats and, no surprise, IE is still keeping it’s grip on the browser “market” (can it be a market if it’s free?). A browser study I did in 2005 of 217 organizations found that 89% had some form of IE (mostly IE6 at the time) as their desktop standard. At the time 17% of respondents said they had considered changing their browser standard. Corporations, governments, and non-profits also influence consumer browser habits since they create the majority of sites that consumers browse. In my study I found that these organizations were more open about the browsers they targeted for their sites than what they forced their own internal users to use (49% did compatibility testing against Netscape and 29% had help desk troubleshooting scripts to help Netscape users; the numbers were 28% and 11% for Firefox).So how have things changed since 2005?
Not much. OneStat shows about 83% marketshare globally for IE and 77% in the US. According to them the most popular browsers on the web are:
| Worldwide | February 2008 | June 2007 | Difference |
| Internet Explorer | 83.27% | 85.81% | -2.54% |
| Mozilla Firefox | 13.76% | 12.72% | 1.04% |
| Apple Safari | 2.18% | 1.79% | 0.39% |
| Opera | 0.55% | 0.61% | -0.06% |
| Netscape | 0.14% | 0.11% | 0.03% |
| USA | February 2008 | June 2007 | Difference |
| Internet Explorer | 77.35% | 75.69% | 1.66% |
| Mozilla Firefox | 17.85% | 19.65% | -1.80% |
| Apple Safari | 4.03% | 3.77% | 0.26% |
| Opera | 0.44% | 0.61% | -0.17% |
| Netscape | 0.21% | 0.17% | 0.04% |
Marketshare (from Net Applications) shows about the same as the OneStat US shares give or take a few percent.
Total Market Share ![]()
Microsoft Internet Explorer
75.47% 16.98% 5.82% 0.62% 0.61% 0.32%
Determining browser market share is a bit of an art form. While my market share numbers were obtained by directly asking organizations, most stats are determined by looking at web server logs of visitors and by reporting sent by services installed by participating sites. So the stats vary based on the types of users that hit these sites. Ultimately, the only stats that matter for an enterprise determining what to use is what its target population is using and is expected to use in the future. I’m not interested in the horse race or religious aspects of browser selection - the reason I think browser selection matters to enterprises is twofold: 1) to determine which browser offers the best experience for its employees (such as distributed management of security settings, compatibility, etc.) and 2) to determine how websites should be developed and tested based upon the browsers its audience is expected to have.
Content Globalization 101
February 26, 2008 at 1:30 pm | In Content Management, Globalization, Podcasting | No CommentsI’m happy to report that response has been strong for my podcast series on content globalization (well over 600 downloads in less than 2 weeks!), which confirms for me that there is real interest in IT for learning more about the intersection of enterprise content management and globalization/localization.
There was also a curious finding in the download stats. I looked at downloads by part and had assumed part 1 would have the most downloads since people start there and then get distracted, busy, or bored and don’t continue. On the contrary, part 2 had the highest hit rate (about a third of all downloads). That’s the “globalization 101 in twenty minutes” one – kind of the quick primer without any real opinions thrown in. To me this shows the content globalization market is at a very early stage and IT folks are hungry just to get their hands around it and figure out what it is. And before you smart-aleks say it really shows that no one wants my opinion, the next most popular podcast was #4 (26% of downloads), which is “what IT can and should do …”.
If you didn’t see my previous posting about the podcast series, here’s a link to my blog entry that has links to the podcast pages that have links to the podcasts. Luckily I don’t pay by the link. Seriously though, sorry about all the linking but each step provides a bit of additional detail for you.
Free Podcast Series on Content Globalization
February 20, 2008 at 10:56 am | In Content Management, Globalization, Podcasting | 2 CommentsI’m happy to say that after a whole lot of interviewing, writing, and document reviews in the fall/winter of 2007 my report ECM for Translation and Localization: Raising IT’s Globalization Fluency was finally published at the end of January. I’d like to thank all the clients and vendors that gave me their time to tell me about what they are seeing from their vantage point on the globalization market and, along with my teammates, gave me their comments during peer review.
The report is only available to clients of the Collaboration and Content Strategies service, but I’ve also done a series of podcasts and accompanying blog entries that summarize the report. The podcasts/blog is available for free. I’ve attached the details and links below. Please let me know what you think by commenting here or in the blog companion entries. Enjoy!
What IT needs to know about content globalization, localization, and translation
Part 1: Repeatable content globalization: Ignore it at your peril
The first part of this podcast series describes why globalization, and in particular its impact on content management, is going to be so important for organizations and why information technology and IT departments have a role to play.
Download: [mp3] [blog companion]
Part 2: Content Globalization 101 in twenty minutes
In part 2 Craig Roth discusses background information on globalization to assist people coming up to speed on globalization or looking for rationale for our analysis. Part 2 gives a quick overview of topics such as globalization terms, where to find linguistic trend data for a particular region, some important standards for content globalization, and a brief overview of code internationalization.
Download: [mp3] [blog companion]
Part 3: Content globalization: Do the big vendors care?
