Apple Runs the Table on Mobile Traffic at Engadget.com

I know you recently added an iPhone friendly site... (its great, thanks), I wonder if that has anything to do with it. Or is this just anyone coming to engadget.com. Is it possible that Engadget has such a high iPhone user base? Incredible. Keep up the good work.

Are Crackberry users really completely MIA on the web... or is there some quirk preventing them from being measured?

The Blackberry on the web is not good. I have tried using on the web a few times and it is not effective or pleasing for me. I am really looking forward to getting an iphone next year.

This is measuring just engadget.com, not their mobile site m.engadget.com, which likely leads to some discrepancy as well as explains where devices such as Blackberries are getting lost in these statistics.

or ... maybe only iPhone users are so big about using their iPhone to show off to their friends. After all - $100 per month so they can visit EndGadget? Okay, so what's the iPhone count for loc.gov, or senate.gov, or even house.gov?

Oh yes, the numbers don't include m.endgadget.com where the normal cell phone users go.

No one's disputing the iPhone's display abilities, but if you take ALL visits to www.endgadget.com into account, how does it pan out? WHat if you combine www.endgadget,com and m.endgadget.com?

The point is that anyone can come up with numbers from SOME source that tout the wonders of the iPhone.

For me, a simple cell phone ($49.85/month - no connection issues) and an iPod Touch (free access at many Phoenix area hotspots) get it done.

iPhone? No thanks...

I got to tell you.

Since buying an iPhone, at least half of my time reading websites is on it. Regardless that I have a laptop.

It's because I am sitting outside, or like reading the paper in bed, or waiting for an appointment.

It is a bit tedious to enter comments like this (which I entered via laptop), depending on the site. Some work really well, others, its nearly impossible.

I have a blackberry for work but it is a painful experience using it to surf the web. So I stick to my iPhone.

Totally shocked that CrackBerry user's don't even make the list??? I'm a total Mac guy, but as a BlackBerry not iphone user I doubt these #'s are right! Somehow CrackBerry user's are not being included in this list. I used to have a Treo 755p which were not even that popular!

cek it out

This list seems quite misleading, if it excludes traffic to m.engadget.com. Isn't that the place most mobile users (like Blackberry users) would go?

The question about Blackberry is a reasonable one... but have you TRIED to use the net on a Blackberry?

The Blackberry even reprocesses html emails to conform to it's way of viewing. Bang goes all the design work by the sender.

blackberry isn't in that as blackberries default to m.engadget.com which doesn't count towards this poll

This is the exact statistic Engadget used to announce that they are creating a new site for iPhone and Touch users, i.engadget.com. So, those complaining that it doesn't use mobile engadget numbers, just go and complain to engadget.

I bet there is probably a lot of searches for "iPhone" with "Flash" on engadget, gizmodo too or any search engine like google and yahoo.

Agreed that the iPhone browser is superb, but it's important to remember that people are using more than just the browser to access content on BlackBerry smartphones.

Viigo users, for example, consume well over 1MM article views a month of Engadget alone, albeit, out of the BlackBerry browser, and hence not measured in the stats discussed above.

Many BB users probably use our m.engadget.com mobile site, which is not included in the numbers here. I know I do. :-)

I have a Blackberry and an iPhone. Believe me, the Blackberry is an OK email device, a somewhat usable phone, but it's mobile browser is horrible. The only time anyone uses it is if they are stuck away from a computer and have no choice. Speed is slow, the web pages get reformatted into a clunky text format with some pictures, formatting gets all messed up, etc. On the flip side, an iPhone or iPod Touch gives you exactly what you expect from a computer (sans Flash and Java).

If the Wii is number 3 on the list, it must be an incredibly small pool of results. Give me some numbers to think about.

If this report shows that iPhoners actually care about checking Engadget when they're mobile. Proves people with iPhones are more likely to not have actual lives; base their social status on the device they're using/should be using. Hmm, valuable.

More sophisticated mobile users (other iPhoners included) are probably using RSS to hit Engadget from their mobile rig. Cheers to that.

Right. iPhone's Safari browser doesn't get redirected to m.engadget.com like other mobile browsers do. Give props to those results who aren't using Safari. Those are the real Engadget readers.

Those people who are either questioning the use of Blackberry, or asking about the m. site stats, are, I think, missing the point. I think the point is the iPhone and touch are making it easier for people to use the front door instead of having to use a special door designed for mobile web use.

@Cashaww: Yes, I got that too.

Also, as far as engadget and their advertisers/sponsors are concerned... well, aren't they paid by ad views and click-throughs? and Aren't ads only available if you see the entire site, and not the mobile version? i'm just sayin you know. But, bills, bills, bills.

So, while the numbers might be misleading, and Engadget being somewhat disingenuous in pimpin' them, at the end of the day, they're going to support, and pimp, whoever helps bring in the dollars, euros, and pound sterlings.

Although I could be wrong, and they get a lot of impressions from the simple (and single ads) on the mobile site...

the iphone topping isn't suprising, but how is the Wii a 'mobile' device? It's as mobile as a PS3 or 360, so why aren't they on the list?

What Fred Jenkins said.

This is a stupid comparison. iPhone does not list itself as a mobile agent: it doesn't get redirected to the mobile optimized version of the sites that visits. Any iPhoner browsing engadget is going to see the full site unless they go to the mobile site manually.

Why didn't the post the numbers for the mobile site?

Because there are no iPhones on the mobile site. iPhones don't go to the mobile site. Why is this surprising to a webmaster?

Meanwhile, all those other agents except the Wii are identifying as mobile agents.

I have an iPhone. It's good, but It's not THAT good. This story is overly sensational and definitely misleading.

Wow. I knew I read Engadget a lot on my Treo 755p, but I didn't know it was *that* much.

TOOOOO MUCH INFORMATION...I GET MORE EMAIL FROM APPLE HOT NEWS THAN FROM ALL MY OTHER EMAILS TOGETHER....I ENJOY YOUR INFORMATION....BUT HEY........
TOOOOOOOOOOOOOO MUCH INFO.....THANK YOU

Good to hear such good news about Apple, which has been too long slammed as out of touch with computing reality. Apple has clearly begun to redefine computing reality, for both businesses and home uses.
As for the iPhone and surfing the 'Net, I simply have no use myself for 'Net surfing on an iPhone, but would definitely budget for one if I had the need. I have tried a new one at work, and think it's great if you have the need for one.