Slashdot Mirror


Online Population now Half Billion

mattvd writes "According to CNN, the number of people with Web access at home by the end of 2001 was 498 million." Not surprisingly, Asia is growing the fastest. It's amazing that in only 10 years or so, the net has exploded so far, so fast, and now touches 10% of the earths population.

25 of 269 comments (clear)

  1. 498 million seems like so much... by suso · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But 10% seems like so little. As John "Maddog" Hall says, that just means that 5 billion people haven't choosen their operating system yet.

  2. Half of Half a Billion by slipkid · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...And, in related news, half of the Online Population still believe that "the Internet" and "AOL" are synonymous (the same half, incidentally, who thought 'The Net' was a great film).

  3. End of the WWW by DCram · · Score: 3, Interesting

    With news like this comming out it makes me wonder what these people who say that the WWW is going to die are thinking. With a base as large as that it is near imposible to kill it. Im sure there will be new tech that comes along and makes the WWW better faster and friendlier but die? I don't think so.

    Now the problem is with all these people fighting over bandwidth when are chaeper faster pipes be available for us to use? When can I say hey there are 1 mill users hitting my site and there is no lag?

    I also wonder what these people are looking at. 90% porn and the other 10% refrence material and such.

    --
    If I were only smart enough to accomplish the things I dream about.. Or maybe too dumb to care.
    1. Re:End of the WWW by denzo · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I don't think the argument is that the Web will disappear or not be used anymore, but that its content-to-noise ratio will worsen. In its beginnings, the WWW had mostly academic documents, which could be considered high-quality and accurate information. As the number of Internet users has grown, there is a greater percentage of garbage compared to useful information. We now have annoying pop-ups, DoS'ed IRC servers, messageboard full of flamefests, etc. Internet advertising companies are now spreading themselves thin over millions of Web pages, causing advertising revenue for each of the Web sites to fall drastically. Various big Web sites are disappearing because they cannot afford their bandwidth, and free file downloads are becoming more scarce (the exceptions are large networks like ZDNet, or servers that cater to limited groups like Linux... but when Linux REALLY picks up, will we still have the same access to free FTP mirrors?).

      If you look at it that way, the future of the Web looks kinda bleak.

  4. Pretty close by quantaman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    With the current population 5,995,544,836 that makes the percent of the people online only about 8.3%. In reality it's probably even lower when you think about how many millions of those are using AOL connections;)

    --
    I stole this Sig
    1. Re:Pretty close by Dephex+Twin · · Score: 3, Funny
      With the current population 5,995,544,836

      Man, the census has gotten accurate in recent years!

      mark
      --

      If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
  5. am from india.... by univgeek · · Score: 5, Interesting
    And although systems are expensive, and most college students do not have computers/internet access from home, there are hundreds of internet cafes in each city. The rate for access is around 25c to 50c an hour. They also allow gaming, voice chat etc. Since the cost of local and international long distance is quite high in India (cross-subsidizing the rural areas) a lot of illegal (currently) voice chat takes place in the browsing cafes.


    Most students in the cities have email and access the net quite regularly, if only for gaming or chat through these cyber-cafes and not at home. Also gives privacy ;-)....


    And once the government legalises VoIP there is definitely going to be a huge boom in the use of the cyber-cafes.


    I am pretty sure that this must be the case in most developing economies. Of course like this article says it needs to become a productivity tool.

    --
    All bow to his Noodliness!! His Noodle Appendage has touched me!
    1. Re:am from india.... by PaxTech · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Why is VoIP illegal in India?

      Because India has some seriously entrenched corruption problems. VoIP would hurt the phone company, and the phone company bosses wouldn't like that.

      Here in the USA of course, we are MUCH more civilized and would NEVER, EVER let a corporations concern over profits dictate our laws and regulations.

      --
      All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
  6. A little perspective... by isaac · · Score: 4, Informative
    I'm not surprised that the internet has reached 10% of the world's population - it's the richest 10%. I'll be more (pleasantly) surprised when the internet reaches 30% of the world's population - because then it will truly have made inroads into currently unserved or underserved populations - i.e. the 85% of the world that lives in what people in the US, EU, Japan, S. Korea, etc. would call abject poverty. (People in the 80th or 70th percentile, though, are themselves significantly wealthier than the 60% of the world's population that could truly be described as economically poor.)

    For a little perspective, check out the brochure from the ITU World Telecommunication Development Conference 2002. A hopeful note, according to that link: "Africa now has more than twice as many main telephone connections as Tokyo and 85 percent of today's world population share 45 percent of all telephone lines (see Figure 1). In comparison, in 1984, 90 percent of the world's people used only ten percent of all telephone lines."

