3 ms·

What the author is missing is that Google is not forever the owner of the dominant browser engine, and in fact, if Microsoft executes well, they might well take

What the author is missing is that Google is not forever the owner of the dominant browser engine, and in fact, if Microsoft executes well, they might well take control of Chromium in a few short years. All Microsoft has to do is persuade Windows users that the new Chromium-based Edge (CEdge) is so good that it is no longer necessary to download Chrome. Because of Microsoft's still-dominant position on the desktop, CEdge will become the most popular web browser. At that point Microsoft can fork Chromium and now they own the dominant engine! Google did this to Apple when they forked Webkit and now Microsoft can do it to Google. In fact, Google is doing everything they can to help Microsoft do this. Consider the fact that logging into Gmail from Chrome logs you into Chrome. (Yes, there is an option to disable this but that's a fake non-functioning option.) If Microsoft offers better privacy--and they will--CEdge will be the preferred browser in no time!

nawtacawp 8y ago
As a non-google user, their chrome entanglement is what keeps me away. If MSFT does what you predict, I could see myself stepping away from Mozilla. More so because I like keeping the system as barebones as possible. So if there is no added benefit to installing Firefox — I won’t.
- sys_64738 8y ago
  Firefox will always be because I'm pretty sure I read Mozilla has half a billion dollars banked.
  - slavik81 8y ago
    They do, but that's about one year's worth of expenses for Mozilla.
    - int_19h 8y ago
      They might have to become slimmer, then. I doubt they had $1B/year expenses back when Firefox first started gaining on IE, after all.
      - dao- 8y ago
        Browsers were simpler and cheaper to develop back then. Mozilla's yearly budget today is roughly what Google spends on marketing for Chrome alone.
        mosselman 8y ago
        Sources people, sources
        slavik81 8y ago
        I have a hard time believing that Chrome spends half a billion on advertising each year, given that Google can run its own ads for free. Perhaps that's a estimate for what an equivalent ad campaign would cost a third-party? I agree. A source for that would be useful. My source on Mozilla financials is the "Mozilla Foundation and Subsidiary: 2016 & 2017 Independent Auditors' Report and Consolidated Financial Statements" - https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2017/mozilla-fdn-2017-fs-short-form-final-0927.pdf https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2017/mozilla-fdn-201...
sys_64738 8y ago
They can just fork the Chrome code base if Google ditches its "Don't Be Evil" mantra (oh wait). Actually Microsoft is being real smart here because the swell over time will become Chrome is Microsoft Edge so why do you need to install Chrome? This is the downfall for Chrome IMO.
millstone 8y ago
What you are describing is a very large ad campaign. Chrome is advertised on the most valuable piece of web real estate in the world; Microsoft would have to spend quite a bit to offset this. And for what? If Edge exists to drive traffic to Microsoft web properties, then it makes no sense to advertise on this level. I very much like privacy, but better privacy is only a market winner when coupled with an advertising budget. Firefox has proven that.
- timbit42 8y ago
  Microsoft's ad campaign would be their desktop.
  - ColinWielga 8y ago
    They tried that with edge.
    - int_19h 8y ago
      Edge had other problems - most notably, having its own engine that was neither quite IE nor WebKit/Blink nor Gecko, it had to be specifically tested. So there was a chicken and egg problem there - getting web devs to support it was hard because there were no users, but getting users to adopt it was hard because many websites didn't work quite right. Problem is, at this point it would be hard to convince people to try Edge again.
      - petilon 8y ago
        They may have to rename the browser again.
      - phishfi 8y ago
        I think it all comes back to two major issues. First, Microsoft jumped into Edge way too fast when it really wasn't in a position to complete thoroughly enough with Chrome or Firefox. For users interested in the touch interface (I prefer the slightly larger buttons, context menus, etc, even when I'm on keyboard and mouse/trackpad), it was acceptable and had more usable features than the rest, but the actual site rendering, options, and extension support was completely missing, so users went back to what made them comfortable: Chrome. The second issue is that Microsoft (and it's not just them, here) is terrible about advertising their new features. It's hard to get users to go through walk-throughs and tutorials when they first set up a device, because most users just want to jump to actually using the devices, but I'm a big fan of the 12-15 tab slideshows that Mac devices show right when you first update. It's not thoroughly intrusive (it's pretty similar to Microsoft's "Tips" app), but it's got animations and really shows how useful the features could be. Microsoft has to get better at showing off new features, and they REALLY need to get better at making extensions available to users. The Microsoft Store just doesn't feel like the best place for Edge Extensions as it is right now.
scarface74 8y ago
- 63% of browsing is done on mobile. Having a dominant position on the desktop doesn’t mean much. https://www.stonetemple.com/mobile-vs-desktop-usage-study/ https://www.stonetemple.com/mobile-vs-desktop-usage-study/ If people cared about privacy, they wouldn’t be using Facebook of anything Google made.
- petilon 8y ago
  What % of that is Chrome vs Safari? On Androids Microsoft could cut a deal with Samsung to ship CEdge.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    It depends on the country. In the US, iOS has more market share - it surprised me too. iOS market share is relatively high in more affluent countries. http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-stat... https://deviceatlas.com/blog/android-v-ios-market-share https://deviceatlas.com/blog/android-v-ios-market-share
- phishfi 8y ago
  > If people cared about privacy, they wouldn’t be using Facebook of anything Google made. Except both of those companies still track your activity across the web, with or without an account... In order to care about privacy, a user has to do a hell of a lot more than just not use any of these invasive services.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    The other half of the equation is an ad blocker.... iOS has a built in content blocking framework that other developers can plug into The content blockers submit rules to iOS that Safari uses - the ad blocker doesn’t have access to your browsing history.
seanwilson 8y ago
> In fact, Google is doing everything they can to help Microsoft do this. Consider the fact that logging into Gmail from Chrome logs you into Chrome. Is that feature and others like Chrome syncing your bookmarks available to non-official Chrome browsers?
- ryacko 8y ago
  Actually Chrome’s API is not available for Chromium browsers so that can’t be an issue.
IshKebab 8y ago
This assumes that people aren't using Edge because the engine isn't good enough. I don't think that is true.

