Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Only 25% of Firefox Downloaders Are 'Active Users'

Posted by Zonk on Fri Aug 10, 2007 01:42 PM
from the i-account-for-ten-percent-of-that dept.
Mozilla The Internet
bheer writes "The Guardian points out a page on the Mozilla wiki noting that 'only 50% of the people downloading Firefox actually try it out, and only a further half of those continue to use it actively.' ZDNet has some commentary on the browser's retention rate. While a 25% retention rate isn't necessarily bad, Mozilla is trying to improve these figures with a 12 point plan that includes more TV and media advertising, a better start page and several installation tweaks."
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: Only 25% of Firefox downloaders are 'active users' by bheer (633842)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Only 25% of Firefox Downloaders Are 'Active Users' 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Why download? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by oxidiser (1118877) on Friday August 10 2007, @01:45PM (#20186399)
    Why bother downloading it if you aren't going to try it? Is this a common thing? I can only recall maybe a couple of things in my entire life I've downloaded and not checked out.

    • Re:Why download? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by moore.dustin (942289) on Friday August 10 2007, @01:55PM (#20186541)
      Of course this is common. These people not using FF after downloading are the same people that have AOL icons on their desktop they never use. Have old trial version software all over their comp, pre-installed or not. As nerds and geeks, we usually uninstall stuff we do not need, but you are telling you that you have installed and used everything you have downloaded? I know I run a pretty tight ship when it comes to my machines, but I know I have downloaded things and not used them for whatever reason.

      Back to the average Joe, they do this way more often then us. They get the link to download for whatever reason and download it with good intention, but not everyone installs it. Of those that do install, they try to use it, realize it is too different or whatever and go back to IE without bothering to uninstall... that is not important to them. To them, having 100 programs installed is the same as 1 - they know no better.

      If you realize that you, being a slashdot reading computer user, are not the "average computer user" then you may be able to put these numbers into perspective and understand how they came to be.

    • Re:Why download? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Scoth (879800) on Friday August 10 2007, @01:59PM (#20186601)
      I've been sitting with "average" users while they show me something or try something and you'd be surprised how many of them click on something that sounds neat that they want to try, it downloads, they close the download window, then say something like "Where'd it go? Oh well..." then move on to something else. This was partly the rational for Firefox's default to download straight to the desktop.

      I'd bet some people are downloading the installer, lose it, and just never bother to find it.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by SplatMan_DK (1035528)
      I use FF myself and love it. And every chance I get, I install it (with permission) on computers belonging to family, friends and business contacts. But I am absolutely sure that not all of them actually use it as their default browser after that. Some of them try it out for a few days, then shift back to IE. And I totally respect that, since having a CHOICE is what really matters. If there are many more like me, we are partially "guilty" of statistics in question. We download FF on many occasions, and not
      • That's in the installer now? I thought it was a check-every-time option similar to IE's: every time you load the program it checks if it is the default and asks you if you want to make it the default if it is not. IE has an option to "never ask again" or something like that, but does that mean that it never asks for permission to switch the default or it never switches the default?

  • My numbers are a bit different. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jack9 (11421) <Jack9@@@teacher...com> on Friday August 10 2007, @01:46PM (#20186417)
    I see about 80% retention in the past. Granted I'm in tech, so you might think that geeks usually go for the most reliable technology that offers the best tools and such, but I dont introduce FF to techs...they are already using it. I see about 80% retention from non-techs that I introduced it to. Now that tabbing is a feature of both browsers, 25% still seems very low.

  • How do they measure this?? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Andrewkov (140579) on Friday August 10 2007, @01:47PM (#20186427)
    I use Firefox as my main browser, but I've downloaded it many times to different PC's (which I may use only occasionally). I wonder how this affects their numbers.

    • Re:How do they measure this?? (Score:5, Funny)

      by mhall119 (1035984) on Friday August 10 2007, @01:48PM (#20186441) Homepage Journal
      It's ok, I've installed it on multiple PC's from the same download, so I cancel you out.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by raju1kabir (251972)

      Likewise. I have three laptops here, plus a few virtual machines, all of which are different platforms and so required their own Firefox downloads.

      But only one of those gets 95% of the use, the others probably appear to be relatively "inactive". In reality it's because those machines are only used for testing in IE, or surfing on the john, or whatever.

  • Download once, use many (Score:3, Insightful)

    by decriptor (762523) on Friday August 10 2007, @01:48PM (#20186433) Homepage
    What about the times that people download it once (IT shops) and install it on hundreds of computers(ok not always that many, but enough to mess up these stats)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by lawpoop (604919)

      What about the times that people download it once (IT shops) and install it on hundreds of computers(ok not always that many, but enough to mess up these stats)

      Wouldn't that boost the numbers of long-term users?

      If you have a home computer, and the user downloads firefox and keeps using it, you have a long-term usage ratio of 100% per download.

      If a sysadmin downloads a single copy of firefox, installs it on 10 computers, and 3 long-term users develop out of that, you then have a 300% ratio per download. However, you only have a 30% ratio per installation. One download, 10 installs, 3 users.

  • Sometimes it's easy to forget that us 'geeks' are a small community. I can't imagine downloading software and then never even installing it or trying it. Whenever I do install a browser the very first thing I do is go to where I want my homepage to be and set it. I get annoyed when software defaults to 'intrusive' behavior.
     
    But apparently if they want wide spread usage - they need to look at people who are not like me.

  • This is what normally happends. (Score:5, Funny)

    by jellomizer (103300) * on Friday August 10 2007, @01:50PM (#20186457)
    Person A computer really messes up.
    Geek B fixes it and puts firefox to help them out.
    Geek B tells them to use Firefox so their computer doesn't mess up.
    Person A Ignores Geek B advice because what does he know he only fixes computers.
    Person A Computer gets really messed up.

  • Twelve Step Plan (Score:5, Funny)

    by Reason58 (775044) on Friday August 10 2007, @01:52PM (#20186507)
    1. We admitted we were powerless over IE--that our lives had become unmanageable.
    2. Came to believe that a browser greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
    3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of Firefox as we understood Him.
    4. Made a google search and fearless moral inventory of bloat.
    5. Admitted to Firefox, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our standards breaking.
    6. Were entirely ready to have Firefox remove all these defects of browser.
    7. Humbly asked Firefox to remove our security vulnerabilities.
    8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
    9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
    10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly installed a patch for it.
    11. Sought through addons and extensions to improve our conscious contact with Firefox, as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the plugins to carry that out.
    12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to IE-aholics, and to practice these principles in all our browsing.

  • Alright! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by iknownuttin (1099999) on Friday August 10 2007, @01:55PM (#20186545)
    Ok. I have Firefox 2.0.0.4. When I first downloaded it, all of a sudden I started getting these "update errors".

    Now, being a good F/OSS geek, I went up online to find out WTF the problem was. Well, there was this series of directions to follow. I followed them to the tee. Still nothing. Then I saw a post about my "Firewall" being the problem. Well, I turned it off - no change. BUT, when I was logged in as an Admin, no problem. Interesting. The Firefox folks were insistent that it's my firewall.

    So, I went in and gave the Mozilla directory full access rights (this is in Windows XP) and everything is working now.

    So, is Firefox on my machine secure?
    Would the typical user have to deal with this security problem with IE - (NO)?
    How many of you are going to call me or imply that I'm an idiot for not being able to use Firefox correctly?

    Users want to know.

    • Re:Alright! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 10 2007, @03:27PM (#20188005)
      The typical Windows user is logged on as an Administrator, out of the box. Therefore the typical Windows user will never see this issue, nor need to work around it.

      Those who don't login as an administrator either know what they're doing (and therefore have the skills to understand the problem), or they're a large enough business that their IT department should be familiar with problems like this. Firefox is hardly the only program that expects to be able to write to it's program directory, which isn't allowed by normal users.

      Now, logically, since you are a technical user, and set your primary account as a normal user, you should know that normal users can't write to %ProgramFiles%. Therefore when you attempt to run an update, that you know damn well requires writing files out to %ProgramFiles%, you shouldn't be surprised to see problems or errors.

      Instead of giving your normal user account full access to the program directory, you should maintain security and install updates after logging in as an administrator. The normal user can see when an update is available, which gives you the push to login as an administrator and install it, but obviously the normal user shouldn't be able to do it.

      That everyone pointed to every other problem under the sun instead of this illustrates the overwhelming number of Windows users who run as administrator. I've got a couple dozen programs installed that refuse to run if the logged in account isn't an administrator. At least Firefox manages functions just fine for everything except program updates.
  • they say

    Note that Active Daily Users is an estimate of the number of users who are using Firefox on a daily basis.

    And well, i couldn't find much else on their statistics. What does 'try it out' even mean? They have solid numbers on how many are downloaded, but I'm interested in how exactly they're coming up with these statistics. Does firefox report to them when it's being used? I don't think so... number of people downloading the upgrades? Maybe...

    I know I've downloaded it several times for various co

  • In other news (Score:3, Funny)

    by Tribbin (565963) on Friday August 10 2007, @01:57PM (#20186573) Homepage
    Only 5% of Internet Explorer users intentionally use Internet Explorer over alternatives.
    • The use of the word 'intentionally' makes your statistics plausible, the unintentional people that just use what they got is probably still the majority, though. News of the day: amount of downloads and usage are not the same measurement methods. However, server logs catch the http headers sent by the browsers, still one of the more usable methods of measurement (except for browsers that stealth themselves as other browsers).

  • Not unusual (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MobyDisk (75490) on Friday August 10 2007, @01:57PM (#20186577) Homepage
    I work for a company that offers a downloadable product with a monthly subscription. We find that people actually login, enter their credit card number, download the software, and never run it. There's another group who never click the download button. It's really quite amazing. We've worked hard to make it as easy as possible - make sure the download link is visible on all screen resolutions, browsers, not require scripting or the latest softare, etc.
    • What you are seeing could be criminals testing the stolen credit card numbers (to see which ones are still valid before making a large purchase). This happens to be a huge problem for sites such as redcross.org requiring designated abuse teams.
  • Not convinced the 25% is a true figure -- although admittedly download stats are not a true measure of anything other than downloads. Some people download several times if they have some problem, just as one example of skewness.

    It would be interesting to see what the figures are for site visit stats and how that's grown, say for Google or similar. I imagine the Guardian's stats are now skewed by lots of Firefox users navigating to the article.

    I have some concerns about the 12 point plan. As a non-pro
  • I have to say I have installed FF on more than a few computers for friends. They almost always try it out of curiosity, but I often find them back using explorer again. Mostly, because they are familiar with MS layouts and they aren't into diddling with software as a hobby. Especially true with people my parents age. They don't like different.

    I try to use FF, but if I have a complaint, it is not the memory thing (got lots of that), but it is that often FF just seems to stops loading pages and I have to rest
  • I made my first comment without reading the full article. Now that I read it, I'm thoroughly amused!!!

    It seems that Mozilla is "finally get it", and in the process, going against some of the things that the OSS community generally detests. I'll comment on their 12-step program (just the ones i find interesting):

    1. Change Firefox icon label to closer resemble action of getting to web
    Wow! They finally realized that the name "Firefox" doesn't make ANY connection to the internet for standard users.
    2.

  • My 12-Step Retention Plan (Score:5, Funny)

    by andrewd18 (989408) on Friday August 10 2007, @02:21PM (#20186961)
    Pfft. That 12-Step Retention Plan sucks. Here's a better one:

    1. Change Firefox icon label to closer resemble action of getting to web. No longer shall the icon on the desktop be called "Mozilla Firefox", but instead, "U CAN HAZ INTRN3T".

    2. Force the Firefox icon to easier to find location. <img src="firefox.png" alt="U CAN HAZ INTRN3T" height="768" width="1024" /> Problem solved.

    3. Alter the default browser settings path for better user choice. Embed an audio file of Arnold Schwarzenegger saying, "Use Firefox! Use it now!" into the IE startup path.

    4. Major outbound brand marketing program driving brand recognition and differentiation. A full page NY Times ad with the "Walkthrough Cat" [granades.com], its text changed to "GIT UR INTERN3T ON".

    5. Improve download page and first run pages. Download page must be similar to NY Times ad, so the imbeciles we're trying to reach can actually remember wtf they're downloading. The first run page must have "HAI! U GOT INTRN3T!!" in large letters, preferably with blink tags and links to pron.

    6. Launch support.mozilla.com SUMO [mozilla.org] If Firefox sees another bloated browser installed on the computer, it will challenge it to a wrestling match, the winner becoming the new default browser. A small side-effect may be a userbase increase in the Asian market.

    7. Make common plug-ins work out of the box. The MegaRotic Toolbar will now be part of the initial install, as will an RSS feed of Digg.com.

    8. Make add-ons and personas more accessible. The Mozilla Store will now ship free wizard hats and robes with every Firefox download.

    9. Make the web feel more human. Male users will find their browser displaying all text in capital letters approximately once every twenty-eight days. Female users will find their browser doesn't remember their user preferences or date of birth form fields.

    10. Improve messaging through communication channels. We will also improve messaging through non-communication channels. Yes, our code monkeys are that good. 11. Stickier start page. If you left-click anywhere on the new start page, it will take three right-clicks to get your cursor to move again.

    12. Change Firefox icon image to closer resemble action of getting to web. In keeping with steps 1 and 7, the new icon will show Ceiling Cat, as we all know what most of our users will be doing on the internet.

  • Mom, Pop and Girlfriend Effect (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Steauengeglase (512315) on Friday August 10 2007, @02:21PM (#20186973)
    I can't help but wonder if this comes from the proverbial, "Jimmy" downloading it on his Mom and Dad's computer because they keep complaining about "The Blue E" getting hijacked. Jimmy tells them to, "Click on the Fox", but they keep clicking on "The Blue E" because to them it is, "Getting on the internet." Similar events happen with Jimmy's girlfriend and Boss.

    The only other scenario I can think of is that there are a lot of web developers out there who are still trying to get it to work in IE.

  • Bundle (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sufijazz (889247) on Friday August 10 2007, @02:37PM (#20187191)
    Users are inherently lazy. If you ask them to download a software product and learn to use it, you have already lost a bulk of the potential market share.

    The key is to bundle it together. Have Firefox pre-installed on computers. Make is hassle-free for the user. Make it a no-brainer. Dell installing GooglePack (which includes Firefox) on every PC they ship - that's a start. Yahoo messenger downloads should bundle Firefox (side note - this can be installed as an opt-in or opt-out component. While opt-in i.e. checkbox unchecked by default is a more "considerate" option, opt-out is better if you want to increase downloads) In any case, hyperlinks from Yahoo messenger chat windows should open in Firefox windows if FF is installed. Ditto with Trillian.

    Yes, this is a sort of militant technique (the same technique that MS used to make IE a monopoly). But let's face it - it's not the geeks but the users who don't know about FF that need FF most because they are most vulnerable to the security cracks in IE.

    Some other things they can do: bundle the most useful extensions with the product (Map This, AdBlock, Fetch text URL, DictionarySearch, BugMeNot, SearchPluginHacks), reduce the memory it hogs, interactive tutorial. They need to get out of the "of the geeks, by the geeks, for the geeks" mentality.
    • While I use it when I'm on a Windows PC (at work, and that's about it), I really can't stand it on the Mac, much as I couldn't deal with the regular Mozilla (now Seamonkey or something) in the pre-Safari days. The only place where it really looks native is on Linux/BSD/Unix running Gnome. Everywhere else, it just looks out-of-place with the rest of the system.

      But, when your competition is Java, especially older applications with all that CDE goodlieness (they look *great* on Vista)....

      And Safari on Window

      • The only place where it really looks native is on Linux/BSD/Unix running Gnome.

        But I thought nothing looks native on Linux ;)

        Seriously though, FF on XP does a pretty good job of integrating into the OS, things can get a little strange with different themes but the default one matches luna pretty well. The options menu probably strays farthest from looking windows-like but even that is pretty close to what you'd expect to see. On Linux, well we're pretty much used to every program doing its own thing already; just the nature of OSS I suppose.

        • Re:That's still a lot (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Curtman (556920) on Friday August 10 2007, @04:33PM (#20189073)

          FF on XP does a pretty good job of integrating into the OS

          When you click a link in an MSN conversation, it opens in IE regardless of what your preferred browser setting is. Most people that I know begin their web browsing by clicking on the MSN link to open Hotmail, and they get IE. When that changes those numbers will look better. I'm afraid it will take a court ruling to change that though.

          • Re:That's still a lot (Score:4, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 10 2007, @06:32PM (#20190589)
            That's not entirely true.

