Browser Wars: Breaking down marketshare stats

There has been a lot of commotion around browsers over last few years as corporations and humans alike become obsessed if their browser is gaining marketshare or simply fading from the limelight. But there is a serious, festering detail behind the tracking systems that are currently being used by the press (Neowin too) that needs to be talked about because moving forward, the numbers will only become more obscure as these services become more complicated in the way that they fetch data.

What is the devil in the detail, the underlying cause for confusion, the fundamental issue that we all need to understand to make us better citizens of the net? That detail is the statistics in the post processing for the collection and distribution of browser marketshare and how they can easily be manipulated, slanted, cheated, inaccurately reported or any other term you can think of to alter data with an intended purpose.

There are two primary sources of data for market share on the net, StatCounter and Net Applications. The purpose of this article is not to decide which source is better, far from it, but to provide insight in to how each source is compiled and what strengths and weaknesses each brings to the table. Simply taking either source at face value is a recipe for making uniformed decisions that lead to inaccurate information being spread based on faulty data.

Currently each service is attempting to accurately portray what is happening with browser marketshare but go about it in separate ways. Which is better? We hope to provide you with the information to make that decision for yourself.

Taking a deeper dive, let’s take a look at Net Applications and how they process their data. In an attempt to remove the anomalies from the data that they collect, Net Applications actively scrubs their data to remove what it considers to be noise with the hopes of providing a higher quality of output. They also balance their data based on geoweighting but how does Net Applications geoweight? Their explanation is below:

The Net Market Share data is weighted by country. We compare our traffic to the CIA Internet Traffic by Country table, and weight our data accordingly. For example, if our global data shows that Brazil represents 2% of our traffic, and the CIA table shows Brazil to represent 4% of global Internet traffic, we will count each unique visitor from Brazil twice. This is done to balance out our global data. All regions have differing markets, and if our traffic were concentrated in one or more regions, our global data would be inappropriately affected by those regions. Country level weighting removes any bias by region.

How else is Net Applications currently scrubbing their data? As of February, Net Applications is removing pre-renders by Chrome which they state for February accounted for 4.3% of Chrome’s daily visits. Net Applications also bases their data on unique site visits instead of the absolute quantity which, in their opinion, provides a better representation of browser marketshare.

To put it simply, Net Applications takes its raw data, removes pre-rendering hits, weights the data based on population size (to achieve appropriate regional representation) and then shows it to the public. What this boils down to is that if you agree with their methodology, then this is the best look at the market data, but if you fear that their algorithms could be inaccurate or that an individual with bias scrubbing the data could easily skew it one direction, it immediately adds skepticism to the reports.

Net Applications is attempting to normalize the data, to remove the fluff that could present an inaccurate picture of the market. But, as soon as you start cleansing data, the ability to add bias is immediately present; but Net Applications does attempt to come clean about its techniques by being transparent about how it achieves its results.

StatCounter on the other hand is all about providing the raw data. From their perspective, there is no need to scrub any of the data as it should be up to the end user to decide if they feel the need to restrict the content that they provide to achieve more accurate results.

This method has several advantages and disadvantages too. One aspect is that there is no human interaction with the data; it is simply gathered and distributed which gives you a clean look at the raw data. Another advantage is that it is a true reflection of all the information gathered as it shows how browsers are interacting with websites in their natural state. But, there are also several downsides to this as well.

When looking strictly at raw data, you need to account for anomalies. Without proper review, it could be possible that if a browser adjusts the way it fetches data, it could then skew the data. For example, StatCounter does not view Chrome’s pre-rendering as an issue and as such, does not remove it from its data; a notable difference from Net Applications. Additionally, StatCounter looks at all hits, not unique, so if someone is smashing the F5 when a particular site is running slow (or millions of people press F5) it could dilute the data as it looks at all the hits and not the unique hits.

What you ultimately end up is unrefined data that has the potential for misinterpretation or deviations from the norm. While there are many “what ifs” with the data, until it’s properly combed over, like what Net Applications does, it has potential for error. But then when you look at what Net Applications does, it has the ability to skew the data unintentionally trying to normalize the content. What you end up with is unintended noise within data that you either accept or reject and if you accept the noise, you subscribe to StatCounter, if you reject, you subscribe to Net Applications.

But how data is cleaned is not the only the factor one must consider. Both services are based on a sample of the population as it is impossible to track every browser currently in use today. StatCounter boasts that their population is based on 15 billion hits a month on their 3+ million member sites while Net Applications uses 40K + websites to collect data that receive 160 million unique visits a month.

