I don’t know what is more interesting to me… that iPhone users are only downloading an average of 40 apps, or that the Nielsen company is did the research for this article. Things that make you go… hmmmm…Amplify’d from www.intomobile.com
The last we had heard in mobile app research was a forecast that there would be 25 billion downloads by 2015, and along the same vein, Nielsen has released the results of a survey of some 4,000 mobile users about their application downloading habits. As you’d expect, iPhone users were the most active, with an average of 40 apps installed, while those with an Android phone had 25. BlackBerry trailed significantly with an average of 14 applications, and across all platforms, the average worked out to 27 applications. Those numbers are all up from December, showing that even on BlackBerry, interest in mobile apps is growing. No surprise there.
There was also a categorical breakdown of the kinds of apps people were downloading; games were at the forefront, with 61% of smartphone-owning respondents having downloaded one in the last month, followed by weather, maps, social networking, and music. Facebook, Pandora, the Weather Channel, and Google Maps ranked among the top five used applications across all platforms.
I wish there was more usage data published, as I would like to see how often downloaded apps are used on a platform-by-platform basis. I know that on BlackBerry, I have a select few apps, but I make use of them pretty regularly, while my iPod Touch is loaded to the gills with applications that I’ll use maybe once every two months (if that). My brief experience with Android is somewhere in between; maybe half I’ll use with any consistency, and the others are highly situational.
Average per-device application downloads rank in the same order as the size of their respective app stores. At last count, the iTunes App Store had a buxom 250,000 iOS apps, the Android Market sat comfortably in the middle with 80,000 titles, and BlackBerry App World recently broke 10,000. Obviously if user activity is high, developers will be more interested in getting into the app store, overcrowding be damned.
“What needs to be highlighted here is the fact that the richer and more interactive website experiences we are creating are not going unnoticed. The files we create to build websites are stored on servers, viewed by personal computers, and connected via networks”. This all requires energy to then house, cool, power and deliver the data that makes up a website.” So, how we go “green”?Amplify’d from www.smashingmagazine.com
Dr. Alex Wissner-Gross, a Harvard University physicist and Environmental Fellow, has researched the environmental impact of computing and calculated the CO2 emissions caused by individual use of the internet. His research, published in 2009, indicates that viewing a simple web page generates about 20 milligrams of CO2 per second. This rises to about 300mg of CO2 a second when viewing a website with complex images, animations or videos.
“So, when you are sitting in London viewing a website hosted in California, there are power plants on at least two continents actively pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in order for you to watch that video or read that online newspaper…
Since millions of people are surfing the web every hour of every day, that carbon footprint adds up to an astounding 2% of international emissions each year. In fact, according to the American research firm Gartner, the carbon footprint of information and communications technology exceeded that of the global aviation industry for the first time in 2007.”
Now while scientific measurements of CO2 and kilowatt hours are, to the average person, still a foggy area to get our heads around, what is important to consider is simply that every website we produce has a consequence. According to figures from worldwidewebsize.com, as of the 31st August 2010, there are at least 15.26 billion indexed pages. A very simplistic analysis here would be that, contrary how fast my broadband service is, because we make our graphic files larger together with the fact that we are producing more web pages, any new efficiency is counteracted. As noted, this would be a very generalized conclusion to draw.
One measuring tool
Dr. Wissner-Gross has co-founded CO2Stats, an online “environmental trustmark” calculator, designed to allow web designers and bloggers make their sites greener in an accountable way. CO2Stats says that it automatically monitors and neutralizes the end-to-end carbon footprint of websites — “not just the servers, but the visitors’ computers (while they are on your site) and the networks that connect them”.
CO2Stats allows web designers and bloggers to analyze their websites and put in place greener measures. It monitors and neutralizes the end-to-end carbon footprint of websites.
The changing face of an average web page
Results of various web optimization studies published at websiteoptimization.com in July 2010 state that:
“In 1997, 90% of videos were under 45 seconds in length (Acharya & Smith 1998). In 2005, the median video was about 120 seconds long (Li et al. 2005). By 2007, the median video was 192.6 seconds in duration (Gill et al. 2007). The median bit rate of web videos grew from 200Kbps in 2005 to 328Kbps on YouTube in 2007. So by late 2007, the median video weighed in at over 63MB in file size. On YouTube, the average video size is 10MB, with over 65,000 new videos added every day”.
The conclusion of the report is: