[thelist] survey says...

Morgan Kelsey morgan at morgankelsey.com
Sat Dec 28 13:35:01 CST 2002


> AFA whether this information was "buried" in the Macromedia site, I did a
> quick Google search [flash player distribution site:www.macromedia.com] and
> found this pretty easily:
>
> http://www.macromedia.com/software/player_census/flashplayer/version_penetra
> tion.html
>
> Also, there is a Flash FAQ on their site:
> http://www.macromedia.com/software/flash/open/faq/
> Which lists, "How many people have Macromedia Flash Player installed?" as
> the second question:
> http://www.macromedia.com/software/flash/open/faq/#1_2
> That entry points to:
> http://www.macromedia.com/software/player_census/
> Where you can learn about Flash and Shockwave player penetration:
> http://www.macromedia.com/software/player_census/shockwaveplayer/
> http://www.macromedia.com/software/player_census/flashplayer/
>

i'm missing your point here, you've just demonstrated how buried those stats are.
those all links lead back to the same article eventually, but not without 3-4
clicks each.


> They (Macromedia) say, "In September 2002, NPD Research, the parent company
> of MediaMetrix, conducted a study to determine what percentage of Web
> browsers have Macromedia Flash preinstalled. The results show that 97.8% of
> Web users can experience Macromedia Flash content without having to download
> and install a player."
>
> True, 97.8% is not 98%.  And when you're dealing with such a large amount of
> people, the difference may well be quite significant to you.  But if your
> primary concern is precision, I feel you may be better served by noting that
> not many people are developing sites in Flash v2-3 (97.8%, 97.6% [US]), or
> even v4 (96.3%); developers would much rather use Flash v5(92.0%) or Flash
> v6 (53.0%).
>

well then why don't they tout that 97.8% of people have flash 3 or lower? doesn't
sound as good, does it.

i have several sites that use flash5. i tend to detect with javascript which
version the user has and simply serve up a static page if they don't have flash5.
in this scenario, the percentage shrinks more because we are now contending with
the number of people who don't have javascript either (not necessarily the same as
those that don't have flash). don't get me wrong, i think flashMX is really cool,
and has lots of great features. but i don't think 50-60% market penetration is so
good. it's not anyones fault that it takes a while for new versions to propogate,
but it's the users that suffer.

> At the same time, look at how quickly the stats have changed regarding the
> adoption of the Flash 6 (MX) player: March 2002 - 3.2%; June 2002 - 30.2%;
> September 2002 - 53.0%.  It seems that for the most part users aren't
> adverse to Flash, or to upgrading their player to use it; in fact, they
> upgrade at an extremely rapid pace.  This leads to the question, who is
> represented by that last 2-5% of users, which seems to be the ceiling for
> viewing Flash content?

thats a good point, but in all fairness the new player was released in march 2002,
so that level of growth would be expected. growing to %50 in september shows a
little slowdown, but its still obviously taking hold.

my problem with it is, that i don't want to be the one to present the fugly grey
"download the new player" screen to every visitor. i think it drives people
away--maybe not everyone, but certainly a certain type of user. unfortunately i
think it's the type of user that are 35-50, who happen to also be the type that
spend money online. depending on the audience, it may not matter. but when i've
seen my own clients hit the back button the second they get the screen, it makes
me cautious.

if we're talking about navigation specifically, the option of making two versions
presents itself. most clients though, would rather not pay for two somethings when
one something will suffice though. in my humble experience anyway...


nagrom




More information about the thelist mailing list