nawtacawp 8y ago

As a non-google user, their chrome entanglement is what keeps me away. If MSFT does what you predict, I could see myself stepping away from Mozilla. More so because I like keeping the system as barebones as possible. So if there is no added benefit to installing Firefox — I won’t.

sys_64738 8y ago
Firefox will always be because I'm pretty sure I read Mozilla has half a billion dollars banked.
- slavik81 8y ago
  They do, but that's about one year's worth of expenses for Mozilla.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    They might have to become slimmer, then. I doubt they had $1B/year expenses back when Firefox first started gaining on IE, after all.
    - dao- 8y ago
      Browsers were simpler and cheaper to develop back then. Mozilla's yearly budget today is roughly what Google spends on marketing for Chrome alone.
      - mosselman 8y ago
        Sources people, sources
        slavik81 8y ago
        I have a hard time believing that Chrome spends half a billion on advertising each year, given that Google can run its own ads for free. Perhaps that's a estimate for what an equivalent ad campaign would cost a third-party? I agree. A source for that would be useful. My source on Mozilla financials is the "Mozilla Foundation and Subsidiary: 2016 & 2017 Independent Auditors' Report and Consolidated Financial Statements" - https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2017/mozilla-fdn-2017-fs-short-form-final-0927.pdf https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2017/mozilla-fdn-201...

sys_64738 8y ago

They can just fork the Chrome code base if Google ditches its "Don't Be Evil" mantra (oh wait). Actually Microsoft is being real smart here because the swell over time will become Chrome is Microsoft Edge so why do you need to install Chrome? This is the downfall for Chrome IMO.

millstone 8y ago

What you are describing is a very large ad campaign. Chrome is advertised on the most valuable piece of web real estate in the world; Microsoft would have to spend quite a bit to offset this. And for what? If Edge exists to drive traffic to Microsoft web properties, then it makes no sense to advertise on this level. I very much like privacy, but better privacy is only a market winner when coupled with an advertising budget. Firefox has proven that.

timbit42 8y ago
Microsoft's ad campaign would be their desktop.
- ColinWielga 8y ago
  They tried that with edge.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    Edge had other problems - most notably, having its own engine that was neither quite IE nor WebKit/Blink nor Gecko, it had to be specifically tested. So there was a chicken and egg problem there - getting web devs to support it was hard because there were no users, but getting users to adopt it was hard because many websites didn't work quite right. Problem is, at this point it would be hard to convince people to try Edge again.
    - petilon 8y ago
      They may have to rename the browser again.
    - phishfi 8y ago
      I think it all comes back to two major issues. First, Microsoft jumped into Edge way too fast when it really wasn't in a position to complete thoroughly enough with Chrome or Firefox. For users interested in the touch interface (I prefer the slightly larger buttons, context menus, etc, even when I'm on keyboard and mouse/trackpad), it was acceptable and had more usable features than the rest, but the actual site rendering, options, and extension support was completely missing, so users went back to what made them comfortable: Chrome. The second issue is that Microsoft (and it's not just them, here) is terrible about advertising their new features. It's hard to get users to go through walk-throughs and tutorials when they first set up a device, because most users just want to jump to actually using the devices, but I'm a big fan of the 12-15 tab slideshows that Mac devices show right when you first update. It's not thoroughly intrusive (it's pretty similar to Microsoft's "Tips" app), but it's got animations and really shows how useful the features could be. Microsoft has to get better at showing off new features, and they REALLY need to get better at making extensions available to users. The Microsoft Store just doesn't feel like the best place for Edge Extensions as it is right now.

scarface74 8y ago

- 63% of browsing is done on mobile. Having a dominant position on the desktop doesn’t mean much. https://www.stonetemple.com/mobile-vs-desktop-usage-study/ https://www.stonetemple.com/mobile-vs-desktop-usage-study/ If people cared about privacy, they wouldn’t be using Facebook of anything Google made.

petilon 8y ago
What % of that is Chrome vs Safari? On Androids Microsoft could cut a deal with Samsung to ship CEdge.
- scarface74 8y ago
  It depends on the country. In the US, iOS has more market share - it surprised me too. iOS market share is relatively high in more affluent countries. http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-states-of-america http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/united-stat... https://deviceatlas.com/blog/android-v-ios-market-share https://deviceatlas.com/blog/android-v-ios-market-share
phishfi 8y ago
> If people cared about privacy, they wouldn’t be using Facebook of anything Google made. Except both of those companies still track your activity across the web, with or without an account... In order to care about privacy, a user has to do a hell of a lot more than just not use any of these invasive services.
- scarface74 8y ago
  The other half of the equation is an ad blocker.... iOS has a built in content blocking framework that other developers can plug into The content blockers submit rules to iOS that Safari uses - the ad blocker doesn’t have access to your browsing history.

seanwilson 8y ago

> In fact, Google is doing everything they can to help Microsoft do this. Consider the fact that logging into Gmail from Chrome logs you into Chrome. Is that feature and others like Chrome syncing your bookmarks available to non-official Chrome browsers?

ryacko 8y ago
Actually Chrome’s API is not available for Chromium browsers so that can’t be an issue.

IshKebab 8y ago

This assumes that people aren't using Edge because the engine isn't good enough. I don't think that is true.