Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google's Chrome Declining In Popularity

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the still-no-mac-version dept.

Google 489

holy_calamity writes "After launching in a blaze of publicity that even warmed Slashdot, Google's browser grabbed a 3% share of the market, but has been slipping ever since, and now accounts for 1.5%. Google has also stopped promoting the browser on its search page. Assuming they wanted it to grab a significant share of the browser market, have they dropped the ball, or is this part of the plan?" On Slashdot, Chrome is still the #4 browser (after FF, IE, and Safari) but it was ahead of Safari for a few days, hitting almost 10% of our traffic.

cancel ×

489 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I know why... (5, Insightful)

Iceykitsune (1059892) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356971)

No add-ons. I want my ad block plus please.

Re:I know why... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25357011)

I booted up windows to see what all the fuss was about, then went right back to linux. Let me know when they have a package in the ubuntu repository.

Re:I know why... (4, Informative)

mweather (1089505) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357199)

Codeweavers has a .deb package, if that helps.

Re:I know why... (1)

at_slashdot (674436) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357607)

Yes, but it sucks compared to native performance.

Re:I know why... (4, Interesting)

Nethead (1563) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357017)

and no-script. Does it run on FreeBSD yet?

Re:I know why... (4, Insightful)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357023)

I tried it out and was very impressed with it and it would be my default browser but the dealbreakers are(in order of importance):

(1) Lack of NoScript and AdBlock plugins.
(2) No Linux version.
(3) Speaking of plugins, There's no clear Google-sponsored plugin site analagous to Mozilla's [mozilla.org] (googling "Firefox plugins" vs. "Google Chrome plugins"), so it lacks credibility.
(4) Speaking of lacking in credibility, GOOG are heavily into advertising - Incognito is a neat feature but what will GOOG do with our web records and even keystrokes? [/tinfoil hat]
(5) More of a suggestion, but Google should have given Chrome a bit more fanfare(Slashvertisements nothwithstanding :) ). Seems like they just released it relatively quietly hoping that it caught on, like they do with most of their other stuff.

If it satisfied (1) it'd be my primary browser on Windows and if it satisfied (2) then it'd be my primary browser, period. Damn shame.

Re:I know why... (5, Informative)

AGRW (745778) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357197)

Seems some basic things don't work... Basic functional issues: #1 Chrome UI Freezes uploading files. #2 Stops playing you tube vidoes after third one, need to restart chrome to play video. #3 Memory hog, freezes sometimes when low on memory. Firefox, IE, Opera, Safari don't have these basic functional issues. Maybe a limited beta would have been more suitable...

Re:I know why... (4, Insightful)

sulfur (1008327) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357257)

Yeah, I'd say that current popularity of Firefox was heavily influenced by "computer enthusiasts", also known as geeks. A typical Joe Sixpack is not going to install new browser unless his local geek does it when he fixes Joe's computer. In this sense, Google failed to appeal to tech savvy folks by not releasing Linux version of Chrome and not making it customizable using add-ons. Having browsed the web with AdBlock and FlashBlock, I'm not sure I will ever use a browser that doesn't provide these features.

Re:I know why... (1)

StingRayGun (611541) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357389)

For me it's

1.) No Linux Version

That's it actually. I always have 2 browsers open. IE and FF. FF for webmail, twitter, all that other stuff. IR for testing my websites (Virtual or Remote). So FF is easily replaceable for me. The performance, specially UI response in addition to the stability (even at this early stage!) makes FF seem outdated.

At home I use WinXP (all I do on that thing is play games + surf the web) and chrome, at work I need Linux so I still use FF 90% of the time.

Even better then Chrome for Linux would be a new process oriented GNOME based, webkit driven browser specially for Linux.

Till either of those come true, it's FF.

Re:I know why... (5, Interesting)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357537)

I use the IE tab plugin for Firefox... there's almost never any need for me to start IE, even to test pages in it.

Re:I know why... (2, Insightful)

Saint Stephen (19450) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357599)

Yeah, but you're still starting IE :-)

Re:I know why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25357613)

No language-specific font selection. You can specify the default language and 1 font, but you can't specify (just an example) Times for English and Arial for German like you can in FF or IE. I have not tried other Webkit-based browsers so I'm not sure if this is a restriction in the engine or the implementation, but this is one of the big reasons I don't use it.

