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 Chrome Becomes World's No. 1 Browser

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the top-of-the-class dept.

Chrome 449

redletterdave writes "Just six months after Google Chrome eclipsed Mozilla's Firefox to become the world's second most popular Web browser, Chrome finally surpassed Microsoft's Internet Explorer on Sunday to become the most-used Web browser in the world, according to Statcounter. Since May 2011, Internet Explorer's global market share has been steadily decreasing from 43.9 percent to 31.4 percent of all worldwide users. In that time, Chrome has climbed from below 20 percent to nearly 32 percent of the market share. Yet, while Chrome is now the No. 1 browser in the world, it still lags behind Internet Explorer here in the U.S., but that will soon change. Chrome currently has 27.1 percent of the U.S. market share, compared to Internet Explorer's 30.9 percent, but IE is seeing significant drop-offs in usage while Chrome continues to rise."

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

No wonder Chrome is gaining users (-1, Troll)

partofme (2643183) | more than 2 years ago | (#40066675)

Google blatantly advertisers Chrome on their websites and YouTube (but only to IE users.. heh), they have billboards and TV advertising campaigns [techworld.com.au] , they pay OEM's, hardware manufacturers and shareware/freeware authors to bundle Chrome with their products, they aggressively try to put Chrome on your computer if you install any other software from Google, they pay makers of Angry Birds to have Chrome-only HTML5 version of their game [angrybirds.com] and make websites that purposely only work with Chrome [slashdot.org] . They game and spam other search engines [zdnet.com] like Bing too.

Seems like they went full in and do whatever they can to get that market share. Even supporting CISPA [thehill.com] .

Re:No wonder Chrome is gaining users (4, Informative)

RanCossack (1138431) | more than 2 years ago | (#40066743)

I clicked your link. I read the article you linked. It has nothing at all to do with the text you provided for it. O_o

I can't tell if you accidentally linked the wrong article, or were doing a pretty clever gamble... :o

Re:No wonder Chrome is gaining users (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40066837)

Google has demoted its Chrome home page in results for a search using the keyword "browser" following an effort to have bloggers promote the Google browser that backfired. Now, there is no Chrome ad at the top of the results or link to the Chrome page anywhere on the first page of results on Google. It's ranked in position 50, according to Danny Sullivan of SearchEngineLand, which first reported this news.

The article sez: Google was spamming its own results, but stopped when people called them on it.

Re:No wonder Chrome is gaining users (5, Informative)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067267)

The article sez: Google was spamming its own results, but stopped when people called them on it.

No it doesn't. To quote:

Google's statement, according to SearchEngineLand, is:

"We've investigated and are taking manual action to demote www.google.com/chrome and lower the site's PageRank for a period of at least 60 days.We strive to enforce Google's webmaster guidelines consistently in order to provide better search results for users.

While Google did not authorize this campaign, and we can find no remaining violations of our webmaster guidelines, we believe Google should be held to a higher standard, so we have taken stricter action than we would against a typical site."

The demotion is a response to a campaign in which bloggers were found posting low-quality content related to Google Chrome in an effort to promote a Google video about King Arthur Flour. At least one of the posts had a hyperlink to the Chrome download page, which can help a site rise in Google search results through Google's PageRank algorithm. But paying people to include such links violates Google's guidelines.

"So far, only one page in the sponsored post campaign has been spotted with a 'straight' link that passed credit to the Chrome page," Sullivan writes. "It's also unlikely that the campaign overall was designed to build links. But my impression is that Google's deciding to penalize itself anyway with a PR reduction, to be safe."

Re:No wonder Chrome is gaining users (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 2 years ago | (#40066751)

Good for Google and good for the web!

Their competitors (Mozilla) know they can't keep up with Google's advertising campaign. It's a shame that it hard to to get any sort of billboard or newspaper ad for Firefox.

At the moment the everything is competitive. But as you say, Google keep on introducing tags that only Chrome understands, I wish they would stop doing that and stick to ratified standard. Many web apps are only supporting Chrome only tags, your example was Angry Birds, mine will be Tweet Deck. Any others people can think of?

Re:No wonder Chrome is gaining users (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40066803)

Can you please list some Chrome only tags? Are these tags Google created? Or are these HTML 5 tags that other browsers don't exactly support yet?

What's the difference? (-1, Troll)

Kergan (780543) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067237)

Best I can recollect, HTML5 is not standard yet. Or did I miss a boat at some point?

