I don't have an iPhone (yet. not sure when). I also don't have a laptop (no real need). I've only three Macs since I started using a computer back in 1995 (Performa 6200CD, Blue/White G3, Intel White iMac).
The iPad is my first mobile device to check mail, go online which are my main needs. I luv my iPad.
So count me in doing my small part in that whole "Apple's iPad passes Google Android in total browser usage share!
Brings to mind the Grimm story: The Brave Little Tailor (who killed 7 in one blow). All these Android devices and all the king's men couldn't exceed the reach of just this one device. Go Apple. Go 'Pad.
Oh, and where are all those posters who thought the name "iPad" was a total disaster? Every time someone saw one they would only think of feminine hygiene? What happened to that idea that some were so passionate and positive about? That it just showed how stupid Apple was? Oftentimes, Steve knows best.
So let me get this straight, the iPad wasn't released until April yet the browsing usage began surging in March? Something is off.
i dare this to be true of facebook.com
i had an android phone last month and literally all i'd use it for was going to facebook. i don't think mobile phone users spend most of their time going to websites. i would say thats entirely ENTIRELY different for ipad users. im pretty sure thats the ONLY thing they use them for.
I always found it suspicious and erroneous for all the reports showing Android "installs" catching up to iPhone. Installs are a shady measurement, an install isn't the same as an actual purchase, and a purchase certainly isn't the same as actual usage. Not to mention they also usually left out the iPod Touch as a legitimate part of the iPhone OS ecosystem.
Google's Android is supposed to be an amazing multi-manufacturer, multi-device platform in addition to their own hardware (before they gave up on it), so it should be running circles around Apple's closed platform right? Well it isn't. Where are all those tablet/slates that people were boasting about that were supposed to run Android/Chrome? Don't get me wrong, I think Android is a great also-ran platform; and it's not a matter of all or nothing between Android and Apple. But this isn't going to be Windows vs. Mac again. Regardless of how you count, Apple's single mobile platform is selling more and – more importantly - being used more than Google's. And that's mostly because Apple does it better. Apple may do it closed - but they do it better.
It is clearly a weekend device as all of those spikes are on Saturday and Sunday. Except for the last one. Was June 30th (last day on graph) a holiday for anyone?
For your reference, June 30th number was 0.32% and June 29th was 0.18%.
There are few things to consider here. Are web developers going to ignore a device if it's used less often but by more units than PCs? I don't think so. The fact that these smartphones even show up at all is a testament to their power of this still emerging market.
No, but they shouldn't go through the considerable effort required to drastically simplify their regular site to accommodate such a tiny audience either. If you want to target the affluent iPhone user market, you should design a dedicated iPhone site and leave your regular site as is, big, complicated with rollovers, Flash or whatever you want. Desktop screens are getting really large lately and many sites are intended to be viewed at 1000+ pixels wide. That just isn't appropriate for a mobile device.
i had an android phone last month and literally all i'd use it for was going to facebook. i don't think mobile phone users spend most of their time going to websites. i would say thats entirely ENTIRELY different for ipad users. im pretty sure thats the ONLY thing they use them for.
You may be on to something. I have several friends with different platforms, and the iPhone users definitely use the web browser heavily, even with so many native apps at their fingertips. So Apple must be doing something right to create an experience that is both deep and broad.
So let me get this straight, the iPad wasn't released until April yet the browsing usage began surging in March? Something is off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
The graph clearly starts showing a dramatic rise in March. As previously stated, this can be reasonably accounted for with non-sale IPads.
The graph shows zero in March. There's one data point per month and the line simply connects them - the intermediate points are meaningless. Zero in March and some number in April (0.03% from the article, there's no scale on the graph). The connecting line is linear, but that doesn't mean that the points on the line have any meaning. Only the monthly data points are meaningful.
I really wish people would learn to read graphs before commenting on them.
No, but they shouldn't go through the considerable effort required to drastically simplify their regular site to accommodate such a tiny audience either. If you want to target the affluent iPhone user market, you should design a dedicated iPhone site and leave your regular site as is, big, complicated with rollovers, Flash or whatever you want. Desktop screens are getting really large lately and many sites are intended to be viewed at 1000+ pixels wide. That just isn't appropriate for a mobile device.