Re:I know why... (5, Insightful)

Kjuib (584451) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357071)

Firebug holds the gold as a web developer

Re:I know why... (2, Insightful)

mfn (137029) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357263)

That might be a reason why people don't use it, but doesn't explain why Google isn't pushing it more.

My take is that theyre probably wary of pushing it too hard because of monopoly concerns, especially with the Yahoo deal under scrutiny by the government right now, the fewer pieces of the internet it appears they have control over, the better..

Re:I know why... (2, Interesting)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357273)

Well regardless of the specifics, I would expect lots of people had the same sort of experience that I did. I downloaded it, installed it, and tried it out for a while. It was pretty good, and I had no serious problems, but it didn't take long for me to think, "meh, whatever" and go back to what I was using.

To be completely honest, I tend to use the default pre-installed browser on my OS, because I really don't care much about the browser as long as it's doing its job. The only exception is that I use Firefox on Windows, because I don't really think of IE as "doing its job" well enough. Ad-blocking is nice, but as long as the ads aren't too intrusive, I don't tend to think too much about it.

Re:I know why... (2, Interesting)

TimeTraveler1884 (832874) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357299)

That and I can't get into any of my accounts easily without passwordmaker [passwordmaker.org] integrated to generate my SHA256 based passwords.

Re:I know why... (2, Interesting)

Zaatxe (939368) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357353)

I switched back to Firefox after a few weeks for several reasons:

1) GMail looked better in Firefox (oddly enough, I should say)
2) Facebook didn't work well on Chrome
3) And the straw that broke the camel's back was that I didn't manage to make Chrome work well with RSS.

Personally, I expected more from Google.

Re:I know why... (5, Interesting)

outcast36 (696132) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357381)

I'm sill using Chrome, so I'm currently an outcast. I have Firefox3 with 9 plugins (of course AdBlock/Flashblock/... and so on). The major reason I keep using Chrome is that the Javascript engine is so much faster. It is actually faster for me to load all the extra crap with Chrome than it is for adblock to remove it and render the page with stuff missing. It sounds ridiculous, but it is my experience. Of course now my privacy is being raped 8 ways to Sunday, but its worth it for that 15 extra milliseconds of my life.

Re:I know why... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25357589)

I'm sill using Chrome

Didn't you forgot an H somewhere? ;)

Re:I know why... (2, Insightful)

digital_rich (1085385) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357403)

This is exactly why I'm staying with Firefox. The flash ads without Adblock are just intolerable.

I know why to (3, Insightful)

aliquis (678370) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357469)

People wanted to tested it.

Ohnoz, some people thought their old browser was better than the first public version of the other one, who could have guessed!?!

Re:I know why... (2, Insightful)

Saint Gerbil (1155665) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357475)

Or everone tried it when it first came out and most have gone back to what they were using before

Re:I know why... (5, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357493)

No add-ons. I want my ad block plus please.

According to one source [internetworldstats.com] , there are about 1.5 billion Internet users in the world. Another source [hitslink.com] estimates that maybe 20%, or 300 million of them, are using Firefox.

Now, Mozilla.org says that most popular add-on [mozilla.org] right now is Video DownloadHelper with about 340K downloads each week. However, its developers have released 32 versions in the last 22 months [mozilla.org] , so a big chunk of downloads will be for upgraders. Let's assume that a full one-half of all downloads are first-time users and not people upgrading from last week's version, and that 100% of downloaders actually use it. That means that Video DownloadHelper has about 16,000,000 users, or about 5% of Firefox's user base.

You like add-ons. I like add-ons. Objectively, though, we're a very small minority of users. The numbers look even worse for your position when you consider that the majority of Internet users are browsing with Internet Explorer, and therefore wouldn't miss add-ons were they to switch to Chrome.

There are a lot of reasons why people might not be using Chrome. The lack of add-ons is almost certainly not an important one, statistically speaking.

Re:I know why... (1)

linhares (1241614) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357581)

WHAT GOOGLE HAS A BROWSER?? --Closes Mac/linux machine, logs into windows, uses it for some days... --after a while, resumes to normal machine. THE REAL ISSUE IS: for windows users, how many are in Chrome? Is there a decline there?

