W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-coremob@w3.org > April 2012

How many browsers matter Re: Ringmark is now open source

From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:39:07 +0200
To: "Tobie Langel" <tobie@fb.com>
Cc: "public-coremob@w3.org" <public-coremob@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.wcl53hiwwxe0ny@widsith-3.local>
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:28:24 +0200, Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com> wrote:

...
> The goal of the CG, as expressed in the charter, is "to accelerate the
> adoption of the Mobile Web as a compelling platform for the development  
> of modern mobile web applications."
>
> In case there's ambiguity around what a "modern mobile web application"
> is, the Mobile Web Application Best Practices Rec[4] has a definition
> which fits our intent and purpose very well:
>
>     "For the purposes of this document, the term "Web application" refers
> to a Web page (XHTML or a variant thereof + CSS) or collection of Web
> pages delivered over HTTP which use server-side or client-side processing
> (e.g. JavaScript) to provide an "application-like" experience within a  
> Web browser. Web applications are distinct from simple Web content (the
> focus of BP1) in that they include locally executable elements of
> interactivity and persistent state."
>
> I suggest we stick with this definition (well, replacing the XHTML bit by
> HTML).

Works for me.

> Note that it clearly rules out Opera mini on the ground of both
> it's strictly proxied architecture and its sparse feature set[5].

Not at all. Which is where the problem lies. Opera Mini is capable of  
running all kinds of things that are written in HTML etc, including  
elements of interactivity and persistent state to produce an  
application-like experience.

> ---
>
> Regarding the description of Coremob level 0 as a the intersection in
> feature set of the Android 2.2 Froyo and iOS5 default browsers:
>
> As mentioned in the wiki[6]:
>
>     "Coremob level 0 is a de facto spec, aiming to describe the current
> state of the Mobile Web Platform. It is based off of market shares of the
> default browsers on deployed handsets. For the purpose of simplicity,  
> this was roughly identified as the intersection in feature set of the
> Android 2.2 Froyo and iOS5 default browsers."

Which I think is a poor judgement, unless the scope of this group is far  
more restrictive than I had understood it to be.

> ...wide deployment is an
> indicative criterion for inclusion in a spec. This makes even more sense
> for a de facto spec. So including a feature on the basis of it's reach
> seems very reasonable, [...]
>
> It's also worth noting that, with Opera mini out of the picture (and
> accounting for the vast majority of Opera's traffic[8]), the mobile
> browser landscape is clearly dominated by the Android and iOS default
> browsers[9].

Using statcounter - which is not that great but not bad...

With Opera out of the picture Android/iOS have about 2/3 of North America  
[c0] and Europe [c1]. In Oceania iOS has 2/3, which your accounting seems  
to suggest makes it the only serious player. In Africa [c3], even  
discounting Opera which is actually far and away the leader and therefore  
highly relevant to any attempt to market into Africa, Nokia would be the  
majority player that makes Android and iPhone both irrelevant.

The picture in Asia is much more mixed. Opera clearly dominates, and with  
Nokia they share the majority of the market. The next biggest player is  
UCWeb, and Android and iOS between them are more or less irrelevant. This  
picture is far from clear - but digging further shows that the assumption  
is not true for the so-called BRIC countries, nor South Africa.

[c0] http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_browser-na-monthly-201204-201204-bar
[c1] http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_browser-eu-monthly-201204-201204-bar
[c2] http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_browser-oc-monthly-201204-201204-bar
[c3] http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_browser-af-monthly-201204-201204-bar
[c4] http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_browser-as-monthly-201204-201204-bar

> Hope this helps clarify the situation and allows us to move on.

I hope this clarifies why I think the current assumption is only relevant  
if this group is looking at a "US/Europe Wide Web".

That is a legitimate choice, but it is certainly not reflected in the  
philosophy statement that apparently guides the ring-zero spec, nor was it  
what I imagined the group would be doing when it was announced.

I would personally prefer the group to take on the more substantial  
challenge of being relevant to the world, rather than withdraw to being a  
de facto documentation team for a couple of companies who could easily do  
that for themselves.

cheers

Chaals

> Best,
>
> --tobie
>
> ---
>
> [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone
> [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_phone
> [3]: http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/charter/
> [4]: http://www.w3.org/TR/mwabp/#webapp-defined
> [5]: http://www.opera.com/docs/specs/productspecs/
> [6]: http://www.w3.org/community/coremob/wiki/Specs/Coremob_Level_0
> [7]: http://coremob.github.com/level-0/index.html
> [8]:
> http://netmarketshare.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0&qpcustomd=1
> [9]:  
> http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_browser-ww-monthly-201204-201204-bar
>
>
>
>


-- 
Charles 'chaals' McCathieNevile  Opera Software, Standards Group
     je parle français -- hablo español -- jeg kan noen norsk
http://my.opera.com/chaals       Try Opera: http://www.opera.com
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2012 18:39:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 19 April 2013 17:36:46 UTC