3 ms·

> We can actually measure how much was "choice" and how much was "defaults" because at that time there were versions of IE for Mac and Unix. Let's see your mea

> We can actually measure how much was "choice" and how much was "defaults" because at that time there were versions of IE for Mac and Unix. Let's see your measurement then. I worked among people that used Mac and Unix back then and most of them were anti-Microsoft zealots or brainwashed by the anti-Microsoft zealots. Aside from that - they were in the vast minority, but more importantly: They weren't getting the same product as on Windows. Furthermore, IE was the default on OSX from 1998-2003. How'd that work out? Google pushing Chrome from google.com is nowhere near the same thing as "being the default browser". Not even close. And it goes against your idea that "users not doing something" is what gets you a higher market share. It doesn't explain the rise of Firefox at all. As well, Chrome got popular in tech circles before they even started doing that. Tech circles is where all this starts. Once we like something, we push our families, friends and businesses to use it. > Look at Firefox -- it's not doing anything like that, it's a better browser by a lot of metrics, and it's losing market share. It's a worse browser by just about every metric.

zrm 7y ago
> I worked among people that used Mac and Unix back then and most of them were anti-Microsoft zealots or brainwashed by the anti-Microsoft zealots. Explain Edge on non-Windows platforms today then. A mobile version exists, but so few people use it that it ends up inside "Other" in most charts, behind such well-respected alternatives as the house-brand browsers of various phone OEMs that bundle them by default. Windows Phone no longer has a meaningful user base, so this is from much the same population who use Windows on the desktop. > Furthermore, IE was the default on OSX from 1998-2003. How'd that work out? Netscape was disbanded in 2003, so apparently pretty effective. > Google pushing Chrome from google.com is nowhere near the same thing as "being the default browser". The equivalent of a billion dollar marketing campaign will raise usage of something independent of whether it's really any better than the competition. Otherwise Coca Cola has been wasting a lot of money on advertising. > It doesn't explain the rise of Firefox at all. You have to be the default and be "good enough." It doesn't have to be better but it can't be a lot worse. IE during the rise of Firefox had claimed victory and given up, so it was stagnant and no longer good enough. > Tech circles is where all this starts. Somehow Samsung has higher mobile browser market share than Microsoft and Mozilla put together. > It's a worse browser by just about every metric. Browsers are so complicated and there are so many possible metrics that we could have that debate for ten years and not cover half of it, but suffice it to say that some people disagree with you: https://www.google.com/search?q=why+is+firefox+better https://www.google.com/search?q=why+is+firefox+better

zrm 7y ago

> I worked among people that used Mac and Unix back then and most of them were anti-Microsoft zealots or brainwashed by the anti-Microsoft zealots. Explain Edge on non-Windows platforms today then. A mobile version exists, but so few people use it that it ends up inside "Other" in most charts, behind such well-respected alternatives as the house-brand browsers of various phone OEMs that bundle them by default. Windows Phone no longer has a meaningful user base, so this is from much the same population who use Windows on the desktop. > Furthermore, IE was the default on OSX from 1998-2003. How'd that work out? Netscape was disbanded in 2003, so apparently pretty effective. > Google pushing Chrome from google.com is nowhere near the same thing as "being the default browser". The equivalent of a billion dollar marketing campaign will raise usage of something independent of whether it's really any better than the competition. Otherwise Coca Cola has been wasting a lot of money on advertising. > It doesn't explain the rise of Firefox at all. You have to be the default and be "good enough." It doesn't have to be better but it can't be a lot worse. IE during the rise of Firefox had claimed victory and given up, so it was stagnant and no longer good enough. > Tech circles is where all this starts. Somehow Samsung has higher mobile browser market share than Microsoft and Mozilla put together. > It's a worse browser by just about every metric. Browsers are so complicated and there are so many possible metrics that we could have that debate for ten years and not cover half of it, but suffice it to say that some people disagree with you: https://www.google.com/search?q=why+is+firefox+better https://www.google.com/search?q=why+is+firefox+better