Re:I know why... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25357633)

any reason why you think a company would like you to use their free software to block their source of revenue?

I thought it was in beta (4, Insightful)

UndyingShadow (867720) | more than 5 years ago | (#25356989)

I'm waiting for it to mature. I thought that was the whole point, we test it out, see what we like and wait for it to mature into a stable product.

Re:I thought it was in beta (5, Interesting)

Praxx (918463) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357059)

The fact that people are still using it regularly despite it being beta should say something at least.

Re:I thought it was in beta (-1, Flamebait)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357151)

The fact that people are still using it regularly despite it being beta should say something at least.

It says people are stupid. Like the 24% who are still using IE 6. Or Windows, for that matter - people with more money than brains :-/

BTW, on a side note, the motivation to use linux should not be to save money - that's just one of the beneficial side effects.

Re:I thought it was in beta (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25357483)

BTW, on a side note, the motivation to use linux should not be to save money - that's just one of the beneficial side effects.

You've nicely summed up why people will continue to not care. Good job.

Re:I thought it was in beta (1)

edmicman (830206) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357629)

BTW, on a side note, the motivation to use linux should not be to save money - that's just one of the beneficial side effects.

That's my main reason. Being open to me is one of the beneficial side effects. I sure as heck would be mad if I had to pay money for Ubuntu, as much of a PITA it's been setting things up in some cases. Sure, Ubuntu installs with the network working whereas in XP I have to fuss around with networking drivers. That sucks. But I'm having a rotten time in Ubuntu trying to get my printer to reliably work (using a Linksys print server), I've had issues getting Flash to work, issues getting the enhanced graphics to work, and Wine has been mostly miss for me when trying to run Windows apps (even with Platinum statuses). And there's still a number of [free] apps in Windows that I've yet to find decent replacements for...usually the suggested replacements suck, but hey, they're free! Just my $.02...

Re:I thought it was in beta (3, Insightful)

Derek Loev (1050412) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357209)

Well, I think we all know that beta doesn't really mean anything to Google. In fact, that may be why a lot of people stopped using it after the first few days. Google has created the reputation that their beta products are pretty much fine-tuned and user-ready (gmail for example); but in Chrome's case, it really isn't up to par (at least so far) with the rest of Google's applications and people's expectations.

Re:I thought it was in beta (5, Insightful)

thehorse (899389) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357069)

Yes, I was expecting google to come out with a few more updates at a faster pace. There were too many issues that prevented me from using it to become my primary browser (flash/shockwave video freezing/crashing, rendering issues with a few sites). I still use the incognito feature for por... I mean, for banking.

Re:I thought it was in beta (5, Funny)

sulfur (1008327) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357073)

Google products coming out of beta? I'll be playing Duke Nukem Forever long time before it happens.

Re:I thought it was in beta (1)

xaosflux (917784) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357101)

Which is how it should be seen, what other product would gather market penetration data while it was in beta? (Oh except this is Google, where after gmail the definition of 'beta' has been greatly changed).

Re:I thought it was in beta (4, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357347)

Well, "beta" doesn't necessarily mean "not ready for day to day use", especially with Google products. GMail has millions of users, but is still officially "beta."

But jargon aside, I think you're correct. Google people have their blind spots, but all in all they're pretty smart, and I find it hard to believe that this release of Chrome was meant to to grab any significant market share. Too many functional limitations.

If you go by the emphasis of the comic book [google.com] , this version of Chrome is mostly about contributing to the open source browser community, and getting that community to rethink some of its strategies. And that actually makes sense. My only question is whether there will ever be a more serious version that will actually compete with other browsers. I think, probably not, but I'd be very happy to be wrong.

Now we know (5, Funny)

ndansmith (582590) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357027)

Now we know how long Slashdot users can stand to browse the internet without AdBlock.

Just don't need another browser (5, Insightful)

xaosflux (917784) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357029)

With all the options available today, there's just not a need for another browser right now. For most that don't want to use whatever their default browser is, they use FireFox. Firefox also had a lot more grass-roots promotion in the earlier days, that does not appear to be prevalent with Chrome.

Re:Just don't need another browser (5, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357145)

Pretty much it. Firefox is as good or better than Chrome and has a lot more plugins.
Adblock is probably a big driver for Firefox. Also Firefox works on Windows, Mac, Linux, Solaris, and BSD.
So why move
I think Chrome will be big on mobile devices.

Re:Just don't need another browser (2, Informative)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357321)

Personally, I don't use adblock, and don't really understand the need for it. I use flashblock, to get rid of annoying flash ads, and for the really annoying image ads, I can usually just use firefox's built in image block them. Most other ads aren't that annoying. I don't mind a site displaying advertisements as long as they are not annoying and tasteful.

Re:Just don't need another browser (3, Insightful)

abigor (540274) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357361)

Well, one reason is the process independence of the tabs. Just yesterday I had a bunch of tabs open in Firefox to all sorts of stuff - the Globe and Mail, YouTube, Slashdot, various bits of documentation, etc. One tab went nuts and brought the whole thing down. I hate that, and it should never happen. Each tab is like a separate app - having one tab crash everything harkens back to the days of cooperative multitasking (hello again, AmigoOS/Win 3.1/OS 7/8/9).

Once Chrome is fully up to speed with plugins and various refinements, I'll switch for sure.

Re:Just don't need another browser (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25357545)

Um, Amiga OS was an early adopter of preemptive multitasking, not cooperative.

Beta browser fails to grow after initial hype (5, Interesting)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357045)

Come on is this a surprise? I've downloaded Chrome, I've used it for a little bit of time and then gone back to Firefox as its got the plug-ins and other bits that I use everyday. When Chrome becomes a full product and has the plug-ins that I need then I'd consider switching, but for now its just something I'll fire up when testing my web code and then use that open window for some browsing because I'm too lazy to switch to another window.

Hell personally I'm shocked they beat 1% of people, I'm stunned that 1% of people cared enough to download a new browser.

Re:Beta browser fails to grow after initial hype (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357265)

It is not a shock or surprise to me... well, in one respect it is -- that the market trends actually agreed with me. And I know I am not alone in this where slashdot is concerned because "we" tend to care about trusting the source and their motives, whether or not something works and is stable and most importantly, how much we can tweak it.

I trust Google about as much as I can trust any advertising/marketing company. Their motives are inherently tied to their core business. And because of this, you cannot expect to see "adblock" and "noscript" to appear any time soon.

And the fact that there is no Linux version? Well, that pretty much seals the deal against Chrome as far as I am concerned. I haven't even tried it and see no reason to at the moment.

Re:Beta browser fails to grow after initial hype (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357437)

Is it 1% of all users, or 1% of traffic. Those who are using Chrome tend to be more active on the web than those who don't. I downloaded it, but saw nothing that compelled me to use it. The nicest feature is where it shown you how many instances of your "find" are in a page, and their positions on the scrollbar. Nice, but not compelling.

Re:Beta browser fails to grow after initial hype (5, Funny)

Phroggy (441) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357485)

Hell personally I'm shocked they beat 1% of people, I'm stunned that 1% of people cared enough to download a new browser.

Google could put a "Sell all my data to China and format my hard drive" button on their home page, and thousands of people would click it.

googleupdate process (1)

raind (174356) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357603)

What's up with this process? Looking for newer versions or what?

Ad blocking is key (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25357077)

Every web browser needs ad blocking functionality because the web is practically unusable without it.

"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks

It's great (1)

the_burton (147439) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357079)

I love it still. I've loved it from the moment that quicktime crashed and it didn't kill my browsing session.

Re:It's great (1)

thehorse (899389) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357125)

still, shockwave (including youtube videos) seems to blow up a bit too often for me.

Linux port yet? (3, Insightful)

RiffRafff (234408) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357103)

Still waiting for their e-mail saying a native Linux port is available.

I gots no use for Windows apps.

Re:Linux port yet? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25357441)

It's open source jackoff. Maybe you should port it to linux rather tahn being a fucking leech.

Re:Linux port yet? (0)

RiffRafff (234408) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357559)

Oh, look. An asshat.

How cute.

It's not that it's a bad browser.... (2, Insightful)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357111)

In my day to day job I deal with having to develop for both IE and Firefox. I haven't even so much as downloaded Chrome. Why should I? I know someone is going to say "Because it's a superior browser", etc etc. I also loved the Amiga and although it was a superior machine (IMHO), it was just TOO much of a niche and the rest of the world functioned on PCs. Just like the rest of the world functions just fine on IE and Firefox.

Re:It's not that it's a bad browser.... (2, Insightful)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357233)

Because you should have curiosity, and it costs you nothing? I've never understood single-browser people anyhow... I happily switch between Opera, Firefox and Konqueror depending on what I want to do. Do you not have enough RAM for two browsers?

Re:It's not that it's a bad browser.... (1)

Phroggy (441) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357533)

In my day to day job I deal with having to develop for both IE and Firefox. I haven't even so much as downloaded Chrome. Why should I?

So you can see whether the sites you developed for IE and Firefox work in other browsers too, and if not, find out why. It might be an easy thing to fix.

I guess I'm one of the 1.5 (5, Insightful)

Derek Loev (1050412) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357115)

I downloaded it a couple days after it was released and although it is rough around the edges I've grown to like it a lot. The history search function is really nice and the fact that it takes about a second to launch compared to the 10 seconds for Firefox (at least for me, this is probably out of the ordinary) is a real bonus.
But honestly, this seems entirely standard. Of course it's going to start off with a surge of popularity and then lose a little momentum. This doesn't mean Google has "dropped the ball", it means that people are acting quite normally. It may have been a mistake for Google to release Chrome before all the kinks were worked out (mine has crashed a couple times); however, I don't think this decline in percentage was anything that wasn't expected -- 1.5% is still a hell of a lot of people.

Re:I guess I'm one of the 1.5 (5, Insightful)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357457)

1.5% is still a hell of a lot of people.

Weird. No one ever modded me insightful for saying that about Ron Paul. :)

Re:I guess I'm one of the 1.5 (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357473)

I'm skeptical of whether or not the speed boosts are really that significant compared to Firefox. What you have to remember about Firefox is that it intentionally takes some speed hits in terms of relying on css and JavaScript styling, as well as a lot of Java, to make platform compatibility simple.

Chrome has yet to offer an actual Linux or Mac version, which makes me suspect that a lot of their optimizations use Windows specific OS tricks that won't port. So in order to port it they'd have to practically write a new browser.

Of course this is speculation. I don't feel like examining the source code, as I have several functional browsers I use regularly, and I'd much rather spend some time on their source code, since I know I'll be using them often. If Firefox is really too slow, there's always Epiphany or Dillo.

Or better yet w3m. :)

Posting in Chrome FTW (1)

antimatter15 (1261618) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357123)

I guess it's because chrome isn't so bleeding-edge anymore. V8 was great and all, setting a new perspective for JS VMs, but now, SquirrelFish Extreme and TraceMonkey are getting better benchmark scores than V8, and it's just becomming a little bump in the history of browsers. Development is at a relative standstill in comparison to other engines/browsers like Safari/Webkit and Firefox/Gecko.

It ascended because it was novel and new. (1)

EXMSFT (935404) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357129)

It descended because it wasn't extensible, wasn't secure, and honestly didn't do much that was that innovative besides provide some fun nerd porn.

Stability (4, Insightful)

hob42 (41735) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357131)

I've been giving Chrome a try myself, but my wife and my kids all still use FF or IE. I like that it takes up less screen realestate for tabs and so forth, and the history-homepage thingy is useful to me.

I'd be happier with Chrome if it weren't for it's habit of getting hung up on Flash sites and bringing the whole OS to a screeching halt - sites that work fine in Firefox.

Re:Stability (1)

mkcmkc (197982) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357305)

Yeah, it locked up my Windows box within a few minutes. Since it's Windows, there's no good way (for me) to debug it, so I guess I'll wait for the movie...

Still using it. Don't need ad blocking (2, Interesting)

EmperorKagato (689705) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357143)

I'm still using it for performance reasons. Although, Gif animation seems to be slower on Chrome.

GTalk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25357203)

Google did the same thing with GTalk. They released it (with a lot of hype) and then let it rot.

Other OSs? (0, Troll)

sootman (158191) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357217)

It's a great browser... for Windows. Which I don't use. Make it for OS X and I'll use it.

Re:Other OSs? (1)

AGRW (745778) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357297)

No it really not equivalent to FF or IE or Safari. Don't expect to use it for upload files.

Re:Other OSs? (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357445)

They are.

And I think it's going to be hilarious when safari loses market share on macs.

The real reason... (1)

AdmiralXyz (1378985) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357237)

People slowly realizing it's not such a good idea to have your nine most visited pages available for anyone to see.

Re:The real reason... (1)

Phroggy (441) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357355)

People slowly realizing it's not such a good idea to have your nine most visited pages available for anyone to see.

By "anyone" of course you mean "my friends that I allow to use my computer while they're here".

Excellent news (3, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357251)

Does this mean I don't have to add it to the list of browsers and platforms I already test with?

Just had this conversation (3, Insightful)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357261)

with a bunch of engineering students last night. A few had Chrome on their laptops (We were meeting at a coffee shop about a conference), but most of the people in the shop were using FireFox. FF works fine for them and most asked why should they try chrome when what they have works with few or no complaints. There was nothing revolutionary in Chrome from their perspective. Hell, I opened it up and the first thing I saw was the dial pad area and I thought, "what the hell, looks just like Opera with different looking tabs at the top." To me there was no reason to use Chrome over Opera or FF or Safari.

People are generally hesitant to change unless there is a good reason. Look at how long it to FF to make in roads. Finally when MSIE was having the hijack of the week, people moved to FF because of the perception it was somehow safer. A lot of Mac users, myself included, use Safari because it works. That was not always the case, but these days I don't have many problems with safari and webpages. I have FF and Opera but I rarely use either unless I'm testing.

Re:Just had this conversation (3, Insightful)

Phroggy (441) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357395)

And it's great if Firefox users keep on using Firefox. The people we want to switch to Chrome are current IE users. What can Google do to attract them, where Mozilla/Apple/Opera have failed?

Few Major Bugs (1)

r6_jason (893331) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357271)

The trouble is that Chrome has a few nagging bugs, such as crashing when trying to bookmark a page, and crashing when trying to submit a bug report. It is a fairly fast browser however.

Was in the 3%, not in the 1.5% (2, Interesting)

mrspecialhead (211339) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357293)

Absolutely love Chrome's UI design and how it's centered around the idea of using new tabs for everything. That fits in perfectly with how I use browsers myself. Love the hell out of the new tab page and wish other browsers would do the same thing. Love the stability and ability for pieces to crash without taking out the whole thing. Love the fact that they stuck with keyboard shortcuts I've already got in muscle memory and didn't reinvent everything just to be different.

Hate the absence of my Firefox extensions, particularly Adblock and Greasemonkey. So I switched back.

Give me ad blocking functionality, even without extensions in general, and I would probably stick with Chrome.

Loyal Users (5, Interesting)

epdp14 (1318641) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357301)

It seems to me that the pool of users that Chrome is seeking to draw from has already been taken by the likes of Firefox and Opera. And, unfortunately for Chrome, fans of Firefox and Opera are violently loyal customers. Even if Chrome supported addons I would have a hard time giving up my Firefox.

On the plus side... (1)

uberjack (1311219) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357307)

Does this mean that Webkit is now the most widely utilized HTML rendering engine?

Re:On the plus side... (2, Insightful)

entgod (998805) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357357)

Depends on what you mean by most widely utilized. If you mean that most people use it, no. IE + firefox market share is way over 50%. If on the other hand you mean there are more browsers that use it than there are browsers that use something else, it seems so.

Firefox, Windows and Anti-virus (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357325)

At work I am using Windows, so I was able to give Chrome a go, but after a week Mcafee ant-virus was flagging chrome.exe as a virus, followed by its installer. There wasn't much I could do to get round the issue. My main browser is Firefox and I like to have a menu-bar, instead of poking around Windows Vista style to find out where all the options are hiding.

While I did uninstall Chrome, I did install Iron, simply to be able to validate web pages I am developing:

http://www.downloadsquad.com/2008/09/24/iron-chrome-for-privacy-fanatics/ [downloadsquad.com]

This is essentially the same browser, but tailored to "privacy fanatics". It has yet to get my anti-virus in a fit.

At home I am using a Mac, so Chrome is not even an option.

Too many dealbreakers... (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357335)

... the biggest one being lack of "opening with a bang", if I was google and dropping a new browser into the market I'd want to make the best product possible and make sure the users needs were being met, speed and a spartan interface is not enoough.

If chrome were a browser serving customers, it would miss the mark by a large margin. They have good engineering but no sense of meeting their customers needs.

They open sourced it for a reason (2, Insightful)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357363)

If your goal is to get other browsers to improve, then market share is nice but not a necessity. Google wants the world full of browsers that are good platforms for web-based applications.

No Opera? (4, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357379)

I find it surprising that Opera is still behind Chrome. I'm personally a Firefox user, but I really thought that Opera was more prevalent, especially on Slashdot. I guess the few Opera users there are, are just really vocal when it comes to promoting their browser.

Re:No Opera? (1)

Curien (267780) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357619)

I hypothesize that most people browse Slashdot at work, where they don't necessarily have complete control over their browser choice. I use Opera almost exclusively at home, but I'm stuck using IE6 at work.

Re:No Opera? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25357637)

That is surprising, and it's not matching what I see on other sites I have statistics for. There's probably a high concentration of Googlephiles on /., though.
Stuff like the new /. tag interface is broken in Opera 9.5; I guess they're not even testing on Opera anymore. :(

Oh, and obligatory Opera evangelizing: We shout because we care, and we want all of you to have as good a browsing experience as we are having. Really, even without adblock, our browser loads pages faster with ads than yours does without.

Reminded my why I like Firefox (1)

aalu.paneer (872021) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357383)

For a moment I thought the reason I was continued using Firefox was because I wanted to avoid IE. I downloaded Chrome soon realized Firefox has become more than an open alternative to IE. The ability to have addons and the range of addons has made it important tool for my productivity.

Not what they're aiming for (1)

takowl (905807) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357405)

It's free, and it doesn't serve up any ads beyond what you'd otherwise get (questions about adblock notwithstanding). So it doesn't matter to Google if people actually adopt Chrome. What they're more concerned about is getting similar ideas into Firefox and maybe, eventually, IE. The browser, led by their example, will become a better tool for web software, which is a win for Google.

On a more mundane note: Still no Linux version. I liked it on Windows. From the amount they talk about Windows programming on their blog, I can't help but feel that the Mac and Linux versions are not much more than nice ideas.

Google Desktop Support (1)

BigFlirt (632867) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357413)

The only reason it usurped FireFox was it's quick load time, but there were a many add-ons luring me back to FireFox.

The key factor for me was incompatibility with Google Desktop. Win+G launches quite a number of things for me, and not being able to launch Chrome was a dealbreaker. Chrome's still hotkey'd but not my default browser for this sole reason.

Not surprised (1)

Prikolist (1260608) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357415)

Tried it, hated it... First thing that killed it for me, it installed into some convoluted directory in Docs and Settings instead of Program Files like a normal real application. And it has none of the features I like and use and no plugins yet. I'm an Opera user myself which I like for not having to download a thousand plugins and still not have half the functionality (speaking of FF) at same performance.

Problems with laptop scrolling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25357427)

I would use it more often, as I do like the "snappiness" of Chrome, but scrolling with my trackpad is unusable. The tiniest motion causes the scrollbar to fly down the page. Anybody else have this problem?

Works for me (1)

jmichaelg (148257) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357459)

I'm one of those 1.5%.

A few things I like.
I don't need noscript because so far, Chrome sandboxes the scripts well enough. The address box interpreter is the best of the lot by far. Most sites I visit are three keystrokes away and if I haven't ever been to a website but know its name, Chrome does an excellent job of guessing where I'm headed. The launching speed is a huge win and if adding gee-gaws on means sacrificing load speed, then I'll take Chrome as is.

A few things I don't like.
Adding bookmarks requires the mouse and requires that you realize that clicking on the little star is the way to add a bookmark. I expected, and looked for, a 'add bookmark' menu item.
I want to be able to completely navigate without the mouse. Chrome almost does that but not quite.