In part 3, Craig Roth dives into what big vendors are doing concerning content globalization and where they really care. And what does vendor support mean to the software market and how will buyers be impacted.
Download: [mp3] [blog companion]
Part 4: What IT can and should do
Part 4 describes five things that IT can do about content globalization.
Download: [mp3] [blog companion]
Edward Castronova’s Book "Synthetic Worlds"
February 13, 2008 at 10:29 am | In Book Review, Economics, Fun, Gaming, virtual worlds | No CommentsIn my research into virtual worlds I’ve run across many complimentary references to Edward Castronova, so I was very interested to get his book “Synthetic Worlds, the Business and Culture of Online Games”. Besides, he teaches at my alma mater Indiana University, so I have to pull for a fellow Hoosier.
I generally talk about virtual worlds, but Castronova uses the term “synthetic world”. He defines a synthetic world as “an expansive, world-like, large-group environment made by humans, for humans, and which is maintained, recorded, and rendered by a computer”.
As an economist, Castronova keenly understands and conveys why items in these worlds have value and why that value is often directly convertible into real currency as proof. And as an economist, his best insights are into the economics of virtual worlds. Castronova includes a great chapter on the Economics of Fun. When I was writing games for Strategic Simulations (SSI) in the 80’s I had an explicit set of characteristics I would apply that described what made a game enjoyable. Castronova hits them head on: that new objects provide new capabilities, that making choices under scarcity is enjoyable, that the work required to produce rewards is reasonable, and that everyone gets to play “rags to riches” with their characters. My games pre-dated the internet era, so Castronova adds others that didn’t apply in my experience such as crime, competition, and human-driven economics.
Castornova has also discovered the concept I call “bridging” when he talks about “moments that blurred the distinction between this world and the synthetic world”. I also feel this is why some people don’t “get” virtual worlds though. They cannot suspend belief or open themselves up to the virtual reality as having any meaning.
He shows some good insight into general aspects of philosophy, policy, and design of virtual worlds. In fact, the best quote of the book is this one: “my argument is not that you should care about the ogres and elves running around in cyberspace, but that you should care about the fact that there are ogres and elves, millions of them, running around in cyberspace.” (p. 251)
But clearly, Castronova is not as authoritative when straying far from economics. For example, when entering the realm of behavioral science, Castronova falls into the common fallacy of saying that people immerse themselves in virtual worlds when they are better than the real world. The stereotype here is the geek who gets picked on by the bigger boys at school and is ignored by his parents, but escapes to his room to play EverQuest where he is a famous, powerful warrior that commands respect and attention. But those are my words. As Castronova puts it: “the new worlds being built will grow in popularity if, and only if, they provide a better life experience than the world we were born into.” (p. 70) That may be true for some people and at some times when they look for escape, just as people do through movies. But VWs also just count as entertainment, like sports. Has anyone shown quantitatively or anecdotally that when internet access is provided in impoverished inner cities or war-torn third world countries that people try to escape into virtual worlds? On the contrary, I think VWs are more popular with people with pretty comfy lives who have their other basic needs met.
But it is in the realm of philosophy (or, more exactly, utopian visioning), that Castronova runs off the road (chapter 12). His imaginings include potential utopias where a person would be “judged not by the body but on the basis of the mind alone.” and “once everyone gets used to the fact that bodies don’t matter, they may cease to cause discrimination even on Earth.” (p.258)
Many of his experiences in these games and worlds simply don’t match with mine. For one, his description of the experience of using a synthetic world is a bit more immersive and extreme than I have experienced and I suspect may overstate its impact on people. For example, he describes how the user’s identity begins to expand to encompass the user’s avatar, such as when “the avatar’s attributes felt like they were your own personal attributes” or that people frequently leave off “character” or “avatar” when saying things like “my strength is depleted”. They actually do this when they have multiple avatars, which is pretty common.
So all in all, I think this is a great book and a must-read for people interested in what virtual worlds are about (mostly from a gaming point of view). It provides an overview of how the games work followed by a survey of philosophy, game design, politics, psychology, and sociology behind the games, but is clearly most at home with the economics of these worlds.
This Week’s Salesforce.com Services: Innovation and Document Management. Next Week?
February 12, 2008 at 3:20 pm | In Content Management, Innovation, SaaS | No CommentseWeek reports that Salesforce.com is rolling out new innovation and content capabilities.
The SAAS (software as a service) specialist trotted out Salesforce Ideas and Salesforce Content as part of its Spring ‘08 software release, which also includes some upgrades to its Force.com suite.
(This upgrade didn’t go without a hitch, as U.S. customers suffered an outage when a key server went down.)
Salesforce Ideas will let customer, partner or employee communities post, discuss and vote on ideas.
…
For $35 per user, per month, Salesforce Content lets users share and manage documents, spreadsheets, multimedia clips, HTML files and more. Users post content online and define the group of people with whom they want to share their documents and display preferred sales-related content as Featured Content.