    -Isaac

    --
    I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
    1. Re:A little perspective... by King_TJ · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, while not wanting to wish "abject poverty" on anyone - I think reality is, we'll always have a large percentage of people falling into that classification. Some of it is due to the geography. There are certain places in the world that just aren't good to inhabit if you want to earn money and live a good quality of life.

      If the Internet does eventually reach 30% of the population, I'd say that's due to the "trickle down" effect. PCs that the wealthier 10% discard as useless get recycled into quite usable Internet terminals for people who can't afford something newer.

      Of course, the communications infrastructure is the limiting factor, ultimately. You can sit there with the nicest PC in the world, but you can't get online if nobody will give you a connection.

  7. Re:Slashdot/Asia? by President+Chimp+Toe · · Score: 5, Informative

    Let's just hope there's no Slashdot-Asia planned for the near future. That would REALLY take the Slashdot effect to a new level....

    Erm, there is dude. Check it out, its japanese.

    When we get chinese slashdot, then we really start frigging worrying.

  8. Nielsen/Net Ratings - more data by fleener · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here is the PDF from Nielsen. It contains more data than the CNN story.

  9. Usability still an issue by NathanBFH · · Score: 4, Interesting

    500 million people certainly is a lot, and the industry as a whole has quite a bit to brag about (that much growth in only 10 years is phenominal.) However, there are a lot of the things the industry should be ashamed of, too. Usability seems to have come a long way in the last few years, but the best thing to ever happen to personal computing in terms of usability, the introduction of the GUI-based PC to the masses, will be the celebrating it's 20th birthday in 2004. 20 years and there is still a market for 400 page manuals on How To Use Microsoft Windows selling in Barnes and Nobles. How many 400 page manuals do you see selling on how to operate your microwave or your alarm clock? Your TV? How about how to send snail mail or take/develop photos? Sure PC's are complicated machines, sure the PC can do a lot more than a microwave... but does Jane Doe Grandma care? Not really, she just wants to see pictures of her grandchildren on that live hundreds miles of away, and she wants them on Christmas morning as they open their gifts. How likely is she to spend hours trying to learn how to buy a computer, plug in the 7 different wires, figure out how to dial up to a service provider, learn how to launch and use her email client, and load up the attached pictures in her photo-editing software. Not likely. It's not that she or the billions of other people on this planet that are not connected aren't capable of learning, it's that it's just not worth it to them. Face it: using a PC takes a time investment of several hours _just_ to do basic tasks, and all these people want to do is send email/pictures/video to their families, maybe read the news, and be done with it. What other home appliance (since that's what the PC is and should be to these people) have you seen that takes 2 minutes to boot up? How about that you have to push 30+ buttons to operate (how many keyboard presses & mouse clicks does it take to do what Jane Doe Grandma wants?). This all sounds pretty trivial to us geeks because we're used to pressing THOUSANDS of buttons a day to get what we want done, but we are a minority. To the 5.5 billion other people on this planet: it just seems too complicated. Have there been attempts at bridging the gap between layman and machine? Of course, but most have failed miserably. Email appliances were clunky, ugly, and still unbelievably hard to use. Windows XP still has the same complicated GUI that has been around for more 7 years (just with bigger, brighter, more obxnoxious buttons). Does it look easier? Sure, I guess. Still takes hundreds of mouse clicks to read email/news. My TV takes three to get CNN.

    1. Re:Usability still an issue by EllF · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "using a PC takes a time investment of several hours _just_ to do basic tasks"

      "Still takes hundreds of mouse clicks to read email/news"

      What kind of operating system are you using? At work, I develop (via cygwin, no less) on an NT box; at home I only run linux. With my work system, it takes three clicks to check my mail - a doubleclick to open my browser, and one more (which isn't mandatory) to confirm my username and password. On my linux box, it takes one click to open mozilla. That's it. Neither of these tasks take more than 20 seconds.

      To address a few other scattered claims: my computer boots in 35 seconds, not 2 minutes. I do not press "buttons", although I occasionally click to open a menu. For the 5.5 billion people on the planet who to whom "it just seems too complicated" (which I doubt), the television industry is perfectly happy to turn you into a passive recepient of crap. No, stay there - we'll let you know when you should move.

      You do raise an interesting point on a more abstract level, however. Should we (as computer users) drive the market towards a nearly idiotic level of "useability"? I think not. Your grandmother doesn't *need* to know how to use her operating system with the acuity and depth presented in those 400+ page tomes in your local McBookstore. She's fine with the glossy book that came in the Compaq box.

      See, computers are fundamentally different from your toaster or your television. They let you *create* things - via code, image manipulation, sound editing, etc. Each of this these involves a bit of a time commitment and some learning, but they reap rewards for that. A decent analogy is higher education: would you claim that the "hundreds" of books you average college student reads are entirely too many, and that education should be dumbed down for the "layman"?

