6 ms·

The real news is IE share, worldwide, is now only 40%!

by z92 15y ago

guelo 15y ago
So we're trading a browser from a company with a desktop monopoly for one with a web search monopoly. I'm trying to get excited here. It's a shame Firefox couldn't win, but it's tough going up against a determined multibillion dollar behemoth, especially when they get to leverage their monopoly (sound familiar?) by advertising on one of the world's most popular webpages, google.com, for free.
- mzarate06 15y ago
  So we're trading a browser from a company with a desktop monopoly for one with a web search monopoly. I'm trying to get excited here. Despite your sentiment, this is still moving the web forward. We all benefit from browsers built by vendors that have a genuine passion for the web. I'd argue that most believe Chrome is built from such passion more so than IE. Since you brought up Firefox - I've always been on their side, up until I started living w/pain due to their decision to drop support for WebSQLDatabase. I'm now rooting for Chrome!
  - ootachi 15y ago
    Firefox never supported Web SQL. There was no support to drop.
    - mzarate06 15y ago
      You're right, my mistake. I should have said "to not support" instead of "to drop support for".
- chrislomax 15y ago
  I too would have liked Firefox to win but I think it's nothing to do with advertising the reason for Firefox declining and it's simply that Firefox has lost it's mojo. From version 4 they killed their browser. They may have redeemed themselves recently but I wouldn't care to look, Chrome picked up where Mozilla left off. Chrome is a fantastic browser and I never have issue with it. Firefox 4 and 5 used to crash at least once per day. If it wasn't crashing then the ram usage was spiralling out of control. I would rather put my trust in Google than Microsoft, I believe that Google have the interest of a faster more up to date web than Microsoft do and I go with their values.
  - j_col 15y ago
    > I would rather put my trust in Google than Microsoft, I believe that Google have the interest of a faster more up to date web than Microsoft do and I go with their values. As someone who is deeply concerned with Google's dominance of the Web (and increasingly mobile), I would dearly love for you to list out your reasons for trusting them, so that I can change my mind. In the meantime I'll stick to Firefox, loss of mojo or otherwise.
    - chrislomax 15y ago
      Can I ask a question, what phone do you have?
      - j_col 15y ago
        HP Pre3 (unlocked) with webOS.
        chrislomax 15y ago
        So do you generally stay away from dominant companies who are the ones innovating?
        j_col 15y ago
        You don't think webOS is innovative because it isn't dominating? Therefore you believe there is a relationship between domination and innovation? I'm sorry, but I disagree. Brand loyalty, marketing, and just plain inertia factor into all of these technology choices that we make every day, including what browser we use. I choose not to use Chrome, not because I think its dominating, but I do not share your trust in the company behind it (and you have yet to explain why you do).
        chrislomax 15y ago
        Although I should have mentioned this in an earlier response, you have actually twisted my words. I actually said >I would rather put my trust in Google than Microsoft, I believe that Google have the interest of a faster more up to date web than Microsoft do and I go with their values. Not I trust Google over every company in the world. And I state my reasons for trusting Google over Microsoft. Because I think they are more in tune with the values of what I think the web should be about. Yes I also think the more domineering companies are the most innovative. Do you think if WebOS was so innovative and fantastic HP would have canned it? Would HP (or google) be anywhere near the level of phone we have today if it wasn't for the iPhone? You're right in that it has a lot to do with marketing and Google would not have got Chrome to where it is today without their ability to market it but if it was crap then there would have been no uptake? They don't get a 25% browser share from developing something that doesn't work? Look at Google Wave, massive marketing, everyone looked forward to it and it was rubbish. It's not all about marketing or love for a brand. It's a mixture of everything. I also don't start dismissing a companies products because they are getting too big, I don't want the next best thing, I was the best tool for the job. Regardless of who it is (within realms of common sense)
- jrockway 15y ago
  Chromium is as functional as Chrome and it's 100% Free Software. That's why you should like the Chrome family over IE; you can open up the hood and play with the little bits inside. With IE, you're stuck with whatever Microsoft is nice enough to give you. Also, Bing advertises on Google too. And Google has basically paid for (and continues to pay for) Firefox's development. If there's someone to hate here, it certainly isn't Google.
  - kenjackson 15y ago
    I think your biases are showing here. No one said anything about hating anyone. It's about companies (with fudiciary obligations which aren't to the customer) are taking very strong dominating positions in key technologies. Being Free Software really isn't a concern to most people. Try being a small company that tries to block aggression from Google or Microsoft. Will it matter that Chrome is free? It's not like you can go in and say, "Here I changed Chrome. All users now use this version." For 99.999% of users free software is meaningless. What would make Chrome much more interesting is if they gave maintanance of it over to a standards body or even a university. At this point "free software" is just nice window dressing.
    - jrockway 15y ago
      Yes, they must be. I think Free Software is cool, and I am not upset that Google pays people to write it. I resisted using Chromium for a long time because I thought the Firefox folks were "fighting the good fight". But honestly, their software engineering practices suck compared to Google's and their product is, as a result, not as good. The great thing about freedom is that you can use both. Or you can take the good features from Chromium and put them in Firefox. Or you can make your own web browser. You can also advertise it on Google as much as you want; they sell ads to pretty much everyone (including themselves). In the end, I don't feel like Google is wronging me.
      - riffraff 15y ago
        could you expand on why you think mozilla's engineering practices suck ? I have sometimes had a similar feeling, but I have too little competence to be a judge of that.
- jsight 15y ago
  Actually, we are trading a browser from a company with a desktop monopoly and an internet monopoly for an environment in which said monopoly has ~40%, another monopoly has ~30%, an independent player has ~20%, and a bunch of smaller players (including Mobile) share the rest. And both the ~30 and ~20 are platform independent, largely FOSS systems. This certainly seems like an improvement to me.
  - magicalist 15y ago
    exactly. Mozilla has often been great for pushing the web forward, but it's still made up of humans, so if they "win", it is unlikely to be an improvement for users or the web. It's almost ridiculous how lucky we are to in fact have three major market-share holders with largely compatible platforms competing for our attention.

