4 ms·
Even on a geeky site like swombat.com, mobile traffic is still only 12% of the total. Android has a long way to go. I doubt it will achieve all that in 2011. J
by swombat 16y ago
Even on a geeky site like swombat.com, mobile traffic is still only 12% of the total. Android has a long way to go. I doubt it will achieve all that in 2011.
Just because everyone can access the web on their mobile doesn't mean it will become their main channel to it. I have mobile devices too, but 99% of my web browsing is still on my laptop, and until/unless I need to be super-mobile all the time, that will remain the case.
- waterlesscloud 16y agoBut he's not talking about the masses in the industrialized world, he's talking about the masses everywhere else. Where the cell phone is already the dominant platform, they'll just get smarter phones and more internet access now. This may or may not affect a particular business/website, but it's a trend that's worth being aware of.
- cryptoz 16y ago> I have mobile devices too, but 99% of my web browsing is still on my laptop Right. That's because you can. In much of the world, there is no such thing as a high-speed wired infrastructure that lets you purchase $1000 computers, plug them in and go. Most of the world does have a wireless network though, and there are already nearly 1 billion 3G phones connected to those networks. You and I are not good examples of the new market that will exclusively access the Internet through mobile, so it may be hard to see that it's going to happen that way. But it will.
- lsc 16y agolaptops can run on wireless infrastructure just as well as smartphones can. I'm typing this on a lenovo ThinkPad x60s. Value was $400 a year or so back when I got it. Less now, obviously. There are serviceable netbooks for similar prices new these days. I'm using the verizon brand cellular modem, which works fairly well (but is also pretty expensive, because I'm an American.) If I was some guy in africa or china or what have you, this netbook/cellular setup would not be any more expensive than a iphone, and really the only downside vs. the iphone is that you've gotta plug the netbook in more often than the smartphone; on the upside, it's much easier to get the sort of work I do done with a real keyboard and monitor. Of course, this varies. for communication that doesn't need to be instant and traditional computer work, the netbook is unquestionably better, save for the battery life issue. If you need instant on or work while you walk capability, then the smartphone is your best choice. It's a tradeoff... I'm just saying that right now, the high end smartphones don't have a price edge over the low end netbooks. Smartphones are getting better; fast, but they are still a long ways from being as functional as a good netbook. As of yet, a good smartphone and a good netbook are about at price parity. (if this article is right, that might be changing; I can see situations where saving a couple hundred up front would make dealing with a smartphone vs. a laptop worth it.)
- InclinedPlane 16y agoYou're missing the point. The point is that there is still a huge portion of the world who do not own computers, do not have an internet connection, and have never used the web before, ever. What's the entry point for those people? Likely it's the smartphone, due to reasons of price, local infrastructure, and distribution mechanisms.
- unoti 16y ago> 99% of my web browsing is still on my laptop This is because parent does not own an iPad. That number would drop a lot.