            MSN Messenger uses IE when it needs to past things through HTTP POST, eg. to authenticate you as Curtman123@hotmail.com to MSN Spaces. This is necessary because there's no real standard way to pass HTTP POST to the default browser over the command line. I think some other clients have got around this in the past by making a temporary HTML file, having code to send the HTTP POST and then opening that in the default browser. For links in MSN messages, I find they all go the default browser.

      • While I use it when I'm on a Windows PC ... I really can't stand it on the Mac
        Then you should try Camino. [caminobrowser.org] "Mozilla power, Mac style."

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Bulln-Bulln (659072)

            There are some problems with Camino, though, such as Camino having slower release cycles and always being behind the Firefox team.

            Camino is not behind. You can download Camino nightlies just like you can download FF nightlies. Both are based on the same code.
            The Camino guys just have higher quality standards. IMHO Camino alpha releases are often so good that they could be called final releases.

            So, diverting efforts towards the Camino fork

            Camino is no fork.

            the core issue which is too many unaddressed Mac Firefox bugs. We want a better Firefox, not a neglected Firefox, for OS X.

            You won't get it. Live with it. Windows is the top priority for the Mozilla Corp. guys.
            The one guy hired by MoCo to work on FF for Mac is currently not working to improve the Mac experience. No, he's working on not sucking e

    • Re:That's still a lot (Score:5, Insightful)

      by croddy (659025) on Friday August 10 2007, @01:52PM (#20186505)

      Think about what the internet was like in 2002, when Mozilla 1.0 was first released. We encountered IE-only sites daily, Safari didn't exist, and MSIE definitively dominated the web landscape. Anyone complaining to a bank or power company about a Mozilla problem just claimed to be using Netscape -- the Gecko browser people had actually heard of -- and rarely got anywhere. Those of us using Mozilla preferred it for a variety of reasons, and hoped for wider adoption so that our preferred browser would receive acceptable support from webmasters.

      Today, Firefox is a decidedly mainstream browser, listed on most "supported browser" lists, and Firefox-only sites are about as common now as the remaining IE-only sites. Do we need more adoption? If Firefox is serving its existing users well, is it worth the cost of an advertising blitz to capture a few more?

    • Re:That's still a lot (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jamstar7 (694492) on Friday August 10 2007, @01:54PM (#20186529)
      Could be, they're using FF masquaraded as IE to use IE-only sites.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by GeckoX (259575)
        Not very likely anymore.

        a) Rarely if ever needed anymore. (For IE only sites, spoofing probably won't make that ActiveX control work anyways)

        and b) The day where most FF users were that technically inclined have passed. Average joe's using FF would have no idea that could even be done. (Or care...see a )

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by ozbird (127571)
          Rarely if ever needed anymore.

          The Vista Hardware Compatibility List [microsoft.com] claims to need IE6 or later; apart from some minor rendering issues, it worked fine with spoofed Firefox. (What kind of moron would make a list IE-only, anyway??)
    • I think they should totally make a better start page. Just remember how well that worked for Mozilla back when it was Netscape. Leave image resizing up to MS Paint and the professionals who use it.

    • Opera troll (Score:4, Insightful)

      by megaditto (982598) on Friday August 10 2007, @03:09PM (#20187685)
      Well, maybe if they allowed one to install FF without having being an admin and without having to download some 20 plugins each time to just get the basic functionality of a default Opera install...

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bunratty (545641)

        The plugin gripe is point 7 of the 12-point plan:

        7. Make common plug-ins work out of the box

        Isn't the purpose of giving users non-admin accounts on computers, though, to prevent them from doing things such as installing unauthorized applications? Anyway, if you want to run Firefox on a machine without authorization, just use Portable Firefox [portableapps.com]. If you want to install applications on your own computer, I would expect you would login as an admin.

    • I've often observed even hardcore FireFox advocate using IE

      I can't speak for everyone, but the only times I've had to advise my users to go back to IE is due to several government agencies having web sites that require it.

    • But yes, I agree, people are reluctant to change. I recently had to deal with a non-geeks computer... *pauzes while the slashdot audience groans ssympathetically* who kept installing crap software including spyware, trojans etc etc. The guy is also poor so his old computer grinds to a halt pretty damn fast whenever he installed the latest crap again. Offcourse he uses IE and was extremely reluctant to change. He was used to IE and that was what he used and therefore was going to use.

      The cure? Well A: I tol

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.