3 ms·

Chromes replacement of Firefox had more to do with aggressive marketing and deliberate poor performance of their web properties like gmail on non-Google browser

Chromes replacement of Firefox had more to do with aggressive marketing and deliberate poor performance of their web properties like gmail on non-Google browsers. Not sure how much consumer self direction was involved.

Gormo 2y ago
> Not sure how much consumer self direction was involved. It was entirely consumer self-direction, as neither browser was preinstalled by default on any platform, and all usage of either was initiated by a deliberate end-user choice. "Aggressive marketing" indeed only has its effect through "consumer self-direction" as its whole purpose is to persuade end users to make a purposeful decision.
- hobs 2y ago
  There were huge campaigns where google was paying per install, many of these installs were surreptitious. When you create standards that only play well in your garden then the only people making decisions are you and the devs writing them, the users either play along or cant use CORPORATE_WEB_APP - hence why IE is STILL around today.
  - Talanes 2y ago
    You can do all that, but if you have a noticeable gap in parity on features that users actually care you'll just be the secondary utility browser. Like Internet Explorer traditionally was.
  - Gormo 2y ago
    And yet the current dominance of Chrome, having decisively displaced IE in all use cases except entrenched legacy ones with high switching costs, conclusively disproves the very point you are making: nearly everyone did switch away from IE despite Microsoft doing the exact things you are describing.
sdwr 2y ago
As a user at the time, Chrome just looked better than FF. It was fresh and clean. The logo was brighter, the UI was rounder and clearer. FF looked like a Windows 98 settings menu by comparison. Tiny, fiddly, cramped controls.
- paulryanrogers 2y ago
  Also a user at the time. Chrome was barren, empty, and used too much memory. It used tricks to feel faster yet wasn't significantly better for the sites I used. Chrome was also less customizable.

Gormo 2y ago

> Not sure how much consumer self direction was involved. It was entirely consumer self-direction, as neither browser was preinstalled by default on any platform, and all usage of either was initiated by a deliberate end-user choice. "Aggressive marketing" indeed only has its effect through "consumer self-direction" as its whole purpose is to persuade end users to make a purposeful decision.

hobs 2y ago
There were huge campaigns where google was paying per install, many of these installs were surreptitious. When you create standards that only play well in your garden then the only people making decisions are you and the devs writing them, the users either play along or cant use CORPORATE_WEB_APP - hence why IE is STILL around today.
- Talanes 2y ago
  You can do all that, but if you have a noticeable gap in parity on features that users actually care you'll just be the secondary utility browser. Like Internet Explorer traditionally was.
- Gormo 2y ago
  And yet the current dominance of Chrome, having decisively displaced IE in all use cases except entrenched legacy ones with high switching costs, conclusively disproves the very point you are making: nearly everyone did switch away from IE despite Microsoft doing the exact things you are describing.

sdwr 2y ago

As a user at the time, Chrome just looked better than FF. It was fresh and clean. The logo was brighter, the UI was rounder and clearer. FF looked like a Windows 98 settings menu by comparison. Tiny, fiddly, cramped controls.

paulryanrogers 2y ago
Also a user at the time. Chrome was barren, empty, and used too much memory. It used tricks to feel faster yet wasn't significantly better for the sites I used. Chrome was also less customizable.