On 2014-10-14, 10:09 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 09:03:30PM -0400, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2014-10-14, 6:53 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:11:01AM -0700, Chris More wrote:
Very interesting. When Firefox 4 was launched, it was 12MB. When
Australis was launched it was 28MB. Now, Firefox 33 is 35MB. That's
almost a 200% increase. I did an A/B test last year when the installer
was 22MB and there was a strong correlation between average internet
speed in a specific region of the world and install-rate of Firefox.
If world-wide internet speeds are not increasing faster than the
growth of the installer, it could be having a negative impact on
adoption of the product. By how much? No one is for sure as the A/B
test was just testing the current size of Firefox and one 3MB bigger.
The conclusion of the test was that 22mB vs 25MB didn't have a
statistical difference in conversion rate, but now a year later, we
are more than 10MB bigger.
It looks like everyone provided helpful information and this is a
great start. I am going to work on creating a document to help to
quantify what are the drivers in the growth of the installer. After
that we can decide what does this tell us and if the growth of the
installer has negative impacts.
On the other hand, what is the download size of the downloadable
alternatives to Firefox? What is their adoption in regions with poor
internet speeds? If the answer to both those questions is "bigger",
(which I genuinely don't know if it is) there is nothing wrong with
our download size.
Coming from a country with typically slow Internet connections, I strongly
disagree. We should absolutely strive to be better than the competition by
providing a smaller download size. Only matching the competition should be
the minimum bar. :)
I'm not saying we shouldn't strive for better, but I'm questioning the fact
that download size would be affecting our growth. If the download size
of our competitors is not affecting theirs, why would it affect ours?
(and again, the premise is an interrogation)
That's a fair objection. One possible explanation for that would be the
hypothesis that they have more directly focused on markets where
broadband Internet is prevalent through, let's say TV ads in the case of
Chrome. Of course I don't know whether that's true, but I don't think
we can necessarily assume a similar growth impact potential here for
different browsers.
Cheers,
Ehsan
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
