<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" 
      xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">
  <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/feedburners_rss.php" />
  <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/atom.xml" />
  <id>tag:,2009:/1/tag:72.47.210.69,2005://1.4337-</id>
  <updated>2009-11-23T20:00:58Z</updated>
  <title>Comments for Feedburner&apos;s RSS Aggregator Market Share stats</title>
  
  <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type 4.23-en</generator>
  <entry>
    <id>tag:72.47.210.69,2005://1.4337</id>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/feedburners_rss.php" />
    <link rel="service.edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-atom.cgi/weblog/blog_id=1/entry_id=4337" title="Feedburner's RSS Aggregator Market Share stats" />
    <published>2005-01-11T17:42:17Z</published>
    <updated>2007-12-16T23:15:38Z</updated>
    <title>Feedburner&apos;s RSS Aggregator Market Share stats</title>
    <summary>Great news! Prompted by my December post about RSS
Reader Market Share, Feedburner (the
company I selected as the
most promising Web 2.0 company of 2004/5) has just released their
own RSS Aggregator stats. This is exactly what I asked for, because
statistically the Feedburner data is much much bigger - and hence more
statistically significant - than my own data...</summary>
    <author>
      <name>Richard MacManus</name>
      <uri>http://www.readwriteweb.com</uri>
    </author>
    
    <category term="Analysis / Strategy" />
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.readwriteweb.com/">
      <![CDATA[<p>Great news! Prompted by my December post about <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/002574.php">RSS
Reader Market Share</a>, <a href="http://www.feedburner.com">Feedburner</a> (the
company I selected as <a href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/002609.php">the
most promising Web 2.0 company of 2004/5</a>) has just released <a href="http://www.burningdoor.com/feedburner/archives/000961.html">their
own RSS Aggregator stats</a>. This is exactly what I asked for, because
statistically the Feedburner data is much much bigger - and hence more
statistically significant - than my own data. Also I assume Feedburner's data
includes <a href="http://boingboing.net/">Boing Boing's</a>. Feedburner are
using their &quot;most highly subscribed 800 feeds&quot; and not only is Boing
Boing almost certainly Feedburner's biggest client, it's also arguably <a href="http://www.pubsub.com/linkranks.php">the
world's most popular blog</a>.</p>
<p>I'll be chewing over this data over the next few days and I'll post my
detailed analysis later. One quick observation for now: <b>Feedburner's top 3 is
the same as my top 3.</b> Bloglines, followed by NetNewsWire, followed by
Firefox Live Bookmarks. However the gap that Bloglines has is nowhere near as
large as it was in my stats and NetNewsWire is a very healthy second (still only
just over half of Blogline's share however!). This augers well for competition
in the RSS Aggregator space, because it's always a worry when one company
monopolises the competition. And because NetNewsWire is not a browser-based RSS reader, does this also auger well for desktop clients (i.e.
non-Web 2.0), I wonder? And the Apple Mac for that matter... Or is it a reflection of the popularity of Apple Macs and desktop apps among techies, who are still the predominate users of RSS at this stage of the game?</p>
<p>So here are the official Feedburner stats (thanks Dick and the good folk of
Feedburner for posting this!):</p>
<p><b>Top 20 RSS clients across FeedBurner most highly subscribed 800 feeds as of January 6, 2005</b><br>
<br>
Aggregator Name (Market Share Percentage)<br>
1. Bloglines (32.86%)<br>
2. NetNewsWire (16.95%)<br>
3. Firefox Live Bookmarks (7.78%)<br>
4. Pluck (7.20%)<br>
5. NewsGator Online(4.45%)<br>
6. (not identified) (4.07%)*<br>
7. FeedDemon (3.83%)<br>
8. SharpReader (3.27%)<br>
9. My Yahoo (2.58%)<br>
10. iPodder (2.42%)<br>
11. NewsGator (2.23%)<br>
12. Thunderbird (2.13%)<br>
13. RSS Bandit (1.12%)<br>
14. NewsFire (1.05%)<br>
15. iPodderX (1.02%)<br>
16. Sage (0.71%)<br>
17. FeedReader (0.67%)<br>
18. RssReader (0.54%)<br>
19. LiveJournal (0.46%)<br>
20. Opera RSS Reader (0.45%)</p>]]>
      
    </content>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:72.47.210.69,2005://1.4337-comment:35697</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:72.47.210.69,2005://1.4337" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/feedburners_rss.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/feedburners_rss.php#c35697" />
    <title>Comment from Kirk Scott on 2005-01-11</title>
    <author>
        <name>Kirk Scott</name>
        <uri></uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="">
        <![CDATA[<p>Dick from Feedburner makes a point that the list is skewed by clients that include a default feed list. NetNewsWire has many starter feeds that users may not unsubscribe from, and this will increase its share. </p>

<p>Bloglines doesn't include any feeds by defaults -- users have to add each one or import them from an OPML file.  </p>

<p>So I agree with Dick -- the Feedburner stats overstate the share of clients like NetNewsWire. It would be great if they could post the list without the top 10 default feeds.</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2005-01-12T00:52:06Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:72.47.210.69,2005://1.4337-comment:35698</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:72.47.210.69,2005://1.4337" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/feedburners_rss.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/feedburners_rss.php#c35698" />
    <title>Comment from Richard MacManus on 2005-01-12</title>
    <author>
        <name>Richard MacManus</name>
        <uri>http://www.readwriteweb.com</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.readwriteweb.com">
        <![CDATA[<p>I'm not sure that the "default feeds" issue is that important. And if Feedburner does remove the "top 10 feeds" (note they did not say top 10 *default* feeds), then that will presumably mean no Boing Boing - and their data is probably more valuable than any others.</p>

<p>Having said that, I too would like to see the results if they removed the top 10 feeds - more out of curiousity than any concern over skewed data.</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2005-01-12T15:43:29Z</published>
  </entry>

  <entry>
    <id>tag:72.47.210.69,2005://1.4337-comment:35699</id>
    <thr:in-reply-to ref="tag:72.47.210.69,2005://1.4337" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/feedburners_rss.php"/>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/feedburners_rss.php#c35699" />
    <title>Comment from Brent Simmons on 2005-01-12</title>
    <author>
        <name>Brent Simmons</name>
        <uri>http://ranchero.com/</uri>
    </author>
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://ranchero.com/">
        <![CDATA[<p>Some corrections and notes about NetNewsWire:</p>

<p>1. Users may unsubscribe from any of the default feeds in NetNewsWire. Of course! It would be very weird if that wasn't allowed.</p>

<p>2. There are 18 default feeds in the current 2.0 beta. Of those 18 feeds, two of them are FeedBurner feeds. (For MacMerc and MacMegasite.)</p>

<p>3. In the current release version, NetNewsWire 1.0.8, there are 15 default feeds. Of those 15, there are just two FeedBurner feeds -- MacMerc and MacMegasite, same as in 2.0 beta.</p>

<p>I agree, though, that it would be interesting to see the FeedBurner stats minus their top ten feeds.</p>]]>
    </content>
    <published>2005-01-12T23:01:00Z</published>
  </entry>

</feed>