RSS
Twitter
Are People Using Non-Browser Apps To Access The Internet?
from the yes,-but-on-purpose? dept
Nielsen/NetRatings is reporting that more and more people are accessing the internet via non-browser applications. 76% of users connect via non-browser applications, with the popular ones being instant messaging and the various media players. I'm not sure why this is a big deal. Lots of people use non-browser applications to reach the internet. This isn't a question of replacing the browser, but other, non-browsing applications using the internet as well, for other, (you guessed it) non-browsing purposes. It really wasn't that long ago that all internet applications were non-browser applications. I'm actually surprised that email applications aren't included at the top of this list. Are that many people really using web-based email applications these days? In the meantime, Jeremy Wagstaff is pointing out that many of these applications are sneakily installed upon startup, so that many users have them connecting to the internet when they don't even know about it, making this study even less meaningful.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
Nielsen Junk Stats
I suspect the reason that IM is so high is because most people just turn on AIM when they are online regardless of whether they chat with anyone -- it depends want you mean by "use". I'm predisposed to ignore any "studies" coming from Nielsen anyway -- we all know the TV ratings are crap so I don't know why anyone pays any attention to them.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Nielsen Junk Stats
Perhaps they are referring to bandwidth usage, in which case peer-to-peer probably is king.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Nielsen Junk Stats
Going by bytes transferred, I would expect downloading Microsoft patches to be at the top of the list.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given
The article quotes an analyst saying: "...functionality has grown beyond the browser..." Given that the net preceded the net by two decades, this statement obviously makes no sense on its own. What it really says is that the analyst, and probably also the author, knows almost nothing about the net. Most journalists who report on such things are so lazy that they act as if "the net" and "the web" are one and the same.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
two words
imode and rss
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given
Forte Agent, NewsRover, CDEX...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Why should a html browser rule?
Why should the Web browser rule?
With the help of a specific client you are able to use more sofisticated functions.
Internet is more than browsing html files.
Unfortunately it is not an increase of useful clients, it is an increase of spywares and other stupid solutions like Media Player.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No, there *is* important information here...
The point it makes is that it is *not* safe to do stupid-ass things like pseudo-DNS (can you say new.net?) with browser plugins.
We all knew that, of course, but there were people who didn't. Perhaps this will teach them.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
online chess
Oh, yeah!
And I'd rather be playing chess online on online chess !
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
online chess
oh, yeah!
and I'd rather be playing chess online on online chess :)
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment