Web browsers six months on - by Shaun Green
Last December, Microsoft and European Union anti-trust regulators reached a historically significant agreement, following over a decade of disputes and fines valued at approximately £1.5bn. The dispute has its origins in the 1990s, following complaints by Novell and Sun Microsystems, but scaled up in intensity in 2003 and 2004 when the EU ordered Microsoft to offer a version of Windows without their bundled media player. In January 2009, the European Commission announced its plans to investigate the inclusion of Microsoft’s Internet Explorer browser as bundled software with the Windows Operating System. After some negotiation, Microsoft offered to provide its customers with a selection of different web browsers and, after some deliberation, the EU accepted this.
The industry giant rolled out their browser selection screen in March 2010, offering users a choice of 15 browsers including the popular Firefox, Safari and Chrome, as well as Opera (a recognisable name despite its limited market share). They also included less well-known browsers like Avant, Flock GreenBrowser, K-Meleon, Maxthon, Sleipnir and Slim, which most Windows users had probably not heard of prior to their inclusion here.
So, how has the market share of browsers changed since this initiative was introduced in March 2010? Windows is the most popular operating system in the world, and with the range of options being offered to existing, as well as new users, it would have been easy to predict an explosion in browser diversity.
This hasn’t happened. NetMarketShare, a reliable source of various web statistics and trends, indicates that since late 2009 the dominance of Internet Explorer (IE) has dropped just 5% to 60%. Although this does represent a huge number of users it does not represent a dynamic demographic shift, and in fact seems to represent a trend that has been accelerating since around 2005 (when Firefox began to grow in popularity and IE’s dominance first began deteriorating). Further, the trends indicate that usage of IE first dipped to around 60% in March 2010 and has actually recovered slightly since then – so the introduction of the browser ‘ballot box’ may even have helped stabilise its decline.
Of IE’s top competitors, Firefox and Opera have actually lost a few percentage points of market share since March; Safari has seen a tiny increase in usage, and only Chrome appears to have enjoyed significant growth, up 1% to just over 7%. However, this reflects a growth trend that long precedes the EU anti-trust ruling. Detailed statistics for less popular browsers aren’t available, but the cumulative figures for all browsers outside ‘the big 5’ have seen an increase of around 0.5%.
What to make of this? One interpretation is that many users are content to stick with the browser they’re most familiar with. Users who were mainly concerned with secure browsing, faster page rendering and unique design had most likely moved on from IE before the introduction of the browser selection tool.
Despite this, the introduction of a range of options is a significant thing, as it opens up the possibility for innovative new browsers to reach new audiences, for dispirited but less computer-savvy users to try something new, and for the curious to experiment with their choice of software. It also reflects the changing times: although IE remains the most popular web browser in the world, its competitors are enjoying success unknown since the early years of ‘browser wars’. Open source developers like the Mozilla Foundation and new super-corporations like Google, may not have wrestled control of the market away from Microsoft, but at present they look determined to share it – and a lack of monopoly is no bad thing for users.
The Apple Effect - by Peter Smith
By the time the iPad finally reached these shores it already felt like a very familiar piece of technology. After all the pre announcement excitement, and when the rumours and educated guesses turned out to be largely correct there was a collective sense of deflation; as though by merely fulfilling our expectations Apple had somehow let us down.
Following the launch, commentators were quick to document the shortcomings of the iPad, which are by now familiar with anyone with even a passing interest in gadgetry (well, at least some commentators were - Stephen Fry, predictably, loved it). No flash support, no multitasking, no USB ports and Apple's control-freakish attitude towards apps developers all significantly reduce the usefulness of the device. There is also the question of exactly what technical niche the device is intended to fill; whereas the iPhone had the huge mobile phone market in its sights, the iPad is too limited to compete with proper laptops or PCs and less portable than a smartphone. The most obvious targets are netbooks which represent only a tiny segment of the technology market.
All of this bearded chin stroking is rendered largely irrelevant however by the huge success of the iPad in America, with more than 3 million units sold in the US in the first 80 days. This means one of two things; either Apple have produced something so desirable that it transcends utility or that Apple have created a new niche.