1) Just because a smartphone isn't used as much as a desktop OS for internet browsing, doesn't mean it's not growing fast and the number of potential eyeballs aren't there. You're missing the fact that the iPhone made browsing on a smartphone a viable market.
2) The irony is that the iPhone allowed for a full size page to be displayed accurately and zoom easily that it became so widely popular that making iPhone optimized sites and iPhone optimized WebClips have become common when it was no longer required.
3) You have a good point about Adobe. Perhaps their reluctance to make a viable version of Flash for all mobile platforms more than halfway through 2010 is exactly what you say, the investment simply isn't worth it for the amount of data to be viewed, and with open standards being much more efficient and well in use across all modern mobile OSes, it's just not worth a proper investment in time and money at this point. Maybe when 2Ghz multi-core ARM CPUs with 2GB RAM hit they'll try to be mobile player.
4) You can't go by pixels, especially when dealing with layouts that won't well when you tap them, like Flash. Note: Android 3.0 will reportedly support 1280x760 for displays over 4". That means a 4.55" display will match the iPhone 4's ppi, any dispaly smaller than 5.3" will still be a Retinal Display basedon 20/20 (1 arcmin) vision at 12" with 286 ppi, with the 4.3" displays common now being about 346 ppi.
The graph shows zero in March. There's one data point per month and the line simply connects them - the intermediate points are meaningless. Zero in March and some number in April (0.03% from the article, there's no scale on the graph). The connecting line is linear, but that doesn't mean that the points on the line have any meaning. Only the monthly data points are meaningful.
I really wish people would learn to read graphs before commenting on them.
I can see how this can be ambiguous. If there is absolutely zero usage IN March then the rise for April, since it's clearly not at 0% is all from April 1st or does the rise at the beginning of April indicate the entire month of April's usage?
That upside coming when iPad TWO comes out. To be perfectly honest I'm holding off on an iPad because I don't think the curreent model, as configure, can realize it's full potential. For one the current model doesn't have enough RAM. More so the base model needs the GPS and Gyro. On top of all of that a much faster processor would be a huge advantage.
It would be extremely nice if Apple could get such a platform out by November. Frankly it has been extremely hard to resist this version one device, in many ways it is excellent for a version one device and using one is most impressive (magical). It is easy to see why Steve Jobs said more than a year and a half ago that he was most impressed with things he didn't release which was later revealed to be a comment about the iPad.
IPad is one seriously nice piece of hardware with a few quirks. One being tying the GPS to the 3G model. GPS should really be base line functionally on such devices. On top of that a simple USB port would have solved many issues including the availability of a web cam.
On the otherhand I avoid the Apple stores just to make sure a snap purchase is not made. I'm still more impressed by iPad than iPhone 4 as I think it will fit my needs better.
1)You can't go by pixels, especially when dealing with layouts that won't well when you tap them, like Flash. Note: Android 3.0 will reportedly support 1280x760 for displays over 4". That means a 4.55" display will match the iPhone 4's ppi, any dispaly smaller than 5.3" will still be a Retinal Display basedon 20/20 (1 arcmin) vision at 12" with 286 ppi, with the 4.3" displays common now being about 346 ppi.
I'm not getting into a discussion about Flash, I only mentioned it in the context of everything else that is commonly used in web pages but is not ideal for touch interfaces, like links that are too close together, etc. As far as pixels are concerned, the new buzz term is fluid layouts using em instead of px, but those pages generally fall apart pretty quickly when you expand the window, so 99% of the developers are still using pixels. Even with fluid layouts, they don't usually scale down very well, only up so, 1000+ pixels minimum is not that uncommon.
The mobile screens may soon have the resolution to match an average desktop but you could fit half a dozen 10 px font-size words on the head of a pin. Totally unreadable except maybe with 20 something eyes. So yes, you have to zoom and scroll, which gets old pretty fast.
I don't have an iPhone (yet. not sure when). I also don't have a laptop (no real need). I've only three Macs since I started using a computer back in 1995 (Performa 6200CD, Blue/White G3, Intel White iMac).
The iPad is my first mobile device to check mail, go online which are my main needs. I luv my iPad.
So count me in doing my small part in that whole "Apple's iPad passes Google Android in total browser usage share!
