Chrome browser 'is becoming Number Two' Google's Chrome browser will edge past Mozilla Firefox in a matter of months, web stats poking firms have concluded. Irish company StatCounter foresees the Google browser becoming the second most used browser on the net by December. In the StatCounter predictions, relayed to Computer World, Chrome will sweep 26.6 per cent of …
StatCounter don't consider the iPad to be mobile. Their iPhone + iPod Touch share is 23.93%. Their number for Opera's share across all mobile versions (ie, Mini + Mobile + the various fringe versions like that in the Nintendo DS) is 22.8%. Nokia come in third with 16.51%, then BlackBerry on 14.28% and finally Android on 12.85%.
Net Applications count the iPad as mobile and don't combine Opera versions the numbers are arguably skewed — 55.6% to Safari, 18.9% to Opera Mini, 16% to Android and 4.7% to the Symbian browser.
The disparity on Nokia/Symbian numbers is the oddest thing. I think Android's showing is consistent with the way many Android devices are sold, i.e. without cheap data. People can want to use apps and have a decent browser available just in case without intending to browse often when out and about.
While I can understand your point of view, some software providers (i.e. Adobe) who require about 50 software updates per month and change the location of the "would you like to install crap software product X while updating crap software Y" allows me to see a point of view that involves a end-user that is tricked into installing crud.
If Mozilla used the same malware-like, sneaky, underhanded distribution tactics with Firefox as Google are using to sneak Chrome onto people's computers, they'd have been the dominant browser in the market years ago.
Google have become no better than the fucking drive-by-download malware injectors because of this practice. Every second piece of "free" software now has this Trojan browser quietly embedded in its install file, waiting for unsuspecting users to miss the tickboxes. All so the big G can better spy on everyone's browsing habits.
There must be a way of suing them for deceptive trade practices or something.
"Would you like to install Google Chrome?"
"Would you like to install the Ask toolbar?"
"Would you like to install any other crap that's got nothing to do with the software you actually downloaded?"
The answer to all of them is a big fat no. I am not aware of any install that doesn't prompt you for this sort of thing. Even Google's own products such as Google Earth give you the choice of installing Chrome.
I don't give a damn if they move the prompts, they are still there. And if you can't be arsed to read every dialogue before you click next then you are lazy and/or impatient and I have no sympathy.
"Would you like to install Google Chrome?"
"Would you like to install the Ask toolbar?"
"Would you like to install any other crap that's got nothing to do with the software you actually downloaded?"
This must be an attitude/mindset that afflicts the Windows ecosystem because the adobe stuff I've installed on my Linux boxen never ask stuff like that.
Ever.
Not as many as you'd like to believe. Script blockers are not that widely used by the general public and you don't get above 15% market share by supplying software only to geeks and the paranoid.
I also find it really funny that the people that seem to be most against apple are the ones who tend kneecap their browser so that they can mimic the user experience of the iPhone.
If you knew what you were taking about you would realise this:
"I also find it really funny that the people that seem to be most against apple are the ones who tend kneecap their browser so that they can mimic the user experience of the iPhone."
Is utter rubbish.
The main script blocker that is mentioned, NoScript in Firefox, is used to _selectively_ block and/or allow scripts (blacklist and/or whitelist and on-demand). So I can only assume you've either never used it, or are too much of an imbecile to work out how to use it.
Hahahahahahaha! HAHAHAHAHA! AHAHAHAAA!!
I expect you're using Safari on a Mac so you don't need something like NoScript because your software is impregnable...err...wait a minute...
Back to the main topic, this is actually a good news story. All of the smaller players are gaining ground against the leader and no-one is in a monopoly position. This tends to keep them honest so nearly everyone benefits, even IE users, poor innocent saps that they are.
I've been a long time Firefox user but thought I'd give Chrome another try the other week as it seems to be the choice now for so many colleagues who I wouldn't expect to be using a sub-standard browser.
There's not much in it, but Chrome's currently the better of the two. Sorry Firefox, I'll drop back to see who's best again in six months or so.
I stopped using FF about 3 weeks ago for general browsing and I am really enjoying using Chrome, although I still use FF for important or, ahem, photographic interest sites!
Can't believe how fast Chrome is on screen rendering. I needed to get some tickets for the Missus and you had to be first on the ball at the Ticketmaster website, FF was taking 7-10 secs to screen refresh, Chrome was whipping up the refresh at just short of 2 seconds on the same machine.
I know it's from the evil empire and everytime I go looking for something it no doubt tell it's masters all about my browsing habits but so long as I get quick browsing and ad-blocking, which it does just as well as FF, I'm happy to use it on noddy sites for messing about. I just don't trust it yet for important or personal interest web sites!
