2 ms·
Firefox took half a decade to reach 20% market share against IE. In the same time, Chrome became the dominant browser. I'm pretty sure that the FF-IE gap warran
by pyrale 6y ago
Firefox took half a decade to reach 20% market share against IE. In the same time, Chrome became the dominant browser. I'm pretty sure that the FF-IE gap warrants to use FF as an example of organic growth, while Chrome is a clear example of aggressive marketing. You can acknowledge that Chrome was a good product _and_ that it got insane marketing, at zero cost.
As for examples of pushing inferior products into market, some google search cards are good examples of it.
- shadowgovt 6y agoChrome was also technologically better. People seem to forget that it was the first browser to offer sandboxed processes. That was a game changer, especially in an era where we still used browser plugins Bel ize that weren't as well tested as the browser core and would periodically crash the entire process.
- pyrale 6y agoI'm not arguing that Chrome was not an upgrade from FF. I'm arguing that FF was arguably an even bigger upgrade from IE, and despite that, it had a slow progression. To me, it seems hard to deny that advertising wasn't a key factor in Chrome's faster adoption.
- treis 6y agoNobody says being Google doesn't help in launching products. It's just not a decisive factor. They get exposure but if the value proposition isn't there then they don't win in the market.