I can see how this can be ambiguous. If there is absolutely zero usage IN March then the rise for April, since it's clearly not at 0% is all from April 1st or does the rise at the beginning of April indicate the entire month of April's usage?
Print out the graph. Put a big dot for each month. THAT is the average for the month. So we know that the iPad average was zero in March and 0.03% in April on average. It doesn't say anything about any particular day of any month.
Sheesh, don't they teach people basic math in school these days?
More people are browsing the Web via an iPad than on an Android-powered device, according to new monthly browser usage data from one analytics firm.
In just three months on the market, Apple's iPad has come to represent 0.17 percent of all Web browser traffic tracked by Net Applications. The iPad's June total managed to exceed Android, which represented 0.14 percent of all Web browsing traffic.
Behind both of them was another iOS-powered device from Apple, the iPod touch. In June, the iPod touch took 0.12 percent of the Web browser share, according to Net Applications.
The iPad has seen a steady climb since it was released in April, notching 0.03 percent in the first month, when it was only available in the U.S. In May, the numbers tripled to 0.09 percent, only to nearly double again in June to the 0.17 percent figure that pushed it past Android.
The numbers, however, do not mean that there are more iPads on the market than Android devices. But the stats do indicate that a far higher percentage of iPad owners use their new device to browse the Web -- so many, in fact, that it has now surpassed Android in that department.
Released in early April in the U.S., the iPad immediately made a splash in the statistics tracked by Net Applications. In less than two weeks in the market, it had already tied Android and BlackBerry in Web browsing presence, but only for a few days. This week's totals show that the iPad has grown to a level where its browser was consistently larger than Android's through the month of June.
Last month, Apple's most high-profile iOS device, the iPhone, was revealed by Net Applications to carry a 33 percent share of all mobile browsers. That compared to 14 percent for Nokia's Symbian, 6 percent for Google Android, 4 percent for Research in Motion's BlackBerry, and 3 percent for Microsoft's Windows Mobile.
Maybe they should teach people to not use line graphs when a bar chart more accurately represents the data.
I see this all the time, a line graph simply pretends that there is much more underlying data than one actually has (in this case it pretends that we have sub-month data). And life seems to be mainly about pretending nowadays. [/end rant]
But just because other people behave stupidly, one is not actually required to act stupidly as well.
Comments
Just iPad, no iPhone! ... Holy Moly
I don't have an iPhone (yet. not sure when). I also don't have a laptop (no real need). I've only three Macs since I started using a computer back in 1995 (Performa 6200CD, Blue/White G3, Intel White iMac).
The iPad is my first mobile device to check mail, go online which are my main needs. I luv my iPad.
So count me in doing my small part in that whole "Apple's iPad passes Google Android in total browser usage share!
Oh, and where are all those posters who thought the name "iPad" was a total disaster? Every time someone saw one they would only think of feminine hygiene? What happened to that idea that some were so passionate and positive about? That it just showed how stupid Apple was? Oftentimes, Steve knows best.
So let me get this straight, the iPad wasn't released until April yet the browsing usage began surging in March? Something is off.
i dare this to be true of facebook.com
i had an android phone last month and literally all i'd use it for was going to facebook. i don't think mobile phone users spend most of their time going to websites. i would say thats entirely ENTIRELY different for ipad users. im pretty sure thats the ONLY thing they use them for.
Google's Android is supposed to be an amazing multi-manufacturer, multi-device platform in addition to their own hardware (before they gave up on it), so it should be running circles around Apple's closed platform right? Well it isn't. Where are all those tablet/slates that people were boasting about that were supposed to run Android/Chrome? Don't get me wrong, I think Android is a great also-ran platform; and it's not a matter of all or nothing between Android and Apple. But this isn't going to be Windows vs. Mac again. Regardless of how you count, Apple's single mobile platform is selling more and – more importantly - being used more than Google's. And that's mostly because Apple does it better. Apple may do it closed - but they do it better.
here
It is clearly a weekend device as all of those spikes are on Saturday and Sunday. Except for the last one. Was June 30th (last day on graph) a holiday for anyone?
For your reference, June 30th number was 0.32% and June 29th was 0.18%.