If anything, implementing or supporting HTML5 is militantism. Doing can arguably lead to de facto standards (see Apple with h.264), but that doesn't necessarily make it right.

Re:No wonder Chrome is gaining users (4, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40066939)

>>>tags that only Chrome understands, I wish they would stop doing that and stick to ratified standard.

Netscape/Mozilla did it when they were dominant. Microsoft did it too. Now it's google's turn.

BTW both those companies are good examples of how no monopoly lasts forever. New upstarts come-along and end the monopoly.

Re:No wonder Chrome is gaining users (3, Insightful)

jbolden (176878) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067117)

The Netscape monopoly was overthrown by Microsoft being willing to lose great deals of money and depending on your outlook being willing to leverage another monopoly.

The IE monopoly might very well have lasted a lot longer with concerted effort and government support.

I'm not sure how those examples lead to sanguine confidence that technological lock in is no bid deal.

Re:No wonder Chrome is gaining users (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40067167)

Outside of government enforced monopolies, they aren't even bad. If everyone loves Nike shoes and nobody buys any other brand, Nike has a monopoly. Big deal. They can't suddenly start charging a thousand bucks per shoe. People will just buy substitutes. It's only when the government says "we only approve of this shoe, all others are illegal" that Nike can start acting uppity.

Re:No wonder Chrome is gaining users (4, Insightful)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067469)

BTW both those companies are good examples of how no monopoly lasts forever.

This argument always grates with me, as if the fact that no monopoly (or anything else in existence) lasts forever somehow makes it okay. Firstly, it can still last a *damn* long time and hold things back for a significant part of one's lifetime. Secondly, in a lot of these cases, one monopoly can be (and frequently is) replaced by another soon after- something that is often touched upon or even accepted by those making that argument, yet with the assumption that this is somehow okay and significantly better than a single, long-lived monopoly.

Well, it's not. The fact that a monopoly might eventually fall when one is old and grey, only to be replaced with another monopoly (yay!) is a piss-poor substitute for a proper balanced and free market.

Re:No wonder Chrome is gaining users (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40066819)

>>>they aggressively try to put Chrome on your computer if you install any other software from Google

How so?They install chrome w/o permission?

>>>they pay makers of Angry Birds to have Chrome-only HTML5

What??? It doesn't run on HTML5 Firefox or IE9? What error does it give you?

Re:No wonder Chrome is gaining users (4, Funny)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#40066973)

Nearly so. You can opt out if you find the checkbox hidden in a dark room in Alpha Centaury behind a warning of beware the leopard.

But they don't force people to actualy use it.

Well deserved (5, Informative)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 2 years ago | (#40066901)

Sorry, but it's not just because of marketing.

The fact is Chrome's a good browser, it moved the state of the web forward, and Chrome's win is well deserved.

In hindsight, Chrome's dropping of the menu was brilliant. I actually don't use 99% of the time.

Secondly, it's fast. It loads pages fast. It loads fast from a cold start. It loads a new tab fast. It loads a new window fast with Ctrl+n. Firefox is sluggish by comparison.

Thirdly, it doesn't have a propensity to crash. I don't bother quitting it if I want to restart it. I just kill it with xkill. I know that there won't be a problem (data corruption or whatever) when it starts up again. If there's some other problem (laptop battery down), it opens the tabs I had open if I tell it to.

By contrast, it's a joke how every time Firefox opens it has the "Well, this is embarrassing" tab ("We couldn't open the tabs you had open last time due to some error, etc.").

Fourth, there's the "senior moments". It's when the Firefox window goes gray in Ubuntu. Seems it happens randomly. Even little kids have picked up on that ("the internet's not working!"). No, Firefox is not working. Doesn't happen in Chrome/Chromium.

As for tracking, use Chromium and turn query completion off.

Re:Well deserved (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067039)

Thirdly, it doesn't have a propensity to crash.

Chrome itself doesn't have a propensity to crash, but individual pages sure still do. It's not nearly as annoying, but it happens. And it can definitively hang long enough for Windows to say Chrome is unresponsive, but if you choose to wait it'll almost always come around. It sure better too, because it seems even the simplest tab eats 20MB of memory...

Re:Well deserved (2)

partofme (2643183) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067101)

I know that there won't be a problem (data corruption or whatever) when it starts up again. If there's some other problem (laptop battery down), it opens the tabs I had open if I tell it to.