I'm guessing that a fresh installation of Chrome is faster than an ageing installation of Firefox.
I'd also guess that many Firefox users are still using a browser profile first created a few years ago.
I'm guessing too that the aforementioned profile has dozens of extensions running and the detritus of quite a few more that are no longer in use.
I do know that a fresh install of Firefox without extensions runs very quickly indeed.
Oh, and I trust Mozilla. I don't trust Google.
Beer icon because in the browser world there is such a thing as a free beer and it has Firefox on the label.
the most popular car in history is the Toyoya Corolla, it certainly does not make it the best.
Browser marketshare is not a measure of anything useful, basically how much money has to promote their product. That's why the companies with the most money have the most popular browsers. Consumers are idiots, they only use what the television on internet tells them to use.
Me, I use the BEST products, not the POPULAR products, that's why I drive an Audio R8 and use Opera Browser.
Must say my AE86 was a pretty spanking car.
However the idea that an R8 is the best car on the road seems a bit strange. It's pretty effective, but it is without doubt the dullest supercar on the road today. Only Audi could build a supercar and take the excitement out of it, they've even managed to remove a lot of the character from all but a small number of Lambos.
If you want a supercar and crave German reliability then it has to be a 911, a GT3 for the best balance of insanity against practicality. But if it's the best drivers car you're after then it still has to come with a prancing horse on the nose.
I switched to Chrome from Firefox several years ago because FF was getting so damned slow to start up. I missed all my favourite add-ins but the speed made up for it. I originally started using FF because IE6/7 was so awful.
I keep IE on my machine as I need to use Sharepoint and MSDN, otherwise it would be long gone.
However, Chrome doesn't seem as fast as it used to be and actually IE9 seems quicker now, so I may go full circle back to the beast.
Got to agree, I tried Firefox 7 and it's like trying to browse through treacle. Even old versions of IE weren't that slow (and this machine is a quad core i7 with 16GB ram, so it's not exactly low spec). I never got on with Chrome, too many weird UI decisions.
IE9 is proving to be a far better browser for daily use and old arguments about it lagging behind in terms of standards compliance just don't stand up anymore. Who would have guessed?
Whilst I'm generally a Firefox user by choice, I plumped for Chromium when choosing apps for the Arch Linux setup on my Eee 701SD netbook.
The initial reason, ironically, was the small amount of "chrome" (menus, buttons, etc.) in the browser window - an important consideration on an 800x480 display - but I also found that Chromium runs very quickly on what is a pretty low-specced machine. I've bound Chromium to a Fluxbox key combination (Ctrl-Alt-W); it's ready for use within 2-3 seconds, and can handle just about any site, within the constraints of the viewport size.
Not so long ago, if you wanted a lean but fully-functional Web browser for a Linux distro aimed at old/low-powered PCs, you were largely out of luck (Firefox too bloated, Dillo too primitive, etc.). Chromium makes a great alternative if you need the "performance without the pork" - just need to check it's not "phoning the Chocolate Factory"...
is the main blocker for me switching to Chrome.
FF my current first choice, Oper and Chrome come in a joint second.
Opera used to be my first choice, but FF with a few plugins, works nicely, and seems to cope with some websites better than opera. (gmail in opera requires a full page refresh to get it working if it's been left for over an hour, works fine in FF)
The whole issue of FF upgrades breaking your plugins didn't used to be much of an issue. Yes it was there, but major version upgrades didn't happen often so it was something I could live with. Now they seem to be bunging out a major version upgrade every other week it has become a major issue. I have found that some major and popular plugins had hardly started working on one version before the next FF upgrade came along. An awful lot of FF fanbois are trying to blame the plugin providers for this, but since it's happening with a lot of plugins it seems that it's Mozilla who are to blame. They just aren't giving sufficient notice of the upgrades to the plugin authors.
Way to alienate your user base guys.
I had heard it suggested that FF were desperately banging out version upgrades in order to try to catch up with the version number of Chrome, in the belief that some users are chosing Chrome because it has a higher version number. I doubt that this is true simply because I don't think anybody is stupid enough to think like that. If they did then Opera would be more popular than it is. But the main reason this is nonsense is that Google do not make an issue about the version of Chrome, indeed you have to dig to find what version of Chrome you are running.
Mozilla OTOH do make a big deal about version numbers. The reason for this is that Mozilla are aiming their browser at geeks. Google OTOH are aiming their browser at ordinary Joes and Josephines. And therein lies Mozilla's problem. There has been a massive shift in the browser market in recent years. A few years ago the majority of people choosing a browser were geeks. These days however the majority of people actually making a choice (rather than sticking with the OS default) are ordinary folk. They probably choose Chrome because Google is a name they know and trust*. You choose all sorts of products on that basis. Most people choose their car, washing machine or TV on that basis. Most people either go for the cheapest or for a brand they know and trust. Few people actually make a careful and informed descision.
