4 ms·

> Though I do not like monopolies, how did Google reach this position? Someone has probably written a book on this. There were a lot of factors that lead to G

> Though I do not like monopolies, how did Google reach this position? Someone has probably written a book on this. There were a lot of factors that lead to Google gaining dominance. Some of the highlights: 1 - Microsoft let IE6 languish after capturing the market. This was strategic because they felt the Web threatened their dominance on the desktop. 2 - Mozilla attacked IE6 by promoting standards compliance and worked to clearly document web standards and compliance. 3 - Mozilla attacked IE6 by launching Firefox (formerly Phoenix) and focusing standards compliance. 4 - Apple introduced a platform (iPhone) that was rapidly adopted and incompatible with IE6, necessitating change 5 - Google saw Mozilla Firefox clawing back 25% market share from IE6 6 - Google leveraged the browser engine in Safari (the iPhone browser) to launch their own browser with a focus on performance. 7 - Google put ads for Chrome on Google Search which basically put them in Firefox and on all platforms.

cookie_monsta 5y ago
All good points, but I think it's also important to remember that we felt very differently about Google when Chrome came out. On top of search, they'd given us gmail, maps and earth and a bunch of other stuff that was amazing at the time and free. There was a feeling that Google just "got it" when it came to the web, so a lot of people didn't need much convincing to try Chrome. It was a good browser, too- fast, (mostly) standards-compliant and it came with fully featured dev tools back when IE and FF didn't even ship with them. I don't like what Google has become, but it was a very different company back then.
otherotherchris 5y ago
8. Google produced a cleaner, faster browser than the buggy, slow and bloated Firefox. Mozilla began addressing performance issues with Firefox 57 and future releases, but for almost the entire decade prior Firefox was unstable trash.
- cptskippy 5y ago
  > but for almost the entire decade prior Firefox was unstable trash. I don't think it was any more unstable than other browsers at the time, however they were the ones who introduced session restore to combat crashing. It's funny how a mitigation to crashing evolved into a must have feature. I've been using it since it was called Phoenix and trash is the last word I'd use to describe it.
  - minusf 5y ago
    i think old opera's session restore left everybody in the dust. i think opera was the fastest and best browser for a long long time.
    - TheFlyingFish 5y ago
      The thing I've never understood about Opera is - what were they missing? They pioneered a ton of features that are now ubiquitous, like tabs and "speed dial," but somehow never managed to gain much market share. Why not?
      - minusf 5y ago
        yes, it was truly the utorrent of browsers. well it was commercial software.. first trialware, then it showed ads, and so on. i guess for a long time it couldnt be given away freely as it was developed by a small company. not being open source also hampered true cross platform, for example on openbsd it could be run only under linux emulation.
- eitland 5y ago
  > but for almost the entire decade prior Firefox was unstable trash. People say this all the time. Personally I didn't like Chrome for UX and technical reasons even back when Google were nice so I have used Firefox from 2005 until now, across mostly Windows and Linux but also Mac from 2009 to 2012, often having a few hundred tabs open. I cannot say that your statement is false for everyone but I can say that it is definitely not true for everyone.
germandiago 5y ago
How about offering a good search engine? A good e-mail service? A good product. That never existed? It seems we explain all things in terms of wars among browsers when actually when Chrome came out (at first, when no market share) it was really fast and lean and they are well-known by their search engine. The problems I have with Google are more sort of privacy stuff. But they also have their own merits. I myself am not using Chrome anymore based on privacy concerns.
hypertele-Xii 5y ago
There's also the failure of the Windows phone. So Microsoft bought Nokia, and are now subservient to Android.

cookie_monsta 5y ago

All good points, but I think it's also important to remember that we felt very differently about Google when Chrome came out. On top of search, they'd given us gmail, maps and earth and a bunch of other stuff that was amazing at the time and free. There was a feeling that Google just "got it" when it came to the web, so a lot of people didn't need much convincing to try Chrome. It was a good browser, too- fast, (mostly) standards-compliant and it came with fully featured dev tools back when IE and FF didn't even ship with them. I don't like what Google has become, but it was a very different company back then.

otherotherchris 5y ago

8. Google produced a cleaner, faster browser than the buggy, slow and bloated Firefox. Mozilla began addressing performance issues with Firefox 57 and future releases, but for almost the entire decade prior Firefox was unstable trash.

cptskippy 5y ago
> but for almost the entire decade prior Firefox was unstable trash. I don't think it was any more unstable than other browsers at the time, however they were the ones who introduced session restore to combat crashing. It's funny how a mitigation to crashing evolved into a must have feature. I've been using it since it was called Phoenix and trash is the last word I'd use to describe it.
- minusf 5y ago
  i think old opera's session restore left everybody in the dust. i think opera was the fastest and best browser for a long long time.
  - TheFlyingFish 5y ago
    The thing I've never understood about Opera is - what were they missing? They pioneered a ton of features that are now ubiquitous, like tabs and "speed dial," but somehow never managed to gain much market share. Why not?
    - minusf 5y ago
      yes, it was truly the utorrent of browsers. well it was commercial software.. first trialware, then it showed ads, and so on. i guess for a long time it couldnt be given away freely as it was developed by a small company. not being open source also hampered true cross platform, for example on openbsd it could be run only under linux emulation.
eitland 5y ago
> but for almost the entire decade prior Firefox was unstable trash. People say this all the time. Personally I didn't like Chrome for UX and technical reasons even back when Google were nice so I have used Firefox from 2005 until now, across mostly Windows and Linux but also Mac from 2009 to 2012, often having a few hundred tabs open. I cannot say that your statement is false for everyone but I can say that it is definitely not true for everyone.

germandiago 5y ago

How about offering a good search engine? A good e-mail service? A good product. That never existed? It seems we explain all things in terms of wars among browsers when actually when Chrome came out (at first, when no market share) it was really fast and lean and they are well-known by their search engine. The problems I have with Google are more sort of privacy stuff. But they also have their own merits. I myself am not using Chrome anymore based on privacy concerns.

hypertele-Xii 5y ago

There's also the failure of the Windows phone. So Microsoft bought Nokia, and are now subservient to Android.