#1-Google, #2-Apple, #3-Microsoft

July 27, 2005 7:32 PM

"A look at the average number of page views per title reveals that Microsoft gets about half as many page views per title as compared to Google and Apple" a strong indication of where reader interest actually resides." - ZDNet. Intelliseek's Blogpulse reveals similar numbers: #1 Google: 473K, #2 Apple: 381K, #3 Microsoft: 262K. Venture capitalist, Ed Sim, says: "While the OS is important, Microsoft has lost its complete and utter dominance as we move to a service-oriented world where broadband is everywhere, apps are in the cloud, and the browser becomes king."
posted by spock (19 comments total)

Microsoft is teh suck.
posted by keswick at 7:47 PM on July 27, 2005

So Microsoft is a faliure as a vaguely cultish media-sensation?
posted by Artw at 7:47 PM on July 27, 2005

BS. Google is the international start page for a lot of people. Apple users go to Apple's website because it's a good place to get Mac software, whereas folks with PCs can go anywhere. And, yes, Microsoft and all MSN sites are horrendous eyesores and reminders of how evil Microsoft is. Us private users still using there software because Linux is jsut too much trouble.*

I'm not saying for good or for ill or that Microsoft is necessarily doing well compared to Apple or Google. I'm jsut saying that page views is no indicator.

*I'm actually using Linux right now do to windows having Frigged up my box, and I can't wait till I have Windows up and running again. I can't even find a spell check easily!
posted by es_de_bah at 7:51 PM on July 27, 2005

hence the "jsut"s
posted by es_de_bah at 7:53 PM on July 27, 2005

Microsoft falls into what a lot of sites fall into...Just because we have broadband doesn't mean we want pages that have huge ass pictures and scrolling bars of text and flash every 5 seconds. We want something clean and nice, with a hint of humor, like google. And since they have it so trimmed down, they don't need a thousand banner adds. It's the same things that kills news sites like MSNBC and CNN (that and bad reporting).
posted by nadawi at 8:03 PM on July 27, 2005

Try to at least skim the article first next time, es_de_bah. This has nothing to do with people's "start pages".
posted by spock at 8:04 PM on July 27, 2005

I actually had a conversation today with a co-worker where he asked why don't we just deploy (flash) applications in a .exe format and forget the browser. He then went on to say that I was close-minded when I tried to explain the phenomenon of the browser. Or should I say, the continuation of the phenomenon of drawing a picture on a cave wall for others to see, marvel and critique.

I did refrain from slapping said individual.

I'm going to renew this conversation with him tomorrow. He's a n00B. It is not his fault.
posted by jsavimbi at 8:27 PM on July 27, 2005

That is the most meaningless survey I've ever read. They're not measuring website hits, Google gets 437,000 hits every few hours. I'm sure Microsoft and Apple have similar numbers. They're measuring "click-throughs" to articles about Apple, Google and Microsoft on news sites.

Well, Apple has the IPod, sexy advertising and interesting looking computers. Google has an amazing stock price, fantastic technology, and is going to be the next Microsoft. Microsoft has the XBox 360, but the PR machine for that really isn't turned on yet. Other than that, and Windows Vista, they don't have anything interesting in the pipes quite yet.

But what the fuck does that have to do with anything? They've still got 90%+ of the PC Market, and a whole bunch of the web market, commercial and consumer oriented. They've got billions in the bank. Writing off Mircosoft in any way is pure stupidity.

I write Linux software, and couldn't find my way though VC++ if you paid me. (What's a .dll?) But I'm not silly enough to think that Microsoft is done for.

I guess ZDNet needs advertising revenue.
posted by SweetJesus at 8:37 PM on July 27, 2005

I was going to write what SweetJebus wrote but our lord beat me to it.
posted by evilelvis at 8:51 PM on July 27, 2005

Apple users go to Apple's website because it's a good place to get Mac software

Not nearly as good a place as Hyperjeff. Or for that matter Sourceforge. Or anywhere else a tarball can be found. Although I wonder if hits to windowsupdate.com (NSFMacusers or anyone with a 21st century browser) count in the grand scheme, since plenty of data leaves Redmond (or wherever they mirror that nasty-assed ServicePack shit) bound for PCs gasping to stay afloat on the Sea of Malware. It just occurred to me that the only time I ever look at a Microsoft-run (as opposed to IIS-served) website is when I am performing an exorcism on the last two PCs in my lab. Yeeccch. And yes, I know the FPP was not about page hits, but do I look like I just rode the derail into town. And is it just me, or does Microsoft's name and logo also seem so . . . 20th century?
posted by realcountrymusic at 8:55 PM on July 27, 2005

err, DO the name and logo also seem . . .
posted by realcountrymusic at 8:56 PM on July 27, 2005

