incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Roberto Galoppini <>
Subject Re: Some stats and observations on OpenOffice upgrades
Date Wed, 26 Sep 2012 18:37:50 GMT
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Rob Weir <> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile
> <> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 03:06:12PM -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
>>> I've been looking at the upgrade numbers, the downloads that are
>>> triggered from upgrade notifications in the OpenOffice client.
>>> Although we are not tracking how many times such notifications pop up
>>> in the OpenOffice client we do know from Google Analytics how many
>>> users click the link to get more information on the update, and how
>>> many of these users actually download the upgrade.
>>> The trends have been pretty steady, a slight peak when a release is
>>> initially made, but a lingering steady state of upgrade requests even
>>> several weeks later.
>>> For example, let's look at the status for a single day, last
>>> Wednesday, Sept. 19th.
>>> On that date we had 164,752 total downloads of AOO.  Of those
>>> downloads, it looks like 54% of them come from upgrading users.  The
>>> remainder are either from new users, or existing users that went to
>>> the website directly rather than from an upgrade notification.  (No
>>> easy way of distinguishing these two).
>>> The interesting thing is the breakdown by OpenOffice client version.
>>> For the upgrade installs on Sept 19th we see:
>>> 31% of upgrades were from AOO 3.4.0
>>> 52% of upgrades were from OOo 3.3.0
>>> 15% of upgrades were from OOo 3.2.1
>>> 3% of upgrades were from OOo 3.2.0
>>> Note the OOo 3.3.0 numbers.  Nearly 4 months after AOO 3.4 was
>>> released we are still getting large numbers of OOo 3.3.0 users
>>> receiving and responding to upgrade notifications, nearly 20,000/day.
>>> I'm not sure how to explain this.  Upgrade notifications should
>>> surface once a week.
>>> Maybe:
>> With free software, many people often wait for micro releases, which
>> usually are bug fixes releases.
> If there were a large pre-existing number of OOo 3.3.0 users, and they
> only slowly upgraded, then I'd expect to see regular OOo 3.3 -> AOO
> 3.4 upgrades, but that this would be slowly declining over time.  This
> is because the number of upgrades would be proportionate to the number
> of OOo 3.3. users:
> upgradesPerDay = NumOOoUsers * constantUpgradeRate
> And over time NumOOoUsers would slowly diminish.
> But we're not seeing that.  Except for the spike when AOO 3.4 first
> came out, the rate of OOo 3.3 upgrades has remained nearly constant.
> To me this suggests either:
> 1) We're in a steady state configuration, where there is a new source
> of OOo 3.3.0 users coming into the system, 40,000 or so per day.  This
> could be explained if sites like are attracting that
> many users and offering them old versions of OpenOffice.  If we get
> 160K/day downloads in general, it is possible that sites that
> advertise on Google, Bing, Twitter, etc., would get at least 40,000.
> It is plausible that this could be a source of ongoing installs of old
> versions of OpenOffice.
> or
> 2) The number of OOo 3.3 users is so large, and constantUpgradeRate is
> so slow, that the reduction in the pool of existing OOo 3.3 users is
> not obvious in the charts yet.  Legacy estimates where that there were
> 100 million OOo 3.3 users.  We're getting close to 20 million for AOO
> 3.4.  So that would account for only 20%.  It looks like LO has less
> than that.  So that would leave the majority of OOo 3.3.0 users
> unaccounted for, potentially still on OOo 3.3.
> In any case, when we do a user survey it might be good to put in some
> questions targeting OOo 3.3.0 users who have not upgraded.  I've heard
> suggestions in this thread that Base quality might be an issue.
> Another might be language support, since OOo 3.3.0 supported many more
> languages than AOO 3.4.1 does.

What about crafting a short survey - 5 questions or so - and send it out?

May be first we need to brainstorm a little bit more the possible
reasons, though.


> -Rob
>> Regards
>> --
>> Ariel Constenla-Haile
>> La Plata, Argentina

This e- mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It 
may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the 
intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately 
notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any 
attachment(s) from your system. Thank you.

View raw message