There are few things to consider here. Are web developers going to ignore a device if it's used less often but by more units than PCs? I don't think so. The fact that these smartphones even show up at all is a testament to their power of this still emerging market.
No, but they shouldn't go through the considerable effort required to drastically simplify their regular site to accommodate such a tiny audience either. If you want to target the affluent iPhone user market, you should design a dedicated iPhone site and leave your regular site as is, big, complicated with rollovers, Flash or whatever you want. Desktop screens are getting really large lately and many sites are intended to be viewed at 1000+ pixels wide. That just isn't appropriate for a mobile device.
i had an android phone last month and literally all i'd use it for was going to facebook. i don't think mobile phone users spend most of their time going to websites. i would say thats entirely ENTIRELY different for ipad users. im pretty sure thats the ONLY thing they use them for.
You may be on to something. I have several friends with different platforms, and the iPhone users definitely use the web browser heavily, even with so many native apps at their fingertips. So Apple must be doing something right to create an experience that is both deep and broad.
So let me get this straight, the iPad wasn't released until April yet the browsing usage began surging in March? Something is off.
The graph clearly starts showing a dramatic rise in March. As previously stated, this can be reasonably accounted for with non-sale IPads.
The graph shows zero in March. There's one data point per month and the line simply connects them - the intermediate points are meaningless. Zero in March and some number in April (0.03% from the article, there's no scale on the graph). The connecting line is linear, but that doesn't mean that the points on the line have any meaning. Only the monthly data points are meaningful.
I really wish people would learn to read graphs before commenting on them.
No, but they shouldn't go through the considerable effort required to drastically simplify their regular site to accommodate such a tiny audience either. If you want to target the affluent iPhone user market, you should design a dedicated iPhone site and leave your regular site as is, big, complicated with rollovers, Flash or whatever you want. Desktop screens are getting really large lately and many sites are intended to be viewed at 1000+ pixels wide. That just isn't appropriate for a mobile device.
1) Just because a smartphone isn't used as much as a desktop OS for internet browsing, doesn't mean it's not growing fast and the number of potential eyeballs aren't there. You're missing the fact that the iPhone made browsing on a smartphone a viable market.
2) The irony is that the iPhone allowed for a full size page to be displayed accurately and zoom easily that it became so widely popular that making iPhone optimized sites and iPhone optimized WebClips have become common when it was no longer required.
3) You have a good point about Adobe. Perhaps their reluctance to make a viable version of Flash for all mobile platforms more than halfway through 2010 is exactly what you say, the investment simply isn't worth it for the amount of data to be viewed, and with open standards being much more efficient and well in use across all modern mobile OSes, it's just not worth a proper investment in time and money at this point. Maybe when 2Ghz multi-core ARM CPUs with 2GB RAM hit they'll try to be mobile player.
4) You can't go by pixels, especially when dealing with layouts that won't well when you tap them, like Flash. Note: Android 3.0 will reportedly support 1280x760 for displays over 4". That means a 4.55" display will match the iPhone 4's ppi, any dispaly smaller than 5.3" will still be a Retinal Display basedon 20/20 (1 arcmin) vision at 12" with 286 ppi, with the 4.3" displays common now being about 346 ppi.
The graph shows zero in March. There's one data point per month and the line simply connects them - the intermediate points are meaningless. Zero in March and some number in April (0.03% from the article, there's no scale on the graph). The connecting line is linear, but that doesn't mean that the points on the line have any meaning. Only the monthly data points are meaningful.
I really wish people would learn to read graphs before commenting on them.
I can see how this can be ambiguous. If there is absolutely zero usage IN March then the rise for April, since it's clearly not at 0% is all from April 1st or does the rise at the beginning of April indicate the entire month of April's usage?
It would be extremely nice if Apple could get such a platform out by November. Frankly it has been extremely hard to resist this version one device, in many ways it is excellent for a version one device and using one is most impressive (magical). It is easy to see why Steve Jobs said more than a year and a half ago that he was most impressed with things he didn't release which was later revealed to be a comment about the iPad.
IPad is one seriously nice piece of hardware with a few quirks. One being tying the GPS to the 3G model. GPS should really be base line functionally on such devices. On top of that a simple USB port would have solved many issues including the availability of a web cam.
On the otherhand I avoid the Apple stores just to make sure a snap purchase is not made. I'm still more impressed by iPad than iPhone 4 as I think it will fit my needs better.
Dave
1)You can't go by pixels, especially when dealing with layouts that won't well when you tap them, like Flash. Note: Android 3.0 will reportedly support 1280x760 for displays over 4". That means a 4.55" display will match the iPhone 4's ppi, any dispaly smaller than 5.3" will still be a Retinal Display basedon 20/20 (1 arcmin) vision at 12" with 286 ppi, with the 4.3" displays common now being about 346 ppi.
I'm not getting into a discussion about Flash, I only mentioned it in the context of everything else that is commonly used in web pages but is not ideal for touch interfaces, like links that are too close together, etc. As far as pixels are concerned, the new buzz term is fluid layouts using em instead of px, but those pages generally fall apart pretty quickly when you expand the window, so 99% of the developers are still using pixels. Even with fluid layouts, they don't usually scale down very well, only up so, 1000+ pixels minimum is not that uncommon.
The mobile screens may soon have the resolution to match an average desktop but you could fit half a dozen 10 px font-size words on the head of a pin. Totally unreadable except maybe with 20 something eyes. So yes, you have to zoom and scroll, which gets old pretty fast.
I don't have an iPhone (yet. not sure when). I also don't have a laptop (no real need). I've only three Macs since I started using a computer back in 1995 (Performa 6200CD, Blue/White G3, Intel White iMac).
The iPad is my first mobile device to check mail, go online which are my main needs. I luv my iPad.
So count me in doing my small part in that whole "Apple's iPad passes Google Android in total browser usage share!
My hat is off to you sir
-Sent from my iPad
I can see how this can be ambiguous. If there is absolutely zero usage IN March then the rise for April, since it's clearly not at 0% is all from April 1st or does the rise at the beginning of April indicate the entire month of April's usage?
Print out the graph. Put a big dot for each month. THAT is the average for the month. So we know that the iPad average was zero in March and 0.03% in April on average. It doesn't say anything about any particular day of any month.
Sheesh, don't they teach people basic math in school these days?
More people are browsing the Web via an iPad than on an Android-powered device, according to new monthly browser usage data from one analytics firm.
In just three months on the market, Apple's iPad has come to represent 0.17 percent of all Web browser traffic tracked by Net Applications. The iPad's June total managed to exceed Android, which represented 0.14 percent of all Web browsing traffic.
Behind both of them was another iOS-powered device from Apple, the iPod touch. In June, the iPod touch took 0.12 percent of the Web browser share, according to Net Applications.
The iPad has seen a steady climb since it was released in April, notching 0.03 percent in the first month, when it was only available in the U.S. In May, the numbers tripled to 0.09 percent, only to nearly double again in June to the 0.17 percent figure that pushed it past Android.
The numbers, however, do not mean that there are more iPads on the market than Android devices. But the stats do indicate that a far higher percentage of iPad owners use their new device to browse the Web -- so many, in fact, that it has now surpassed Android in that department.
Released in early April in the U.S., the iPad immediately made a splash in the statistics tracked by Net Applications. In less than two weeks in the market, it had already tied Android and BlackBerry in Web browsing presence, but only for a few days. This week's totals show that the iPad has grown to a level where its browser was consistently larger than Android's through the month of June.
Last month, Apple's most high-profile iOS device, the iPhone, was revealed by Net Applications to carry a 33 percent share of all mobile browsers. That compared to 14 percent for Nokia's Symbian, 6 percent for Google Android, 4 percent for Research in Motion's BlackBerry, and 3 percent for Microsoft's Windows Mobile.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
Makes no sense to me. something is off here.
I thought there was only 3 or 4 million iPads sold so far.
Sheesh, don't they teach people basic math in school these days?
Maybe they should teach people to not use line graphs when a bar chart more accurately represents the data.
Maybe they should teach people to not use line graphs when a bar chart more accurately represents the data.
I see this all the time, a line graph simply pretends that there is much more underlying data than one actually has (in this case it pretends that we have sub-month data). And life seems to be mainly about pretending nowadays. [/end rant]
But just because other people behave stupidly, one is not actually required to act stupidly as well.