That the iPad is an object of great tactile and visual beauty is beyond doubt. Apple have always produced hardware that is better built and better designed than their competitors that (almost) justifies the inflated price tags. Perhaps of greater importance than its outward good looks however is the touch screen interface. This works even better on the larger screen of the iPad and is a great way to browse web pages (as long as you don't want to input too much text). In a recent survey carried out by Jakob Nielsen a test group rated reading an e-book on the device as being a more satisfying (but slower) experience that reading a printed book.
Given its immediate popularity it seems certain that the iPad will have a huge influence on the way in which we interact with computers. As with its older sibling, the iPhone, the iPad will spawn hundreds of similar devices, most of which will boast USB and other ports and flash support. For anyone involved in the creation of mobile apps, websites and e-learning these are exciting times as we will need to learn to develop for an audience who are interacting with our content in an entirely new way.
E-learning Debate 2010: Musings on the motion - by Naomi Norman
Just in case you have yet to hear, or know nothing of it, on Wednesday 6 October there is to be a second E-learning Debate held at the Oxford Union. The motion this time around is ‘This house believes that technology-based informal learning is more style than substance’.
In many ways it seems like a thoroughly modern debate to be holding at one of the World’s oldest and most formal educational establishments. However, one could argue that Oxford University, with its small tutorials, comfy common room chairs, long dining tables, and numerous quads, is better than most working environments at creating the right conditions for informal learning. Capturing and sharing those gems of wisdom, passed on in the many discussions held in these informal settings, is what has always been the challenge. And that’s where technology just may be making the difference to modern-day learning.
But, if it sounds like I am coming down on one particular side of the motion, then please read on...
One ‘gem’ captured at Oxford many years before there was any of the technology to video, share and then comment, is the mathematical jottings of Albert Einstein – equations chalked on a blackboard during one of his lectures and then preserved, and now exhibited in Oxford’s Museum of the History of Science – see below.
But like in many of the discussion forum posts, blogs, tweets etc (and even to a mathematician, in this extract, as it stands, in isolation) there is nothing new and truly insightful. Instead, reiterated thoughts, perhaps written in a slightly different format, offer very little to enhance my existing knowledge or my understanding. And, like the 140 characters in a tweet, it is somewhat brief with no space for analysis – after all, there is only so much one can fit on a blackboard of a defined size!
In the modern-day of technology-based informal learning it seems we have ‘blackboard’ upon ‘blackboard’ upon ‘blackboard’, so to speak! I get short update after short update after short update on who said or pondered on what, on this forum or that twitter account, perhaps in different words, but only a small percentage is of pedagogical value to me.
So perhaps I fall on the other side of the motion?
As Professor Diana Laurillard, who spoke at last year’s E-learning Debate, said to me recently when she heard this year’s debate motion: “Oh my goodness! Yet another motion that one could see going either way. Interesting!”
So, of course, at the E-learning Debate 2010, it will be up to the speakers to define the terms in the motion as they deem fit, and up to those who wish to in the debating chamber audience to defend or deprecate the motion when the debate is opened up to the floor. And then it will be up to all of us that are present on the 6 October to listen carefully, decide where our opinion falls and cast our vote by walking through the door of our choice: noes or ayes.
(And for those unable to make it, to cast their votes online afterwards at elearningdebate.com)
If you have yet to register your interest in attending the debate in Oxford, then do so now at http://www.epic.co.uk/debate/register-interest.html , as places are limited. I have no doubt it will be as thought-provoking, insightful and entertaining as last year’s E-learning Debate. And if you arrive early, then make time for a quick visit to the Museum of the History of Science, on Broad Street Oxford – a short walk from the Union – to see Einstein’s blackboard. It may not offer you anything in terms of your mathematical understanding, but perhaps it will get you thinking about the tools we use to communicate (see http://jfgauvin2008.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/einsteins-blackboard/ for more on this particular blackboard!)