Yeah, SweetJesus, I agree - this is misleading. Anyhow, why do you go to the microsoft site? To get your update, if it's not automatic, or to check out like a single piece of software. Apple's website is a hub for mac culture, software, and things like movie previews. And Google is just taking the online world by storm with this and that app, releasing things constantly, so why wouldn't they have a butt-load of articles being hit? I think their little conclusions are a bit too far reaching for their data...
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 9:01 PM on July 27, 2005

Yes, what's missing here is a measure of why the hits are happening.

Google hits - a million reasons, folks looking to do just about anything.

Apple hits - mostly positive stuff related to consumer products, doing something new and interesting.

MS hits - 99% tech support? Really, why would your average non-tech have any interest whatsoever in MS's site?
posted by scheptech at 9:10 PM on July 27, 2005

But, they're not measuring website anything. They're measuring how many times someone clicks on a news link on ZDNet's homepage.*

*Simplification

It's very weak.
posted by SweetJesus at 9:17 PM on July 27, 2005

Oh yes. How weak. How useless. Let's try to put it in terms you can understand. You are publishing a magazine and you get the data to prove that sales go up signifcantly when you have cover stories on x or y as opposed to z. If you want to sell magazines, how might this affect your decision regarding what to put on the cover in the future (particularly if you had been running z on your cover 7 times more than x or y?)

When a respected tech outlet comes to the conclusion it has reached, what do you think it is going to try to feature more of in the future?

Certainly if a company is coming out with exciting new stuff (like Apple and Google have been doing recently) that is going to be more exciting and appealing to readers (and bloggers) than simply reading about the new Internet Explorer exploit or how Longhorn is now expected to ship when Yoko Ono is elected President of the U.S., isn't it? All of this says quite a bit about public perception and innovative leaders in the field, but then you might have to do some thinking to recognize some of the significance behind the data. (SweetJesus indeed).
posted by spock at 10:28 PM on July 27, 2005

Its an interesting phenemenon but is a little premature and way too narrow to apply to anything outside of the ZD universe.

Its a harbinger of the future and its probably fairly accurate at that. Microsoft is being chipped at from all sides, they're not in any real danger of extinction but they have been reeling for a little while now. It'll remain to be seen if they regain their footing or go down.
posted by fenriq at 10:32 PM on July 27, 2005

A company that started on a lie can never be trusted for a second.
posted by HTuttle at 10:33 PM on July 27, 2005

Oh yes. How weak. How useless. Let's try to put it in terms you can understand.

Right, thanks for dumbing it down for me. Allow me to dumb it down for you -

Stock price is all that matters in the long run, and no one buys stock based on what articles bloggers are reading. If you want to have a debate about the future of Microsoft, that's fine. But your statistics are misleading at best, and useless at worst.

Oh, and any company that writes John Dvoark's checks is not respected in the industry, whatever you may think. ZDNet (pick any magazine) is like the People Magazine of the computing industry, ie, designed to be sold to people who like short articles and pictures.

All of this says quite a bit about public perception and innovative leaders in the field, but then you might have to do some thinking to recognize some of the significance behind the data. (SweetJesus indeed).

It says jack-shit. It means bloggers like Google Maps and the IPod, and that has nothing to do with "public perception" of anything. And since when are bloggers "innovative leaders in the field?". Fetishizing Apple products in public is suddenly a leadership position?

I think you need to get over yourself.
posted by SweetJesus at 12:17 PM on July 28, 2005

We all see what we want to see and hear what we want to hear.

7 times the headlines, half the click thrus to read the article means 3.5 times the page reads. Isn't that the math? Why is this difficult? If you are going to place an ad on 1(only) article page twice the click thrus make a difference. Still seems that over 3 times as many people are reading about ubersoft microsoft.
posted by pointilist at 3:33 PM on July 28, 2005