That's not true actually. I've had Chrome fucked up several times after crashing or computer suddenly going down. So much that it was unable to recover and I had to manually go into the hidden applications data folder and delete all files it used. At the same time Chrome also couldn't recover the passwords file, so I had to start writing them all in again (thank god I use password manager and didn't only rely on Chrome's ability to remember the passwords).

Re:Well deserved (4, Interesting)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067107)

The extensions are shite.

Real garbage - and the updating of extensions is primitive, at best.

With all the assets they own or control - Google Code, anyone? - you think that this would improve. No luck. From the Google POV, users should NOT have control over their browsing experience, any more than users of televisions do.

The fact is, Firefox is a browsing TOOLKIT. Chrome is a HTML TV.

Re:Well deserved (1)

Daffy Duck (17350) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067483)

The fact is, Firefox is a browsing TOOLKIT. Chrome is a HTML TV.

Wish I had mod points today. Kudos, sir. :)

Re:Well deserved (1)

overshoot (39700) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067121)

Secondly, it's fast. It loads pages fast. It loads fast from a cold start. It loads a new tab fast. It loads a new window fast with Ctrl+n.

That depends a lot on how much the page itself loads third-party scripts, Flash apps, etc. If you can't block them, it may not matter how fast your browser is.

Re:Well deserved (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067133)

>>>Chrome's dropping of the menu was brilliant

Opera did that a long, long time ago. Also Chrome put the menu on the right side. I remember when Netscape 6/7 did that, and they were roundly criticized for violating Windows Usability Standards (species left location). But google? It's okay for them.

>>>fast

Slow as snails on my PC due to opening ~9 different processes (silly) and hogging memory (poor coding). I still use Firefox because it doesn't randomly freeze-up for 30 seconds.

>>>it doesn't have a propensity to crash

Yeah Chrome doesn't crash for me either. It just doesn't respond for 5 minutes (usually with a popup asking if I want to kill all my open tabs). Eventually I get fed-up and force a close via Task Manager, just as if the browser had crashed.

>>>We couldn't open the tabs you had open last time due to some error, etc.").

I experienced that with Chrome just yesterday, except where Firefox lets you recover the broken tabs, Chrome just erased them! :-(

Re:Well deserved (1, Troll)

awpoopy (1054584) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067327)

I was starting to feel sorry for you and your experience with chrome, the you went and said the magic words "Task Manager". Then I realized you were describing a windows machine. The problem you are experiencing isn't chrome...

Re:Well deserved (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067413)

If Opera runs well on Windows, and Firefox runs well on Windows, but Chrome does not, then the problem is chrome and its shitty tendency to open a gaggle of processes like a memory hog.

Re:Well deserved (2)

lgw (121541) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067531)

If Chrome runs poorly on my OS that's a Chrome problem, plain and simple. OS bigotry is very 1990s ...

Re:Well deserved (0)

zakkudo (2638939) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067509)

I've always thought that chrome looks remarkably a lot like Safari with its interface elements... including the lack of a menu. There are a lot of Safari overtones. Then again, since I haven't used Safari in a good long while it might actually be Apple copying from Chrome now.

Below are pictures of Safari 5 VS Chrome.

http://www.maximumpc.com/files/u69/Safari_5.jpg [maximumpc.com]
http://blogoscoped.com/files/google-chrome-screenshot.jpg [blogoscoped.com]

In all honestly, (some people may not agree) I can't help feel that the lack of a normal menu in Chrome was a lucky mistake rather than a calculated move when working with the old Webkit code.

Re:Well deserved (0)

Randle_Revar (229304) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067197)

>The fact is Chrome's a good browser,

If by "good" you mean "terrible" then yes, it is.

Now webkit is a pretty good engine, it is a pity no one has yet hooked it up to a descent frontend.

Re:No wonder Chrome is gaining users (2)

a90Tj2P7 (1533853) | more than 2 years ago | (#40066971)

My personal favorite has always been having Adobe offer Chrome when downloading Flash. I'm downloading a plugin for my browser, I don't want another browser.

Even supporting CISPA [thehill.com] .

Read your own links. They haven't "supported the bill", they've "been supportive of finding the right language for the bill". As in, trying to fix it.

Re:No wonder Chrome is gaining users (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067319)

In other words they want CISPA to pass so google can turn-over User data to the DHS without risk of being sued by the user. Google, like all the other companies, wants the language to specify immunity for themselves.

Re:No wonder Chrome is gaining users (0)

kikito (971480) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067009)

The reasons you give are anecdotal. It is just a better browser (especially better than IE).

Re:No wonder Chrome is gaining users (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067021)

And Google knows when you wipe your arse, what you did it with, and how much you paid the undocumented nanny, while you were distracted from child-rearing, by the arse-wiping task.

They are willing to sell this to bidders. Don't worry! It's only in the "Aggregate". ;-)

Re:No wonder Chrome is gaining users (4, Interesting)

chrb (1083577) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067051)

they pay makers of Angry Birds to have Chrome-only HTML5 version of their game

make websites that purposely only work with Chrome

There is no such thing as "Chrome-only HTML5" - those sites are just HTML5, that will work with Chrome. The sites will also run on other browsers if they support HTML5; it's hardly Google's fault if other browsers do not support HTML5, is it?

They game and spam other search engines [zdnet.com] like Bing too.

Interesting article! Did you bother to read it? In fact, it's the complete opposite of trying to game and spam search engines:

Google has demoted its Chrome home page in results for a search using the keyword "browser" following an effort to have bloggers promote the Google browser that backfired. Now, there is no Chrome ad at the top of the results or link to the Chrome page anywhere on the first page of results on Google. It's ranked in position 50, according to Danny Sullivan of SearchEngineLand, which first reported this news.

Google's statement, according to SearchEngineLand, is:

"We've investigated and are taking manual action to demote www.google.com/chrome and lower the site's PageRank for a period of at least 60 days.We strive to enforce Google's webmaster guidelines consistently in order to provide better search results for users. While Google did not authorize this campaign, and we can find no remaining violations of our webmaster guidelines, we believe Google should be held to a higher standard, so we have taken stricter action than we would against a typical site."

Re:No wonder Chrome is gaining users (1)

EvilBudMan (588716) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067139)

Yeah and their add blocking plug-in really works good for FaceBook.

Superior browser (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40066677)

It's superior to the other browsers in every way. Not surprised.

Re:Superior browser (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40066785)

Let's see:
-The toolbar can't be customized
-No real AdBlock
-Extensions are glorified userscripts
-Installs Google Updater
-Memory usage goes through the roof with a lot of tabs opened (higher than Firefox could ever hope it to go)

Yeah...

I have to say the updater cost me $500 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40067015)

The updater on the Mac ate my internet connection for my WiFi hotspot. It's fixed now, but it was really sucking down my bandwidth for a while.

Re:Superior browser (1)

Randle_Revar (229304) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067233)

Well said, sir!

Re:Superior browser (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40067525)

- Toolbar for what? Just to take up space and give me more shit to click?
- AdBlock works perfectly fine in Chrome for me. I don't know where this shit keeps coming from. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cfhdojbkjhnklbpkdaibdccddilifddb
- Extensions work fine for me. Not sure what you're driving at on this point.
- Don't have a problem with Google Updater. Does it not work on your system or does it consume too many resources?
- Memory usage across all chrome processes is about the same as Firefox for the same tabs. Sometimes a little more or less. It's inconsequential on my modern computer with 8 GB of RAM.

Chrome is faster, more stable, doesn't require admin rights to update it (that's a big one if you ask me), doesn't have clutter all over the screen.

Re:Superior browser (2, Informative)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 2 years ago | (#40066799)

Except for plugins.

Re:Superior browser (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40066923)

Except for noscript. There's nothing even close to noscript. The existing attempts to implement something like noscript on chrome are just awful beyond belief. I don't give a damn if chrome's JS engine is safer, I don't want the annoyance of JS-powered ads. Nor do I want the annoyance of having it globally turned off and being cumbersome to re-enable.

Chromium, (5, Informative)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 2 years ago | (#40066685)

Like Chrome without the invasive EULA.

Re:Chromium, (2, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067259)

I tell friends the same, but they don't listen. They don't seem to care that Google is monitoring their travels across the web and building a profile on them.

Re:Chromium, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40067333)

Point of Chrome is auto-updates. The vast majority couldn't care less about clicking update dialog every week.

Re:Chromium, (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40067425)

I update my system at least once a week anyway (pacman -Syu) so it's not really an issue.

False (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40066687)

Statcounter just tracks requests. Google Chrome started using pre-loading pages, which artificially inflates page views.

Move along.

Re:False (0)

partofme (2643183) | more than 2 years ago | (#40066733)

This should be modded up, it's exactly what Google is doing and how it is inflating statistics.

Re:False (5, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40066745)

Statcounter just tracks requests. Google Chrome started using pre-loading pages, which artificially inflates page views. Move along.