Somewhere at their headquarters in San Francisco I’m sure there is a big conceptual model of all the pieces of software an organization needs to run and different colored pins on what is done and prioritization of what is still left. I’m not surprised about content management, especially since the Koral acquisition last year. But I do find the choice of innovation to be an interesting one to tackle next since it isn’t something most organizations have today (although they probably need it), so some selling is involved in getting across its importance. I’d be very curious to see what color the rest of those pins are.
Is "Slowness" Better than "Faster"? A Comparative Book Review
February 5, 2008 at 1:47 pm | In Attention Management, Book Review, Information Work | 1 CommentOver the slow period of the winter holidays I read two books that, despite their titles, come down on the same side of the same subject. Both “Faster”, by James Gleick, and “In Praise of Slowness”, by Carl Honore are about Western society’s infatuation with speed and how it makes things worse.
There are two audiences such books preach to. The first is the type-A sinners who will likely get them as gifts from people who are trying to tell them to slow down. The second audience is the converted who enjoy hearing from someone who agrees with them or want better ammunition to use in their attempts to proselytize to others. That said, I’m not one of the two primary targets of these books. As someone that researches and writes on information overload and attention management, I was interested to see how these books fit into the narrative of information stress being caused by a misplaced desire to keep busy.
The best quote from “Slowness” (which admittedly means the quote that best makes a point I want to make anyways but he words it better) is:
Einstein appreciated the need to marry the two modes of thought: “Computers are incredibly fast, accurate, and stupid. Human beings are incredibly slow, inaccurate, and brilliant. Together they are powerful beyond imagination.” That is why the smartest, most creative people know when to let the mind wander and when to knuckle down to hard work. In other words, when to be Slow and when to be Fast.
Overall, I found “Slowness” to be more persuasive than “Faster”. The reason is tone. “Faster” uses guru grammar. In guru grammar an author uses “we” and “you” to indicate that the author is explaining you - your true nature that you don’t even realize - to you. Guru grammar also involves short, breathless sentences that accurately convey how a passionate speaker pounding a point home would speak on stage, but not how most writers write. For example:
- “Can our bodies take the strain? We suffer anxiety. We suffer stress. And more.” (p. 15)
- “We appreciate speed, as a tool of storytelling or just as a bright challenge to our senses. We admire speed, and always have, as raw virtuoso performance …” (p. 199)
- “Words swim instantly across the network, not caring about the mileage, and we don’t exactly feel information-deprived. We may be drowning, actually. But are we sacrificing longevity to gain glut?” (p.251)
This makes “Faster” read like a guru who is letting you in on the secrets of life. The result is to instantly force the reader to choose on the spot whether to nod the head in agreement or raise an objection to say “Wait … don’t include me in that! I don’t feel that way” and, thereby, switch to cynic mode.
Ironically, sometimes I wish the author of “Faster” would make his point faster. For example, there’s an entire 8 page section on elevators that tries to get across how they are signs of our impatience, “door dwell”, how the “door close button” is usually disabled, etc.
“Slowness” makes better use of other tenses to persuade. For example, page 138-139 uses almost all of them. “When we walk, we are aware of the details around us …”, “Alex Podborski could not agree more … ‘Walking is my chill-out time,’ he says …”, “Before you skip ahead to the next chapter, though, let’s lay to rest a misconception”, “Lifting weights at the conventional speed never did this much for me or anyone else I know.” The result is to provide a set of anecdotes and quotes that don’t immediately ask for buy-in until their mass wears away at your objections. It’s a personal preference, but I find this style more concrete, fact-based, and persuasive. It sounds more like a lawyer making a case than a preacher.
OK, so maybe I’m picky about writing style. What about the content? Here again I prefer “Slowness”. “Faster”’s examples depend more on pop culture and is heavier on the author’s analysis. “Slowness” relies more on longer-form investigations of particular domains such as the slow food movement and fast driving (where the author admits to getting a speeding ticket while researching the book). And I like how “Slowness” often reiterates the point that fast is not always bad. There are times to be fast, but one should be conscious about when they could benefit from being slower and make more explicit decisions about when to hurry and when to slow down.
Enterprise3 Conference Discount
February 4, 2008 at 3:27 pm | In virtual worlds | No CommentsI’m going to be giving a presentation on enterprise virtual worlds at the E3 conference (portals, collaboration, web), which is taking place May 19-22 in San Diego. If you’re going to be there let me know and we can meet up. Also, I’m passing along a discount code I got as a speaker. If you use the speaker code SPKRM2091CR you get a 20% discount.
Here’s what I’ll be talking about:
Enterprise Virtual Worlds
Virtual Worlds like Second Life have been getting a lot of attention in the past year, in articles that range from childlike wonder to curmudgeon-like dismissal of it as a game with no real value. But somewhere between these extremes is emerging a more measured view of what enterprise virtual worlds are and what they can actually do for businesses, both externally for customer outreach and internally for employee and partner collaboration. In this session, Craig Roth, Burton Group Senior Analyst and Vice President, will discuss:
- What counts as a virtual world when the word “virtual” can mean virtually anything?
- What can virtual worlds do for businesses and organizations?
- What are the benefits and pitfalls of using an enterprise virtual world?
- What other options are there to Second Life?
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.