Comments on: Current stats and commentary on the instant messenger market: eBuddy and Meebo lead the pack

By: vMeer

vMeer — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Nice overview, didn’t know MSN was that grand! way more than Yahoo and AIM.

Surprised to see that the web aggregator services like eBuddy have many users, according to article om Gigaom 10.3m unique’s last month! I wonder how Meebo and others compare to this?

Now that Yahoo has there own web messenger, I wonder what the implications will be for eBuddy and Meebo?

Baring in mind microsoft might acquire yahoo, looks like microsoft is close to dominating the entire Instant Messaging market – sounds a bit scary (Google like).

(http://gigaom.com/2007/05/01/ebuddy-launches-mobile-app/#comments)

By: centernetworks

centernetworks — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Thanks! Any links with the stats that I can link to? I still don't care for Twitter.

By: Whizkid

Whizkid — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I don´t know how you see this Allen, but i have the feeling that the IM/web based IM market is lacking some sort of innovation and i´m not talking about access different messengers at the same time etc. I mean more in regards to new features, usability.

Also i really don´t get why meebo is using this web desktop concept waste of space thing…

Is it that i´m the only one feeling that way?

Whizkid

By: demeter_sf

demeter_sf — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

ComScore started tracking Google Talk in March. Looks like they came in at #10 with 5.2 million users worldwide. Twitter, on the other hand, came in only at 333K.

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

funny… but those are thousands

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I am sorry but the data for qq.com is obviously wrong. qq.com is the most popular instant messenger in China and anybody used it will laugh about the “11,634″ unique visit on Feb. I don’t have the exact number for 2007 but it was measured in Millions in 2006.

How did the number collected? At least it makes me feel the number shown here is not very accurate, even the rest of the data is “100%” comprehensive.