Knowing their sample sizes, StatCounter has a larger sample size than Net Applications which means you must decide if Net Applications population is representative of the whole. 

Net Applications and StatCounter take two different approaches that result in two different figures for how each browser is doing in the market. Which one is better? That is for you to decide but remember this, each has its own faults and each service could be argued to the point that their data is not accurate.

It is important to pick one method and stick to it, if you bounce around between the two services your view becomes muddied and your interpretations will be flawed. 

Image Credit: Silicon Angel

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Report: Windows 8 beats Windows 7 in most performance tests

Next Story

Angry Birds Space isn't coming to Windows Phone (Update: it is!)

46 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

"One aspect is that there is no human interaction with the data; it is simply gathered and distributed which gives you a clean look at the raw data."

C'mon...

All these we experiene currently are... experiments. We're the first and thus, we cannot know anything for sure. After the OS, the most important software is the browser with billions of dollars in their backgrounds. Go figure... If you trust their 'good will', fine. But certainly ain't one of my problems.

for mobile marketshare if you base it on worldwide stats Symbian is still #1 and Nokia is the number 1 mobile maker, if you just base your stats on the USA then is a different story, I get fed up with a lot of folk basing their opinions and saying this is number one or that is number 1 and they are basing this all on one country. If you want facts about who and what is still the market leader please base it on worldwide stats.

mobile OS worldwide:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#mob...w-monthly-201103-201202-bar

mobile browser worldwide:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#mob...w-monthly-201103-201202-bar

OS worldwide:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#os-ww-monthly-201103-201202-bar

Browser worldwide:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#bro...w-monthly-201103-201202-bar

Search Engine worldwide:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#sea...w-monthly-201103-201202-bar

Mobile search worldwide:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#mob...w-monthly-201103-201202-bar

mobile vs desktop worldwide:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#mob...w-monthly-201103-201202-bar

mobile vendor worldwide:
http://gs.statcounter.com/#mob...w-monthly-201103-201202-bar

Edited by korupt_one, Mar 31 2012, 3:58am :

Scar said,
6.9% mac users, how ironic.

I fail to see the irony. You realize you don't need 90% or more to be successful?

it doesn't matter what browser you use. there is no money in that stuff because the moment you break standards to levarage the dominance, you're labeled an IE6, and nobody wants that. google is foolish to think it will get away with its secred sauces and browser specific extensions with chrome. didn't work for IE. won't work for chrome. The web knows better by now and the w3c will have none of the googlopoly..

Basically Net Applications makes an effort to present a balanced and more accurate representation of unique usage, StatsCounter just presents misleading figures which includes duplicate usage figures and expects the visitor to make corrections. Go figure which is more reliable.

This means that 52% of the recorded market share who browse the web on a desktop based computer is vulnerable to major exploits. Time to go have fun.

I'm using Firefox 14 nighty's with tracking disabled via a few add-ons. I refuse to use anything Google because the only reason their products exist is to mine data from you.

streetw0lf said,
I'm using Firefox 14 nighty's with tracking disabled via a few add-ons. I refuse to use anything Google because the only reason their products exist is to mine data from you.

100% agree!

IE's ****ing terrible compared to Chrome, and that's only speed and stability, not even thinking about all of the extensions, or it's flexible search engine feature, where you can search any site in existence from the Omnibar. ^_^

Meh who cares about stats I use what I like to use and thats not going to be changed by some boring ass stats..... Opera FTW

Athlonite said,
Meh who cares about stats I use what I like to use and thats not going to be changed by some boring ass stats..... Opera FTW

It matters a lot, because you have to build your website with this in mind - If most people used IE6 the web would be a much more boring place for example.

Jose_49 said,
I thought that Android had more dominance than iOS in the smartphone marketshare....

in apple products you have to register your ihardware to able to update it or something else,
in Android don't have to. so android can be somewhat higher than this stats.

ACTIONpack said,
Chrome is going to be the new IE. Just wait. It's going to sux in 2 years.

you mean like adding new features that they make propriatary like IE use to do?... oh wait hehe

ACTIONpack said,
Chrome is going to be the new IE. Just wait. It's going to sux in 2 years.
Because Chrome and IE5/6 have have so much in common:
- no real competition and has over 90 percent market share (nope)
- close preparatory engine (nope)
- poor security model and out of control malware problems (nope)
- sees virtually no major updates (nope)
- no innovation because of their being no business reason to do so (nope)
Well I guess 0/5 isn't bad.

neufuse said,
I find the tablet / phone OS market share hard to believe, I see more Andriod phones out there then iPhones
I willing to bet a significant number of people who buy Android phones (especially the cheaper ones) don't even use the web browser and just brought it because they wanted a touch screen phone.

neufuse said,
I find the tablet / phone OS market share hard to believe, I see more Andriod phones out there then iPhones

You need to remember that cellphones basically just a popularity contest with a mob mentality. Once one provider gets a majority in an area, most people will join that network. When someone says that ATT, Verizon, etc is the best service provider, chances are that they are not lying....for them. Providers put more money into the markets they are doing well in. In my town, most people use ATT. Because of this, when people that have never had a cellphone go shopping for service, they are more likely to be recommended to go to ATT. With most people using ATT, you usually only see iPhones in public around here. My sister lives in Florida. In her town, Verizon is deemed the best provider. That market is still mostly dominated by Android phones. Non tech people don't care about tech stats or what some random kid at the store tells them, they listen to their friends. If you know nothing about technology and most of your friends have Android phones, you will probably get an Android phone. Same goes with iPhone.

ILikeTobacco said,

You need to remember that cellphones basically just a popularity contest with a mob mentality. Once one provider gets a majority in an area, most people will join that network. When someone says that ATT, Verizon, etc is the best service provider, chances are that they are not lying....for them. Providers put more money into the markets they are doing well in. In my town, most people use ATT. Because of this, when people that have never had a cellphone go shopping for service, they are more likely to be recommended to go to ATT. With most people using ATT, you usually only see iPhones in public around here. My sister lives in Florida. In her town, Verizon is deemed the best provider. That market is still mostly dominated by Android phones. Non tech people don't care about tech stats or what some random kid at the store tells them, they listen to their friends. If you know nothing about technology and most of your friends have Android phones, you will probably get an Android phone. Same goes with iPhone.

and in an area where AT&T and verizon are pretty much equal like where I am right now that argument doesn't fit too well.. I've seen tons of Android users on at&t here and a bunch of iPhone on verizon here... but in general more android then iphone... and this is a large college down, so half the population migrates here from all over for half the year

neufuse said,

and in an area where AT&T and verizon are pretty much equal like where I am right now that argument doesn't fit too well.. I've seen tons of Android users on at&t here and a bunch of iPhone on verizon here... but in general more android then iphone... and this is a large college down, so half the population migrates here from all over for half the year

It's not an argument. It is statistics. The funny thing about statistics is that there are always exceptions

neufuse said,
I find the tablet / phone OS market share hard to believe, I see more Andriod phones out there then iPhones

I found that odd too. Even with the iPad dominating the tablet market, there are still a **** ton of Android phones.

I didn't read the article thoroughly (tl;dr..blah) but I did look at the figures. Maybe folks on iOS use the Internet much more frequently than folks on Android?

neufuse said,
I find the tablet / phone OS market share hard to believe, I see more Andriod phones out there then iPhones

That may actually be true, but the key here is TABLET / phone. SO it is counting both tablets and phones, and right now, iPad is the king.

IE10 rocks. I have Firefox and Chrome installed, I only use them to test out websites that I am working on. IE loads much faster than GC or FF. Performs faster as well.

stevember said,
IE Sucks so hard 'It is like having sex without a condom!' Oh wait...

That analogy is mind-blowing. Me likey!

stevember said,
IE Sucks so hard 'It is like having sex without a condom!' Oh wait...

So, what you're saying is that if you're sticking to a few safe sites, you don't have a problem, but if you're playing around all over the internet, it's highly possible you could get a virus?

Majesticmerc said,

So, what you're saying is that if you're sticking to a few safe sites, you don't have a problem, but if you're playing around all over the internet, it's highly possible you could get a virus?

Since when is that a browser fault? Or are you trying to say people who use FF or Chrome can't get viruses? LOL! Give me a break...The "Virus scan" in FF is as usless as a broken condom.

alwaysonacoffebreak said,

Since when is that a browser fault? Or are you trying to say people who use FF or Chrome can't get viruses? LOL! Give me a break...The "Virus scan" in FF is as usless as a broken condom.

I think you missed the joke

alwaysonacoffebreak said,
"IE Sucks so hard *insert stupid comment here*"

^ That is to come, brace yourselves.

IE10 for Windows 8 & IE for Windows Phone are amazing.