Actually they've changed that:

Prerendering adjustment

Further to a significant number of user requests, we are now adjusting our browser stats to remove the effect of prerendering in Google Chrome. From May 1 2012, prerendered pages (that are not actually viewed) are not included in our stats. More information on this is available in our FAQ.

False, according to Statcounter (4, Interesting)

chrb (1083577) | more than 2 years ago | (#40066829)

BROWSERS: Do you adjust your browser stats for prerendering/pre-loading? [statcounter.com]

Two browsers are affected by preview-type requests - Chrome and Safari.

Chrome

Further to a significant number of user requests, we are now adjusting our browser stats to remove the effect of prerendering in Google Chrome. From 1 May 2012, prerendered pages (which are not actually viewed) are not included in our stats.

Some points to note:

Prerendering was announced by Chrome in June 2011. This change did not have any significant impact on our stats.
Chrome is currently allowing the detection of prerendering behavior via its Page Visibility API.
Google specifically states:
"Important: This is an experimental API and may change-or even be removed-in the future, especially as the Page Visibility API standard, which is an early draft, evolves."

This means that in the future it may not be possible to track/remove the effect of prerendering on Chrome.

If other browsers adopt prerendering then it may not be possible to track/remove the effect of prerendering on those browsers. In that case, the fairest solution would be to include all page views (prerendered or not) for all browsers rather than only excluding prerendering in Chrome. That scenario would require us to revisit this methodology change in the future.

Safari

The Top Sites feature in Safari shows preview thumbnails of frequently visited sites. These preview thumbnails are refreshed by Safari periodically. Unfortunately, it is not possible to exclude these previews from being tracked. To get a bit technical, this is because the "X-Purpose: preview" header is only sent with the request for the base page. The header is not sent as part of requests for images, CSS or JavaScript that have to be downloaded and executed as part of the Top Sites preview. With online web analytics (as provided by StatCounter) the relevant header information is not passed so these preview requests can't be detected and therefore can't be removed. Ideally Safari will change this to ensure to send the "X-Purpose: preview" header with all Top Sites HTTP requests, however this is not the case at present.

Do not go gentle into that good night (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40066709)

Rage against the machine, Mozilla.

Re:Do not go gentle into that good night (3, Insightful)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067059)

Mozilla: the company that dropped Linux support on their latest work.

Re:Do not go gentle into that good night (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40067427)

Kinda slimy of you not to mention that that latest work is an "app store", something totally redundant on most Linux platforms.

But what are the weekday numbers like? (5, Interesting)

jeffmeden (135043) | more than 2 years ago | (#40066715)

The "Chrome effect" is the spike of internet trends that only happens on the weekends because geeks and other home-enthusiasts are using alternative browsers since there is no real restriction. What is the percentage of use during 9a-5p monday through friday? Looking at intra-week stats shows this heavily favors IE, or at least it has in the past. What is the trend for business adoption of alternative browsers?

Re:But what are the weekday numbers like? (2)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#40066867)

I don't know any stats company that gives out data on a per hour basis so you can compare business and non-business hours, not to mention not everyone is working but the weekends usually look like this: Chrome +2%, IE -2% and Firefox about even.

Re:But what are the weekday numbers like? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 2 years ago | (#40066909)

Stats companies can't break out their stats?

Sounds a bit worthless really.

You can miss an entire new emerging market like that.

Re:But what are the weekday numbers like? (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#40066927)

IE6 on Windows XP. And that will hold steady until the sun goes dark. Because management won't authorize the funds to update apps coded to that standard.

Re:But what are the weekday numbers like? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40067069)

If you're working in IT for a company that still mandates IE6 -- leave. There is high demand for IT workers from good companies that are not on the IE6 FAIL wagon. Failure to upgrade past XP/IE6 is just a symptom. You might as well leave on your own terms. Your job is not going to be around long anyway.

Re:But what are the weekday numbers like? (2)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067255)

If you're working in IT for a company

A small fraction of the corporate web browser seats that generate these statistics. If we build airplanes, for example, you are going to have a difficult time convincing management that your choice of web browser matters. Want to leave? Fine. That just provides ammunition for the people that want to outsource the whole IT process to India.

"Geeks" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40067087)

You don't get to Chrome numbers by being a browser for geeks/enthusiasts. 95% of Chrome users are casual users like your parents. They come straight from IE after clicking on a Chrome ad, thinking their internet will get faster.

Don't get me wrong, I still think Chrome is a good browser and I'm glad people use it instead of IE, but without heavy marketing it would be nowhere.