Simple. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25357481)

It's not firefox. People are forced to use IE for one reason or another, accounting for those numbers. People use Safari because it's Mac's and runs well, and People use firefox because it's not IE and has add-ons that everyone loves, but googles is simple there. It's offers nothing special, especially when pushed against the competition.

Chrome just chrome? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25357489)

If chrome uses webkit how can we really call it a new browser? How is this different than simply creating a new front-end for IE or firefox?

In terms of JS performance firefox as we all know has similiar performance enhancements on deck.

If Chrome wants to be popular it needs to actually offer something above and beyond its competitors.

Typical Google... (1, Troll)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357503)

Lots of hype and no follow through or commitment. Google is a search engine company with lots of half finished technologies they don't have the vision to stick with or continue. Everyone sorta does their own thing, sponging off of search, and there's no real vision to any of it. Hope Sergei likes his spaceship.

My reasons for not switching full time (4, Interesting)

edmicman (830206) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357519)

So far...
*No Linux version yet - can't use it at home on Ubuntu without sloppy hacks
*No find-as-you-type - I didn't realize how much I used this in FF until it's not there
*No AdBlock Plus - I determined this to be my only real must-have FF extension. There are a few others I really really like, but I can get away without them for the most part.
*Lack of extensions in general.

On top of those, I think it's a novel new browser, has some good things, but there's a lack of transparency, too. At least with Firefox, I can view their Bugzilla, check out progress on Mozillazine, and feel like I'm seeing some progress and idea of where things are and where they are going. So Google has said they'll support addons and extensions. It's open source so people can hack it if they want. Well....where are they on supporting extensions? Where's the community building on the source? When is the estimated release of a more final version rather than something that really seems more like a technology preview demo?

That said, I'm having problems with the Minefield pre beta (FF 3.1) today, and am actually thinking of trying Chrome as my default for the day to see how I fare. Crazy.

It's my default, now reset my karma to neutral!!!! (1)

gravy.jones (969410) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357521)

It's my default, now reset my karma to neutral!!!! I promise never to slash-post anything again that is remotely supportive of M$.

It's a beta... (1, Insightful)

GarfBond (565331) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357551)

It's a beta browser guys... Should they really be *that* worried if interest drops off after the initial peak and very first release? Between FF, Safari, and dare I say it Opera, there's plenty of non-IE choices out there in the world to satisfy everyone.

Let Google do their thing, and if they're on the right track they'll pick up users as they inch closer to a non-beta status. Though this being Google...

I couldn't install it on 2 out of 3 machines (2, Interesting)

gelfling (6534) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357555)

Google Gears stood in the way of successful installation.

Habit or Brainwashed (1)

bmwEnthusiast (1384289) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357569)

Starting with Netscape 3.0 back in 95; I used it until IE had shown itself as a stronger browser. IE's rendering and loading was faster than Netscape for IE version 5. Since then and all my continued windows usage i've been reluctant to change based on habit or brainwashing. When I think about going to a web site or anything along those lines the first thing I think of is the "Blue E" with the yellow halo. Its just always been that way. Even since I installed chrome at home I checked it out and used it for 20 minutes. After closing it and coming back to the computer to browse the interwebs, i fell back into the "blue E" habit. Unless I make the google chrome browsers default icon the same as IE's I doubt i'll use anything else. I guess if some great feature came out that I couldn't live with out, was released it might be easier to switch.

Chrome locks up/Goes to 100% CPU (1)

l1nuXB0X (895667) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357577)

I've been loving chrome, the fast startup is really what brings me back day after day, but it has a big problem with flash and pdf's. Often times watching videos sends the cpu to 100%, sometimes for 20-30 seconds, longer than it takes to startup FF which doesn't have this problem. And it always seems to do it when viewing pdf in-browser, trying to scroll immediately sends it to 100% cpu, rendering it unusable. If they can fix these bits, I wouldn't mind not having add-ons

FOSS Bitches! (2, Interesting)

uberjoe (726765) | more than 5 years ago | (#25357591)

Being open source, all the best features of Chrome will end up as FF extensions. It's already happening [lifehacker.com] . It will only be a matter of time before all the good of Chrome more or less absorbed into Firefox, and all the bad (google's snooping, no extensions) are left out.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>