4 ms·

While you're technically correct, the difference here is that the growth Google sees could easily be sustained. Google can expose more users in a few hours to

While you're technically correct, the difference here is that the growth Google sees could easily be sustained. Google can expose more users in a few hours to Chrome(for free via a well placed link on their search homepage) than Mozilla could ever hope to reach in half a year without a massive advertising budget. Combine that with the positive 'word of mouth' I've encountered so far from non-technical types and it's possible we haven't seen the knee of the curve yet in adoption growth.

pbhjpbhj 16y ago
Google then is not going to be taking most of it's users from FF but from those swayed most by ads on Google, probably IE users? At least I'm sure that Google Chrome's increase in market share doesn't necessitate a reduction for FF (though some reduction is almost certain).
seabee 16y ago
Don't forget that Google actively advertises Chrome (e.g. on the London Underground), so there's even more exposure than Firefox could dream of.
jerf 16y ago
Right now, Chrome is visibly faster for me. I keep hearing about fantastic new improvements to the Firefox JS engine and other components but in practice they don't seem to have amounted to much. ... (Hmm, before making that assertion I'd better test it, test test test)... Well, perhaps I should amend that to "up until very recently, Chrome was visibly faster". As it happens I just went from Firefox 3.5 to 3.6 on this machine yesterday, and a deliberately-subjective performance test I just ran has Chrome and Firefox a lot closer to indistinguishable difference. (As an end user, I don't care about 10% differences on this or that benchmark.) I had been using Chrome for the last two weeks, but I have very badly missed NoScript and right click -> "Block images from this server". (Stupid flabby stomach ads.) Now I think I'm headed back. But I suppose I can salvage my thesis by saying that at least until recently Chrome had a significant advantage over Firefox. If Firefox's performance catches up, that may staunch the bleeding, because if Chrome isn't much faster, why switch? Firefox definitely has more features, and nobody really cares about HTML5 right now; by the time they do FF will be there.
- RyanMcGreal 16y ago
  On both my home Ubuntu system and my work Windows XP system, Firefox and Chrome are about the same speed and the same memory footprint. However, I can't deny that Chrome subjectively feels snappier to use.
  - extension 16y ago
    Chrome subjectively feels snappier Right, and why would anything else matter for a web browser?
    - RyanMcGreal 16y ago
      Addons.
    - dhimes 16y ago
      Being able to parse the whole web, not just a subset.
      - extension 16y ago
        Sorry, I meant why would any other kind of speed matter?

pbhjpbhj 16y ago

Google then is not going to be taking most of it's users from FF but from those swayed most by ads on Google, probably IE users? At least I'm sure that Google Chrome's increase in market share doesn't necessitate a reduction for FF (though some reduction is almost certain).

seabee 16y ago

Don't forget that Google actively advertises Chrome (e.g. on the London Underground), so there's even more exposure than Firefox could dream of.

jerf 16y ago

Right now, Chrome is visibly faster for me. I keep hearing about fantastic new improvements to the Firefox JS engine and other components but in practice they don't seem to have amounted to much. ... (Hmm, before making that assertion I'd better test it, test test test)... Well, perhaps I should amend that to "up until very recently, Chrome was visibly faster". As it happens I just went from Firefox 3.5 to 3.6 on this machine yesterday, and a deliberately-subjective performance test I just ran has Chrome and Firefox a lot closer to indistinguishable difference. (As an end user, I don't care about 10% differences on this or that benchmark.) I had been using Chrome for the last two weeks, but I have very badly missed NoScript and right click -> "Block images from this server". (Stupid flabby stomach ads.) Now I think I'm headed back. But I suppose I can salvage my thesis by saying that at least until recently Chrome had a significant advantage over Firefox. If Firefox's performance catches up, that may staunch the bleeding, because if Chrome isn't much faster, why switch? Firefox definitely has more features, and nobody really cares about HTML5 right now; by the time they do FF will be there.

RyanMcGreal 16y ago
On both my home Ubuntu system and my work Windows XP system, Firefox and Chrome are about the same speed and the same memory footprint. However, I can't deny that Chrome subjectively feels snappier to use.
- extension 16y ago
  Chrome subjectively feels snappier Right, and why would anything else matter for a web browser?
  - RyanMcGreal 16y ago
    Addons.
  - dhimes 16y ago
    Being able to parse the whole web, not just a subset.
    - extension 16y ago
      Sorry, I meant why would any other kind of speed matter?