Yay? (2, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40066735)

I'm not sure what to think. I've wanted Microsoft to lose its dominance ever since it eclipsed Netscape browser in 1999, but to replace one evil company that abuses it users, with another evil company that spies on people, is like a pyrrhic victory.

Re:Yay? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40066805)

It is still a lesser evil overall, though.

Any victory against Microsoft is worth celebrating.

Re:Yay? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40066875)

Maybe? But I'd rather have a third company who didn't earn money selling me to advertisers, supplying my browser.

Re:Yay? (1)

Bigby (659157) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067241)

They don't sell you. They sell information about you.

How does this supplier make money?

Re:Yay? (1)

EvilBudMan (588716) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067261)

Uh, just write us up one and we will use it. It's only 10 million lines of code.

Re:Yay? (1, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067311)

So use Opera, or Firefox, or one of dozens of quite often open-source alternatives.

Re:Yay? (1)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067339)

Maybe? But I'd rather have a third company who didn't earn money selling me to advertisers, supplying my browser.

The crucial thing about this is that you can. Firefox is very compatible with Chrome. Safari is extremely compatible with Chrome. Chromium and it's various derivatives [wikipedia.org] are ultra-compatible with Chrome. Each of those choices is still available and will work fine with sites designed for Chromium in a way in which sites designed for Internet-Explorer never will.

The crucial thing is that now, when some idiot running a stupid little web service you depend upon says "I only want to test for one web browser and Internet Explorer is 90% of the market anyway" you can give him hard solid facts like "well, actually Chrome is leading, and it's where the market is going" and then suggest "you don't want to be left behind, do you". If he starts testing for Chromium you will get most of the rest along with you. Certainly you will get Chromium and it's derivatives and certainly, once the idiot gets switched out to senior management, you will find it easier to get his successor to allow other browsers as well.

Yes Yay, Celebrate the Competition (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#40066941)

I'm not sure what to think. I've wanted Microsoft to lose its dominance ever since it eclipsed Netscape browser in 1999, but to replace one evil company that abuses it users, with another evil company that spies on people, is like a pyrrhic victory.

My logic is to celebrate the contenders even if it's just more of the same corporations. Am I the only web developer that noticed that Internet Exploder started getting passably decent as Firefox & Chrome were breathing down their necks? I welcome any sort of race when before it was just the aborted full frontal lobotomy that is IE6 as a candidate.

Besides, roll your own chromium [chromium.org] and kiss any privacy raping proprietary ties goodbye if you want (and without the loss of HTML5 support and standards).

Re:Yes Yay, Celebrate the Competition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40067179)

I would like a chromium Android build that supports flash.
(Google chooses not to with the official chrome).

Re:Yes Yay, Celebrate the Competition (3, Insightful)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067407)

Fuck Flash.

Re:Yay? (1, Funny)

EvilBudMan (588716) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067245)

Everyone knows that Facebook is the evil company now, with their new FaceBook OS, and new FB phones, and gadgets. They are everywhere now with even more spy data than Google has.

Re:Yay? (1)

qu33ksilver (2567983) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067301)

I just hope that I don't have to write a workaround for a page to look the same in IE anymore. Web designing in GC rocks. Period.

Re:Yay? (2)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067457)

You can use Firefox instead. Or one of many other browsers.

The important thing here is not so much IE losing the #1 position. It's actually irrelevant since they went under 60, 70% or so. Now pretty much all web pages work fine for pretty much all browsers - compare that to 10 years ago when a large part of the web was IE-only. To view those pages you had to use IE, and companies got away with it because >90% did use IE which came with some convenient but proprietary extensions, and it was not worth catering for the other <10%.

Developers now code to standards, to make it work for all their users. Sure it's all not perfect and so (yet) but having a browser ecosystem with three major browsers with a large userbase (plus a whole lot of alternatives) but each well under half the total market is what counts. You have real choice now. You're not forced anymore to use IE to see a web page, you can use any browser you like. If you don't like IE and Chrome/Chromium, use FF, Safari, Opera, whatever: they all will do the job just fine.

IE falling from the #1 spot is just psychologically important. It goes to show how far MS has fallen. And it proves that Windows may be next - if only a truly viable competitor shows up.

Those IE9 browser commercials don't help (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40066763)

Advertising Internet Explorer, after all Microsoft has put us through with the previous versions, is like advertising for the garbage service. Anyone in the know who sees that blue E on TV must have a little bloop of bile come up into their throats. Microsoft is just REMINDING us techies to tell everyone to switch!