The real news is IE share, worldwide, is now only 40%!

by z92 15y ago

The real news is IE share, worldwide, is now only 40%!

guelo 15y ago

So we're trading a browser from a company with a desktop monopoly for one with a web search monopoly. I'm trying to get excited here. It's a shame Firefox couldn't win, but it's tough going up against a determined multibillion dollar behemoth, especially when they get to leverage their monopoly (sound familiar?) by advertising on one of the world's most popular webpages, google.com, for free.

mzarate06 15y ago
So we're trading a browser from a company with a desktop monopoly for one with a web search monopoly. I'm trying to get excited here. Despite your sentiment, this is still moving the web forward. We all benefit from browsers built by vendors that have a genuine passion for the web. I'd argue that most believe Chrome is built from such passion more so than IE. Since you brought up Firefox - I've always been on their side, up until I started living w/pain due to their decision to drop support for WebSQLDatabase. I'm now rooting for Chrome!
- ootachi 15y ago
  Firefox never supported Web SQL. There was no support to drop.
  - mzarate06 15y ago
    You're right, my mistake. I should have said "to not support" instead of "to drop support for".
chrislomax 15y ago
I too would have liked Firefox to win but I think it's nothing to do with advertising the reason for Firefox declining and it's simply that Firefox has lost it's mojo. From version 4 they killed their browser. They may have redeemed themselves recently but I wouldn't care to look, Chrome picked up where Mozilla left off. Chrome is a fantastic browser and I never have issue with it. Firefox 4 and 5 used to crash at least once per day. If it wasn't crashing then the ram usage was spiralling out of control. I would rather put my trust in Google than Microsoft, I believe that Google have the interest of a faster more up to date web than Microsoft do and I go with their values.
- j_col 15y ago
  > I would rather put my trust in Google than Microsoft, I believe that Google have the interest of a faster more up to date web than Microsoft do and I go with their values. As someone who is deeply concerned with Google's dominance of the Web (and increasingly mobile), I would dearly love for you to list out your reasons for trusting them, so that I can change my mind. In the meantime I'll stick to Firefox, loss of mojo or otherwise.
  - chrislomax 15y ago
    Can I ask a question, what phone do you have?
    - j_col 15y ago
      HP Pre3 (unlocked) with webOS.
      - chrislomax 15y ago
        So do you generally stay away from dominant companies who are the ones innovating?
        j_col 15y ago
        You don't think webOS is innovative because it isn't dominating? Therefore you believe there is a relationship between domination and innovation? I'm sorry, but I disagree. Brand loyalty, marketing, and just plain inertia factor into all of these technology choices that we make every day, including what browser we use. I choose not to use Chrome, not because I think its dominating, but I do not share your trust in the company behind it (and you have yet to explain why you do).
        chrislomax 15y ago
