Age of Internet Empires: One Map With Each Country's Favorite Website
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
It is very frustrating when articles do not link to the research they are reporting on.
I suspect that they haven't read the research, and are just reporting from the press releases.
If anyone from The Atlantic is reading (because you're certainly posting here) please could you try to get source links into the articles?
Here's the homepage for one of the researchers. <http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/?id=165> Some of the current projects on the research page are fascinating.
EDIT: To be clear, too, I try to make it a policy to link to the original research in my articles, even if (alas) that research is sometimes behind a pay- or journalwall. It was an accident, and my fault, that it wasn’t first linked to here.
Sorry to nitpick but why did you choose to use the word 'Favorite'? The research shows 'most visited' - they are not the same.
Google came in thinking that they can implement US/Western practices which allowed them to be successful overseas. This unfortunately does not work.
Japan's market is very unique and very self sustaining. Due to the population and the way the people behave. For example Yahoo Auctions is still the number 1 auction website in the world whereas Ebay has never penetrated the market. And Ebay also has moved into the form of a marketplace over the last few years. Yahoo Auctions has largely not changed over the years.
> Yahoo! succeeds in Japan and Taiwan through its nearly two-decade-old partnership with Japanese SoftBank and its 2007 purchase of Wretch, a Taiwanese social networking site.
See the bottom table in http://ir.yahoo.co.jp/en/holder/status.html
Which is why Japan is now behind Korea in electronics.
Another interesting thing to measure would be the most popular national website, ie. for denmark, the most popular .dk domain, and then represented in size per population.
EDIT: I'd hypothesize that the top website would be whatever bank has the most customers, or websites for government functions.
google.dk obviously :)
Or if you want real local websites, I would assume a newspaper or tv channel website (unless they all live in the .tv domain). Alexa seems to confirm this for Denmark: http://www.alexa.com/topsites/countries/DK.
Most Kazakhs speak Russian (perhaps more than those who speak Kazakh?), according to Wikipedia anyway.
Also, there should be a new version of RISK: The Game of World Domination. It should feature tech companies as the attacking hordes.
HFA people are, by definition, HF enough to operate coherently in the world. Sure, they may be considered "weird" or have no friends or wake up one morning and realize life has passed them by while they were hyper-focused on one thing for ten years, but they are still in and of the world.
As an example, homosexuality once was considered a mental disorder and it is full of stereotypes. And I am sure that homosexual people would be very offended if someone starts using the term as a synonym of hiper-sexuality.
Also I am very sure that someone would say that is a fact based on anecdotical experience, and hence is not derogatory.
For me a misuse of a term using it as a cliché is indeed derogatory.
The data for Korea clearly isn't accurate. Baidu is almost unheard of in this country. Not many young people can even read Chinese. Naver, a local company, dominates 70% of the Korean search market and a significant portion of the social networking scene as well. Its anti-competitive behavior is currently a hot topic in Korea.
I suppose the anomaly is due to the fact that the authors used Alexa (mentioned in the bottom right of the second image). Hardly anyone in Korea has the Alexa toolbar installed. People here, like elsewhere, pollute their PCs with all sorts of other toolbars, but rarely Alexa. The language barrier probably plays a part. I wouldn't be surprised if those who do have Alexa (usually foreigners) tend to have ties to a certain neighboring country with a very large population.
"At the same time, we see a puzzling fact that Baidu is also listed as the most visited website in South Korea (ahead of the popular South Korean search engine, Naver). We speculate that the raw data that we are using here are skewed."
http://geography.oii.ox.ac.uk/2013/09/age-of-internet-empire...
Does that mean they aren't defining Google as Google properties? What would the map look like if they did?
As for what would happen if they did group by company? I'm guessing that Google would be #1 pretty much everywhere, save maybe Russia and China.
#2 Google has so many popular products (search, gmail, youtube, maps) that it makes sense that they're that big. It's equivalent to a person having a bank account with $1bil in it. Just leaving that money in the account and raking interest, you just continue to get bigger by being. In google's case, there isn't strong enough competition to stop them from "being" and gaining more share based on their prior efforts.
#3 Could a new US based search engine compete with Google? Or are they just that big that the task is a fool's errand?
It's a fool's errand to try to beat Google at the game they've perfected and were built for. By the time you could very slowly wrest control of search from Google, the whole tech world will have changed and your point of competition will no longer matter. That's the foolishness of Bing, for example. It's great that companies still try to compete with them, but all they will accomplish is to keep making Google better (and that's a good thing for consumers); they won't 'beat' them however under any circumstances.
Google will be beat in search the same way Microsoft was in operating systems: a dramatic sea shift in technology (with Android now being by far the most important operating system going forward).
#2 and #3 Google is so influential that it's highly unlikely to happen on the current playfield. They either buy a potential competitor out or cripple their business. I can only see two opportunities for this: a) specialized niche search, b) search based on a new disruptive technology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fzLt...
'Oceania' is a way of saying "those Anglo countries that think they're part of South East Asia, but aren't. And we'll throw in the polynesians as well so it's not so obvious what we're doing...". So many times when I see references to 'Oceania', people are really just talking about Aus/NZ, and sometimes even just Aus.