Chrome is not open source (4, Insightful)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 2 years ago | (#40066821)

Some of, but not all of, Chrome is open-source. You really want that transparency in a web browser these days. Use Chromium [chromium.org] instead.

Re:Chrome is not open source (1)

spacepimp (664856) | more than 2 years ago | (#40066949)

Excepting the Flash player and PDF reader inclusion, reader what is the difference between the two browsers?

Re:Chrome is not open source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40067089)

Excepting the Flash player and PDF reader inclusion, reader what is the difference between the two browsers?

The amount of complaints.

Re:Chrome is not open source (1)

KugelKurt (908765) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067125)

Excepting the Flash player and PDF reader inclusion, reader what is the difference between the two browsers?

How can we know? As Chrome is not FOSS, it's pretty hard to do a diff between Chrome and Chromium.

Re:Chrome is not open source (1)

markkezner (1209776) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067201)

I believe Chromium also excludes Google's software update functionality.

Re:Chrome is not open source (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067215)

same as REL and CentOS

badges

Time for cake! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40066887)

Where is the cake for Google, Microsoft?
You love to send one to Mozilla every so often, why not Google? Look at how far they have come! Isn't it amazing? Wittle Goog all growed up!

What? No cake policy? Aw, you're just no fun now.

Re:Time for cake! (4, Funny)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067007)

Where is the cake for Google, Microsoft?
You love to send one to Mozilla every so often, why not Google? Look at how far they have come! Isn't it amazing? Wittle Goog all growed up!

What? No cake policy? Aw, you're just no fun now.

They stopped sending cakes to Mozilla when they switched to the fast release model for Firefox, once they realized that they were spending a million a quarter on cakes because of a Firefox version coming out every time someone sneezed.

I believe the same would hold for Chrome as well.

Re:Time for cake! (1)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067431)

They stopped sending cakes to Mozilla when they switched to the fast release model for Firefox.....

We have a winner. Finally an explanation for the Firefox upgrade policy. Some girl (transgender model wannabe according to your preference) in the office who felt she(?) was getting fat with all the cakes got a message like this

George; you know this new fast updates policy; it may be a good longterm strategy but we shouldn't do it until we have safe transparent upgrades. Anyway, I like the cakes Microsoft sends and they'd have to stop if we did that LOL...

and changed it to:

George; you know this new fast updates policy; we should go straight on with it and not wait for the safe transparent upgrades. Also Microsoft will go bankrupt if they have to send so many cakes LOL...

Re:Time for cake! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40067227)

What? No cake policy? Aw, you're just no fun now.

They have a flying chair policy. And they where never fun.

Not seeing this on a large UK website (2)

mjpg (717775) | more than 2 years ago | (#40066897)

These are the figures for visitors to a 250,000 visits a month site in the UK:

Internet Explorer 44%
Safari 20%
Chrome 17%
Firefox 13%

In any case, I'm not sure what 'choice' many visitors have. Some people get what their IT department installs, others stick with what is on (eg Mac/Safari or Windows/IE), others with what their familt IT support insists on.

Re:Not seeing this on a large UK website (1)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067485)

Considering the rather large percentage of Safari users I have to question whether the content of the website in question might be the reason for the different figures.

good (2, Insightful)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 2 years ago | (#40066903)

Still mainly a Safari (Mac) man myself, but I'm happy to see anything knock IE off its perch.

Who gives a shit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40066989)

Look, when I download a browser, it's becuase of the way I use it and Firefox works for me because of the way I work. When I'm researching something, I like to bookmark what I'm looking at and FF is best at that. Chrome/Chromium sucks at it and IE isn't on Linux. I then go back, a read and study my bookmarks. I then cull them - because let's face it; most of the web now is just advertisements and sales pitches - many of them disguised as "articles" - and the insulting thing is that those people think we're stupid enough to think they're real.

Anyway, I lock down my computer so that if some asshole is able to infect my machine via the browser, at least I can contain it. I also take precautions so that if I need to, I can nuke the box.

BUT, I wish to hell that FF on linux's spell check would work on Slashdot! FF's spell check sorks fine on Windoes but NOT on Linux, WTF? It's getting really annoying!!!

I would like Chrome a lot better if (4, Insightful)

overshoot (39700) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067043)

it weren't designed primarily as an advertising medium that optimises the browser as a vehicle for tracking users.