        Although I should have mentioned this in an earlier response, you have actually twisted my words. I actually said >I would rather put my trust in Google than Microsoft, I believe that Google have the interest of a faster more up to date web than Microsoft do and I go with their values. Not I trust Google over every company in the world. And I state my reasons for trusting Google over Microsoft. Because I think they are more in tune with the values of what I think the web should be about. Yes I also think the more domineering companies are the most innovative. Do you think if WebOS was so innovative and fantastic HP would have canned it? Would HP (or google) be anywhere near the level of phone we have today if it wasn't for the iPhone? You're right in that it has a lot to do with marketing and Google would not have got Chrome to where it is today without their ability to market it but if it was crap then there would have been no uptake? They don't get a 25% browser share from developing something that doesn't work? Look at Google Wave, massive marketing, everyone looked forward to it and it was rubbish. It's not all about marketing or love for a brand. It's a mixture of everything. I also don't start dismissing a companies products because they are getting too big, I don't want the next best thing, I was the best tool for the job. Regardless of who it is (within realms of common sense)
jrockway 15y ago
Chromium is as functional as Chrome and it's 100% Free Software. That's why you should like the Chrome family over IE; you can open up the hood and play with the little bits inside. With IE, you're stuck with whatever Microsoft is nice enough to give you. Also, Bing advertises on Google too. And Google has basically paid for (and continues to pay for) Firefox's development. If there's someone to hate here, it certainly isn't Google.
- kenjackson 15y ago
  I think your biases are showing here. No one said anything about hating anyone. It's about companies (with fudiciary obligations which aren't to the customer) are taking very strong dominating positions in key technologies. Being Free Software really isn't a concern to most people. Try being a small company that tries to block aggression from Google or Microsoft. Will it matter that Chrome is free? It's not like you can go in and say, "Here I changed Chrome. All users now use this version." For 99.999% of users free software is meaningless. What would make Chrome much more interesting is if they gave maintanance of it over to a standards body or even a university. At this point "free software" is just nice window dressing.
  - jrockway 15y ago
    Yes, they must be. I think Free Software is cool, and I am not upset that Google pays people to write it. I resisted using Chromium for a long time because I thought the Firefox folks were "fighting the good fight". But honestly, their software engineering practices suck compared to Google's and their product is, as a result, not as good. The great thing about freedom is that you can use both. Or you can take the good features from Chromium and put them in Firefox. Or you can make your own web browser. You can also advertise it on Google as much as you want; they sell ads to pretty much everyone (including themselves). In the end, I don't feel like Google is wronging me.
    - riffraff 15y ago
      could you expand on why you think mozilla's engineering practices suck ? I have sometimes had a similar feeling, but I have too little competence to be a judge of that.
jsight 15y ago
Actually, we are trading a browser from a company with a desktop monopoly and an internet monopoly for an environment in which said monopoly has ~40%, another monopoly has ~30%, an independent player has ~20%, and a bunch of smaller players (including Mobile) share the rest. And both the ~30 and ~20 are platform independent, largely FOSS systems. This certainly seems like an improvement to me.
- magicalist 15y ago
  exactly. Mozilla has often been great for pushing the web forward, but it's still made up of humans, so if they "win", it is unlikely to be an improvement for users or the web. It's almost ridiculous how lucky we are to in fact have three major market-share holders with largely compatible platforms competing for our attention.