So all you FF fanbois shouting about this calm down. This doesn't say which browser is best, just which is most common. Just like the pop charts tell you who's sold the most songs rather than which song is best.
* Gawd knows why they trust it.
No surprises then.
Chrome is fast and slick, FIrefox isn't. IE has a very patchy past, Chrome and Firefox less so. Safari is the mobile browser of (Apples) choice, iPad/iPhone. And Opera is like the relative no one talks to but everyone has heard about.
And it will probably continue the same way unless Firefox gets it's collective finger out or Opera & IE get rehabilitated in the publics mind.
Part of my job is compatibility testing. I use Opera, IE, Safari, Chrome and FIrefox to test sites and web apps and in reality there are no really bad browsers anymore. Trouble is Firefox has been getting progressively worse over the last 2 years.
Each new version seems to introduce new problems without fixing the old ones. Firefox on Mac and Windows has become what IE used to be, slow, bloated and buggy with slow rendering, stuttering performance, memory leaks, lock ups and slow loading.
So what to use? Personally I don't entirely trust the Chocolate factory to do no evil (let alone not track my web movements) so Opera on the Mac and IE on Windows it is.
(Seeing that in writing makes me want a shower!)
Chrome doesn't provide enough user controls and those it does, don't always play along. Chrome allows you to choose your search engine unless you want to use a different Google from that of the country you are in. Then it overrides you.
I like filtering script/adverts - great with FF, impossible with Chrome.
The biggest thing against Chrome is that you don't know/can't control what Google is doing with all the data that it collects so I use Chrome for my routine, non-revealing activities and FF + Opera for the rest.
I'd be interested to know how things vary between XP and Vista/W7 - the latter have the option to use a decent IE browser so those platforms there must be a proportion of discerning, educated users who _choose_ IE9 as their preferred browser. Maybe only a small proportion, but with IE9 (and 10) the decision to install another browser is less compelling, simply because 9 is far better than 7 or 8.
MS don't need a better browser than FF/Chrome to remain #1, just one that is close enough most people can't see the point changing.
NetMarketshare does occasional special reports on topics that interest them. They've been doing reports of browser share on Windows 7 - here's this month's:
http://www.netmarketshare.com/2011/10/01/Microsoft-s-Strategy-With-Internet-Explorer-9
IE9 already has more users on Windows 7 than Chrome or Firefox.
IE9 reaching 8.72% overall desktop usage share - surpassing IE 6.0 this month - when it only runs on OS versions with 41.5% share, is pretty impressive really.
It may be subjective, but for once I'd like to start FF without having to do an upgrade first. Seems like it's continually updating itself.
Much as I appreciate the efforts to improve performance, stability and security, it does begin to grate a little when a 30 second web-lookup or browser-test of a new site page ends up taking 5 minutes or more.
I'm wondering exactly what the Firefox team are up to?
I point you toward:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Firefox
In the last 3 months, we've had 5,6 & 7 and this trend is set to continue, with 10 being released in January 2012.
It seems the version numbers are now completely pointless, with such a rapid release cycle.
Certainly Chrome doesn't bother with them - at least, not from a marketing perspective.
It's just 'Chrome' - yet Firefox continue to punt the version numbers on their site.
In fact, when you compare the chrome website with the firefox one, you'll note just how low key chrome is in terms of marketing:
http://www.google.com/chrome/
Compared with:
http://www.mozilla.org/firefox
The fact is, they are both very capable browsers, however, in terms of speed and stability, from my perspective, Chrome wins.
After over 8 years with firefox (starting with phoenix, september 2002), I switched to chrome six months back.
Firefox went downhill after 3.6 and although 7 is an improvement over just how sluggish the browser became since 3.6, it's just too little, too late.
I continue to use firefox for development purposes, as it has numerous extensions I've become familiar with over the years, but as a day to day browsing experience, sorry Firefox, you got too fat and slow.
On OSX, Chrome has replaced Safari as my default browser - never tried Opera - due to the fact it is faster and shares my bookmarks/data across all my PCS.
I gave up on FF ages ago - it is by far the clunkiest browser - even IE8 seems more responsive - on my PCs. On my main development PC, I permanently have Chrome open on one monitor and IE9 on the right... Chrome has been my main browser for a year or more and I just updated to IE9 to test it, but was pleasantly surprised how good it is. I don't see serious differences in terms of usability or general slickness, the lack of addons is annoying but I don't spend most of my time on sites with Flash-crammed sites anyway.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