      Computers are a tool. They might have shiny Widgets to play with, but they are still tools - and what you get out of them will be proportional to what you put in. Attempts to make this an uneven relationship (ie, you get out 10x what you put in) will fail. As Einstein (almost) wrote, "simply everything as much as possible, but no more."

      --
      We who were living are now dying
      With a little patience
    2. Re:Usability still an issue by stubear · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This ia all fine and well but there are tywo problems with your argument. First of all, Microwaves and the other list of small appliances do not perform the myriad of tasks the PC is expected to perform.

      The other problem is getting programmers to actually listen to and implement proper user interfaces. Human Interface Guidelines aren't written for the health of the authors. They are written so developers can build applications which fllow a certain set of rules of consistancy. The HIGs exist, get the pig-headed developers to follow them.

    3. Re:Usability still an issue by NathanBFH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You bring up some very interesting rebuttels to my post, and I thank you for your feedback. I'll let you know that I agree with almost all of your points (that computers should not be dumbed down for the layman). However, that is not exactly what I meant to imply. Computers will always have their place. You can turn my PC into an appliance over my dead body! What I'm suggesting is that if there was a way to provide simple services such as email (in text/voice/video form) that everyone would benefit. A breed of device seperate from a typical PC that anyone can use.

      On the point of mouse clicks/keyboard presses:
      If you wanted to bring simple webservices like email to a person that's never used a computer before you would probably sign them up for a free service such as hotmail or yahoo. I want to diagram how many button presses are involved (this all may sound ridiculous and extremely mellodramatic, but the truth is non-geeky people often get confused by all the steps involved):

      - Double Click Internet Explorer from the standard 5-15 icons that are on the desktop. Keep in mind that the Internet Explorer icon is about 1/100th the size of the entire desktop, and a non-tech user can often get lost in the many icons present.
      [ 2 clicks ]

      - Click in the address bar (which is among 20 other buttons) and type in the (archaic) web address http://www.hotmail.com.
      [1 click, 22 key presses]

      - In the sign in box type your user name (again, sometimes lost in all the buttons on the screen. Sounds ridiculous, but I've seen users have trouble finding it)
      [1 click, ~8 key presses ]

      - Same for the password
      [1 click, ~8 key presses ]

      - Sign In Button
      [1 click]

      Now you are provided with a user interface (the website) inside of a user interface (the browser) inside of _another_ user interface (the OS). When I sign in to my Yahoo! account, there are no less than 50 links on the page. The browser has another 20 buttons, and the OS has a task bar with who knows what in the tray, a min/max/close button, ect. It's a kalidescopic nightmare for the untrained user.

      And that's just email.

      Granted it gets easier with time, granted we all had to learn it, but it seems like nothing has changed in the last 20 years. It feels like we have made very little ground. And it seems like an incomprehensible mess to a first time user. Now how many key presses does it take to read each message? Which button out of the 50 available does what I want? You mean that small (16x16 pixel) button? The one next to the other 12 buttons that's below the big bar of other buttons and next to the message that says my computer "Isn't optimized for the Internet"? Couldn't this confusion be halved/quarted/_almost_ totally eliminated?

      Past solutions have involved dumbing down the PC. I think that's a terrible idea. Millions of people use PC's with out (many) problems and love the flexibality they provide, including myself. But most don't care about flexability. They don't care that their comptuer can run all the latest applications/OSes. They just want email!

      I'm just throwing some food out. I would love to hear rebuttles/other ideas.

  10. The revolution will not be televised. by Kushana · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There's not going to be a revolution. Why should there? Has anyone English been significantly affected by the addition of millions of Japanese pages? Will the addition of billions of Chinese pages make any difference? No.

    Even the addition of millions of Chinese surfers will not make a difference to the web. They're going to be off surfing, producing, and supporting mostly Chinese sites, and we will stay in the English ones.

    In fact, I would propose that the addition of all those extra people makes the Net less prone to revolution, not more. If they were competing with us for scare resources, that would be one thing. But the Net will expand exponentially to accommodate them and they can all do their own thing. In their own language.

    --

    Careers should combine three things: what you can do, what you want to do, and what you can get paid for.
  11. Re:Wait by HanzoSan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Its about preserving their culture, about improving their own economy, thats why they are beginning to avoid Microsoft,

    You dont know much about China do you? Culture is everything, at least to the older generation.

    There is no culture in the USA besides capitalism,

    China sees us as cultureless and they dont want to end up like us. They like the technology of the internet but they dont like our culture and dont want to expose their youth to it.

    How can you improve an economy without learning about capitalism? You have forgotten about communism?

    It doenst benifit China in ANY way whatsoever to use our Internet, it makes more sense for them to create a seperate internet.

    So tell me what the Chinese government has in mind, please no "Evil Communist" crap either, i want logical reasons.

    In the usa, Oppression was about Capitalism and making money, it was for a reason, Censorship was about making money and maintaining power.

    The Chinese see us as their biggest threat, their greatest competitor, for them to join us in the internet, and fall down and bow before aol and microsoft, you must be joking.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  12. Umm.. WRONG! by PaxTech · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Did you even READ the article you cited? It does NOT say 18% of Americans lack telephone service, it says 18% of HOUSEHOLDS whose income is BELOW THE POVERTY LEVEL lack telephone service.

    The correct statistic from your cite is 6.1% of all American households lack telephone service in their home. Also, you can hardly compare these Americans, who likely are at least NEAR a phone due to neighbors, pay phones, etc., to the poor people who live in Chinese and African villages and may not be within MILES of a phone.

    --
    All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
  13. Wired Infrastructure by Perdo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Take note that untill recently, having the internet meant having a piece of copper strung to your house. Because most countries have not had the massive copper build out that is seen in the united states, getting internet was not possible. that is what makes some of the wireless technologies so interesting. For example, Kuwait has phone lines to only 15% of residences. Every one has a mobile phone though. To a person in kuwait, placing a call means calling a person, not a location. Internet cafes are extremely popular, satisfying demand for an internet that has no infrastructure. Which is what makes 802.11b/a and other wireless methods so interesting. I am guessing that there are as many people in the world, with dollars to spend, that the providers of wireless internet access will call customers, as currently use copper to access the internet. However, untill it is cheaper to set up a wireless internet connection than buy a similar length of copper, acceptance will obviously be poor.

    --

    If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.

  14. Half a Billion People - What's the Draw? by Petersko · · Score: 3, Funny

    1. Pornography

    2. Gambling

    3. Trolling for fights without fear of getting punched

    4. Pornography

    5. Easy chatting and email with friends

    6. Endless time-wasting opportunity

    7. Pornography

    8. Groups for almost any conceivable interest

    9. Pornography

    What's not to like?

  15. Re:Speed it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
    It will be easier with less people

    Unless you plan to chop those people up and weigh the total, it is fewer people. Knowing the difference might make you more attractive to chicks.

  16. Have to update my spam ad... by ch-chuck · · Score: 3, Funny

    If you're searching for the most cost-effective form of promotion you can find... Your Search Is Over - you've FOUND it - Investment is MINIMAL and Potential return is INCREDIBLE! Blast your ad to over 500 Million pre-opted-in indivdually targeted Internet users who are JUST WAITING to hear about YOUR product or service!

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  17. *Home* access, not total access by jpatokal · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Many people seem to be missing the important little point that the 498 million figure refers to people who can access the Net at home. There are quite a few people who have Internet access at work or at school but not at home, and even more people who can (and do?) access the Internet at cafes, libraries, etc. Getting exact figures for these is probably impossible, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if the total of all of these was well over a billion.

    Cheers,
    -j.

  18. Re:Wait by HanzoSan · · Score: 3, Insightful



    Alot more freedoms?

    Ok, what happens if you write some source code which decodes the RIAAs copy protected CD, well, guess what you go to jail, all your freedom? Where is it?

    Oh and lets not forget, you dont have freedom to even control the information produced by your computer hardware.

    Soon you may not even have the freedom of writing open source software at all.

    Its not just software, but the whole capitalist system takes away your freedom and gives it to businesses.

    What happened to the individuality and your freedom? Guess its all about business now.

    USA doesnt force its culture on people? What was Vietnam about again? What about the cold war?

    USA doesnt hold a gun to peoples head? Tell that to Fidel.

    the USA has enemies because the USA spreads everywhere, Bin laden attacked us because we got involved with him, we destroyed afganastan using bin laden to fight our little enemies the Russians, the whole battle with the Russians was because they had a diffrent culture, we wanted them to be like us and had an entire cold war over it.

    Now we want to go bother Sadam for the same reason, We should get out of the middle east right now, Stop helping Isreal, Stop attacking Iraq, stop bothering North Korea

    None of these countries attacked us, yet we go there and attack them, then we act surprised when they all gang up on us and do a 911 style attack on us.

    There shouldnt be a world government, and if there was, it we shouldnt be the police of the world and expect to not be the biggest target. 911 only happened because we caused it, cause and effect.

    Sure Bin laden may not have liked our culture, but he would have never attacked us if we didnt go bother him first and we DID bother him first, we arent innocent.

    I'm tired of biased Americans acting like the USA can do no wrong, and its always the innocent angels in the USA vs "EVIL" or the AXIS of EVIL

    The UN doesnt support what we are doing, because its wrong, Sure we have the right to attack Al Qaeda, but Iraq? North Korea? Cuba, Somolia, Russia, all this stuff didnt have to happen.In fact if none of it did happen, we wouldnt be hated.

    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac