I think we passed the inflection point of the S-curve around the time Firefox 1.0 was released. Adoption of Firefox has slowed since then. See the story on Firefox's growth rate slowing posted on Slashdot earlier today.
What does 90% market share really mean? I use both IE and Firefox on the same machine. Do they both get counted?
It's not 90% market share. It's 90% usage share. If you use IE half the time and Firefox half the time, they are both counted equally. If you have IE installed and never use it, it's not counted.
Don't forget about "sensitive dependence upon initial conditions", and inherant unpredictability.
I somehow doubt chaos theory has any relavence to browser usage share trends. One arbitrary user switching from one browser to another is generally not going to lead to a vastly different outcome in usage share years down the road.
The browser market has been nearly stagnant for years. The two big events have been that MS stopped developing IE for Mac, and Mac OS started shipping Safari as the default browser instead of IE. That's going to result in about 3-4% less share for IE and that much more for other browsers.
Other than that shift, there was the easily predictable exponential decline of Netscape 4 and the exponential growth of Gecko-based browsers, with that growth slowing to linear and then sub-linear as the non-IE share grew to around 10%. Firefox and Safari use will continue to grow slowly, IE use will decline slowly, and Opera use will stay about the same as it has for years. That is, until another big event occurs.
No, Firefox isn't just not growing exponentially. It hasn't been able to maintain the linear growth it's had since Firefox 1.0 came out. Here's a table showing the increase in share for Firefox according to WebSideStory's lasttwo market share press releases:
08 Oct 04 to 05 Nov 04 : 0.40% per month
05 Nov 04 to 03 Dec 04 : 1.10% per month
03 Dec 04 to 18 Feb 05 : 0.64% per month
18 Feb 05 to 29 Apr 05 : 0.45% per month
You can see Firefox growth surged after 1.0 was released, and now it's returning to its previous level. At the current rate of 0.45% per month, Firefox will hit 10% share in late November 2005.
I've violated copyrights dozens of times. I don't see any bars around me, and don't remember any fines I had to pay. It may be against the law, but without anyone actively enforcing it, we can get away with breaking it. That's the point the GP post makes.
The really funny part is that's what I'm actually using to try to see the video. But now the download is stuck at 71% probably because I was stupid enough to post the link. Can someone post a mirror to one of the mirrors that's still working?
There have been requests filed in Bugzilla for these features for years and they're not being worked on (see bugs 59630, 128284, 134763, and 167102, for example). It seems like Outlook/Exchange interoperability is not a priority for the developers. They need some volunteer contributors to write this code or port it from other OS projects.
The problem with Thunderbird/Sunbird is that it can't replace Outlook for most corporate users.
One problem is that Outlook is usually used with Microsoft Exchange servers, which by default use the MAPI protocol. Users need to convince the IT department to set up the server to use IMAP in addition to MAPI, and even when users feel comfortable with making this request the admins are unwilling to satisfy it.
Another problem is that even if the server uses IMAP, Thunderbird/Sunbird still doesn't interoperate with other Outlook users' calendars and meeting requests. Essentially all Outlook users in an entire department or company need to switch all at once for the scheduling software to interoperate. This all-or-nothing approach to using Thunderbird/Sunbird as an alternative makes IT departments uneasy about switching.
What we need is Free email/scheduling software that can seamlessly replace Outlook for nearly all users. Then "rogue" users and early adopters can introduce it into their departments slowly. If Thunderbird/Sunbird could interoperate with MS Exchange and Outlook, it might be nearly as popular as Firefox is now.
If I want a Mac without a monitor, I can buy a Mac Mini for $500-$600. If I want more than the Mac Mini has to offer, I have to spend at least $1600 for a Power Mac. Do you see the $1000 hole where a mid-range headless Mac line could fit?
That's only because they put the Mac Mini in such a small case and therefore had to limit the power consumed. They could make the case bigger than the Mac Mini and smaller than the iMac -- just take the monitor out of the iMac and rearrange the components a bit. Of course, it would take at least several months to do the engineering, but there are no technological hurdles to overcome as you imply.
Mac Mini has too little power and Power Mac is too expensive. I'd like to see a Mac Mini G5 line that has the same specs as the iMac line except without the built-in monitor. Along with a 17" Cinema Display, that would hit the sweet spot for me.
You still don't get it. It's to be attended by time travellers. It doesn't matter when you publicize it, as long it's before the time travellers leave the future. You can publicize it 100 years after it happens, and time travellers can still show up.
But if the event has already passed, and no time travellers showed up, then it can't do any good to publicize it. You already know that the publicity failed, and nothing you do can make it succeed.
Therefore, why not wait until after the event has passed before you try to publicize it, so you don't waste any time with publicity that you already know ahead of time will fail?
There's no need to publicize it beforehand. If no time travelers attend, there's no need to publicize it at all, since it would do no good. It seems like even the organizers of the event have no real understanding of what time travel to the past implies.
Dont you think Apple has already done enough for KHTML?
<sarcasm>Of course not! This is open source. We expect someone else to do all our work for us for free. And if they don't they're evil money grubbing bastards!</sarcasm>
If Apple releases Mac Midi and a 17" cinema display, I'll be all over it. I'm hestitant to buy an iMac because I don't want the computer & screen in one unit.
They don't say there won't be releases in between 1.1 and 1.5, and between 1.5 and 2.0. Note those are called the major releases in the roadmap. There might be minor ones such as 1.2, 1.3, 1.6, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I think we passed the inflection point of the S-curve around the time Firefox 1.0 was released. Adoption of Firefox has slowed since then. See the story on Firefox's growth rate slowing posted on Slashdot earlier today.
Typically the user agent string is used to measure usage share.
So users get just as much spyware and adware running Firefox as they do when using IE? I somehow doubt that.
I'm with ya. I keep my house full of junk in case I'm robbed. If someone breaks in and takes everything, they just did me a favor!
The browser market has been nearly stagnant for years. The two big events have been that MS stopped developing IE for Mac, and Mac OS started shipping Safari as the default browser instead of IE. That's going to result in about 3-4% less share for IE and that much more for other browsers.
Other than that shift, there was the easily predictable exponential decline of Netscape 4 and the exponential growth of Gecko-based browsers, with that growth slowing to linear and then sub-linear as the non-IE share grew to around 10%. Firefox and Safari use will continue to grow slowly, IE use will decline slowly, and Opera use will stay about the same as it has for years. That is, until another big event occurs.
08 Oct 04 to 05 Nov 04 : 0.40% per month
05 Nov 04 to 03 Dec 04 : 1.10% per month
03 Dec 04 to 18 Feb 05 : 0.64% per month
18 Feb 05 to 29 Apr 05 : 0.45% per month
You can see Firefox growth surged after 1.0 was released, and now it's returning to its previous level. At the current rate of 0.45% per month, Firefox will hit 10% share in late November 2005.
I've violated copyrights dozens of times. I don't see any bars around me, and don't remember any fines I had to pay. It may be against the law, but without anyone actively enforcing it, we can get away with breaking it. That's the point the GP post makes.
The really funny part is that's what I'm actually using to try to see the video. But now the download is stuck at 71% probably because I was stupid enough to post the link. Can someone post a mirror to one of the mirrors that's still working?
Coral cache of mirrordot link
There have been requests filed in Bugzilla for these features for years and they're not being worked on (see bugs 59630, 128284, 134763, and 167102, for example). It seems like Outlook/Exchange interoperability is not a priority for the developers. They need some volunteer contributors to write this code or port it from other OS projects.
"Evolution provides integrated mail, addressbook and calendaring functionality to users of the GNOME desktop."
"GNOME runs on a variety of platforms, including GNU/Linux (commonly called Linux), Solaris, HP-UX, BSD and Apple's Darwin."
One problem is that Outlook is usually used with Microsoft Exchange servers, which by default use the MAPI protocol. Users need to convince the IT department to set up the server to use IMAP in addition to MAPI, and even when users feel comfortable with making this request the admins are unwilling to satisfy it.
Another problem is that even if the server uses IMAP, Thunderbird/Sunbird still doesn't interoperate with other Outlook users' calendars and meeting requests. Essentially all Outlook users in an entire department or company need to switch all at once for the scheduling software to interoperate. This all-or-nothing approach to using Thunderbird/Sunbird as an alternative makes IT departments uneasy about switching.
What we need is Free email/scheduling software that can seamlessly replace Outlook for nearly all users. Then "rogue" users and early adopters can introduce it into their departments slowly. If Thunderbird/Sunbird could interoperate with MS Exchange and Outlook, it might be nearly as popular as Firefox is now.
If I want a Mac without a monitor, I can buy a Mac Mini for $500-$600. If I want more than the Mac Mini has to offer, I have to spend at least $1600 for a Power Mac. Do you see the $1000 hole where a mid-range headless Mac line could fit?
That's only because they put the Mac Mini in such a small case and therefore had to limit the power consumed. They could make the case bigger than the Mac Mini and smaller than the iMac -- just take the monitor out of the iMac and rearrange the components a bit. Of course, it would take at least several months to do the engineering, but there are no technological hurdles to overcome as you imply.
Power Macs are upgradable and therefore cost far more than a headless iMac would.
Mac Mini has too little power and Power Mac is too expensive. I'd like to see a Mac Mini G5 line that has the same specs as the iMac line except without the built-in monitor. Along with a 17" Cinema Display, that would hit the sweet spot for me.
But if the event has already passed, and no time travellers showed up, then it can't do any good to publicize it. You already know that the publicity failed, and nothing you do can make it succeed.
Therefore, why not wait until after the event has passed before you try to publicize it, so you don't waste any time with publicity that you already know ahead of time will fail?
There's no need to publicize it beforehand. If no time travelers attend, there's no need to publicize it at all, since it would do no good. It seems like even the organizers of the event have no real understanding of what time travel to the past implies.
That's got to be the first time I've heard linear interpolation described as "fancy!"
Enjoy!
They don't say there won't be releases in between 1.1 and 1.5, and between 1.5 and 2.0. Note those are called the major releases in the roadmap. There might be minor ones such as 1.2, 1.3, 1.6, etc.