Re:I would like Chrome a lot better if (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40067497)

Still pretty good value for money ;-)

My humble theory (2, Informative)

trifish (826353) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067049)

I see a problem with StatCounter stats -- biased demography. StatCounter (in contrast to other players) is used predominantly by small to medium sites.

Now who is the most frequent visitor to a small or obscure site? The webmaster! They keep looking at their site many times every day.

Hence, most of the StatCounter stats are from the webmaster demography. I can assure you that webmasters are biased towards Google. That means that they are more likely to use Google browser.

If you use a stats source that is used only by the biggest players (a la microsoft.com), you will see totally different stats:

IE: 54.09%
Firefox: 20.20%
Chrome: 18.85%

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0&qpcustomd=0 [hitslink.com]

Re:My humble theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40067279)

A webmaster looking at a website is, like, 0.00001% of the hits.
Absolutely neglegible.

Android? (4, Interesting)

peppepz (1311345) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067127)

Do these statistics include the default browser on Android devices in the "Chrome" group? Otherwise I'm extremely surprised by them. I can't believe that there's more than a person installing Chrome for each one that uses a PC without knowing what a "browser" is (and therefore is an IE user).

Re:Android? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40067415)

Do these statistics include the default browser on Android devices in the "Chrome" group? Otherwise I'm extremely surprised by them. I can't believe that there's more than a person installing Chrome for each one that uses a PC without knowing what a "browser" is (and therefore is an IE user).

Given the default browser on Android is considerably NOT Chrome in any way, shape, or form beyond the renderer being Webkit (as well as there being a non-default Chrome browser Google's released for Android), I'd find it quite surprising if they did include it that way.

Re:Android? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40067421)

The default browser in Android isn't chrome.

Re:Android? (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067455)

Yeah, I gotta say I find this a bit surprising too. My parents are okay as far as tech goes, probably a bit above the average for their age bracket, but they wouldn't be able to install their own browser even in a life or death situation. I mean, one year after I bought my Nexus S and kept raving about Android, they still hadn't realized that Android was the OS for it.

Most people are too technically illiterate to understand what a browser is. Only way for them to gain market share is through auto-installers bundled with something else (IE with Windows, Chrome with Google Earth, etc.) or "the tech guy/gal" doing a favor, whoever he/she may be.

so, what you're saying is, (3, Funny)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067151)

there were two eclipses yesterday.

Chrome, Firefox, Opera....anything but IE (1)

mikematic (2644521) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067183)

I would have loved it if it was Firefox that toppled IE but Chrome have really done some mind blowing shit lately esp with the V8 engine..so big ups to chrome P.S: if there are aliens watching, the human race wouldn't appear as retarded now

Please don't use Google products (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40067307)

Let me introduce you to the top assholes at Google:

  • - Vic Gundotra : The asshole who ruined Google+ by insisting on his moronic Real Names policy.
  • - Sundar Pichai: The utter asshole whose incompetence has resulted in the shutdown of Google's Atlanta office.
  • - David Drummond: Chief Legal Asshole and author of the creepy privacy policy.
  • - Andy Rubin: Another huge asshole. A hypocrite who puts carriers first and users last. An imbecile who brags about Android's openness while keeping all development behind close doors.
  • - Ben Treynor: The very definition of arrogant asshole. Threatened Dell not to buy anymore hardware from them and then it turned out it was Google who hadn't signed the support contracts. Did he ever apologized for his 'arrogant asshole' behavior? Of course not!

--

Say NO to the Google creeps!

Effect of bundling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40067351)

I wonder how much these numbers are inflated by the 'also install google chrome!' horseshit bundling they do. I work on so many hundreds of machines where the client has chrome installed and doesn't even know what it is.

Attention hipsters: (4, Funny)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067419)

Chrome has now "sold out", and may only be used "ironically".

The current "hip" browser is now Lynx in an xterm window set to use Helvetica (it's "vintage"). Please adjust your usage accordingly.

So it should work a little cleaner (1)

gelfling (6534) | more than 2 years ago | (#40067477)

Better font rendering, better Java compatibility, etc.

I see something completely different (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40067519)

The stats for my website paint an entirely different picture. I have Chrome as the second lowest primary browser at 8% share, only beating Opera who is at 1%. Even Android devices beats out Chrome at 9%. The top three are IE (54%), Safari (15%), and Firefox (13%).

Granted it is an e-commerce website that has a largely non-technical audience; but then again the majority of users (in America, at least) seem to be non-technical anyways.

I'd be interested in seeing what the browser spread for other high traffic websites are.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?