Chrome Set To Take No. 2 Spot From Firefox 585
CWmike writes "Google's Chrome is on the brink of replacing Firefox as the second-most-popular browser, says the Web statistics firm StatCounter, which shows that Chrome will pass Firefox to take the No. 2 spot behind Microsoft's IE no later than December. As of Wednesday, Chrome's global average user share for September was 23.6%, while Firefox's stood at 26.8%. IE, meanwhile, was at 41.7%. The climb of Chrome during 2011 has been astonishing: It has gained eight percentage points since January 2011, representing a 50% increase. During that same period, Firefox has dropped almost four percentage points, a decline of about 13%, while IE has also fallen four points, a 9% dip. That means Chrome is essentially reaping all the defections from Firefox and IE."
Chrome (Score:2, Insightful)
The climb of Chrome during 2011 has been astonishing: It has gained eight percentage point since January 2011, representing a 50% increase.
Well is that really a surprise? Google pushed it really hard in their search engine and YouTube, and pays software developers to include it in their programs like all those toolbars and adware do. Of course it gains matket share so fast as software distributors are pushing it for the money they cain from installing on users computers and Google uses their huge market share to push it.
Unsurprising (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Just goes to show... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Who f****ng cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just goes to show... (Score:1, Insightful)
chrome has an even faster release schedule and it is actually gaining users at an ridiculous rate.
But half it's add-ons don't break with each release and performance doesn't decrease each upgrade.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm 17 and I don't get it :/. Normal kids weird me out anyways, always liking things for the most immature reasons.
I'm sure there was a point in time where Chrome was faster than Firefox, but there's really no reason to stick with it anymore. Chrome lets you import Firefox settings, so that might have something to do with it. All we need now in Firefox is a feature to import all of your Chrome settings and people will be switching both ways instead of just one.
Re:Chrome (Score:5, Insightful)
And??? Microsoft has even bigger market share, and IE has been consistently losing ground.
Have you ever pondered the possibility that the reason Firefox is slipping is because the project itself has become an unresponsive beast who is now pissing off even its core supporters in the IT industry with its absurd release schedules?
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, here are my reasons:
1. Considerably less memory usage. When Firefox (7, mind you!) starts using more memory than running a Linux VM does, you know the browser has issues. Pro-tip: to reduce Firefox memory usage, run it in a Linux VM. That way you can cap the memory usage via the VM.
2. Considerably faster. And, yes, that's faster than Firefox 7. Note that part of this is just rendering speed or something, Chrome just "feels" faster than Firefox. I'm fairly sure if you carefully benchmarked performance, it isn't, but it sure feels more snappy.
3. Considerably more stable. Firefox 7 apparently fixes plugins working, because I now see the "sad Lego brick" constantly in Firefox.
4. Considerably more stable part II: one tab crashing does not take out the entire browser.
5. Considerably more stable part III: There are still quite a few plugins and extensions that haven't been updated for Firefox 6, let alone 7. If you need to use them, and have a browser that receives security updates - well, you don't use Firefox. Period.
6. Much better developer tools BUILT IN. Firefox's "web console" absolutely kills browser performance and only allows debugging by print statements. However, even keeping that in mind - there are some features that Chrome provides for development - like a graphical view of the DOM and utilities to see how CSS styles are being applied - that Firefox simply does not provide.
7. Much better developer tools, PERIOD. I wonder how many people will see the previous and immediately start shouting "Firebug!"? Well, some bug in Firefox causes the APIs Firebug hooks into to leak memory like a sieve (still!), and even with Firebug working, Chrome's tools are STILL faster and easier to use.
8. The best extensions are available for Chrome too. Love AdBlock Plus? Available for Chrome. Can't live without NoScript? Chrome has NotScripts. Absolutely need Firebug? See reason 7.
And that's just me. I'm sure other people can come up with even more reasons why Chrome is better for them.
Re:Hold up, wait a minute (Score:5, Insightful)
Your sample size is 1 site that gets only 50k hits per day, and you think you're the one with better numbers?
There's a lot of reasons ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Chrome seems to be faster and more responsive.
The update cycle for Chrome may be faster, but people knew that from day one. Those who didn't like the update cycle didn't adopt it. On the other hand, Firefox went from a slow update cycle with easily distinguished bug and feature updates to something similar to Chrome. So people who are more conservative with updates (rightfully) feel burnt.
And did I mention the user interface? Chrome and Firefox may be quite similar these days, and are liberally borrowing from each other. On the other hand, Firefox's UI has changed dramatically over the past few years while Chrome has been more of a steady evolution.
In short, all of this change has alienated existing Firefox users. All of this change also gives a sense that Firefox lacks any real sense of direction. Is it any wonder why people are slowly ditching it?
Re:Just goes to show... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not the schedule. It's the process.
When chrome updates to a new version, I don't even know about it and everything just works (including all my addons). When Firefox updates, I have to wait an additional few seconds while it updates, I have to close out a splash page informing me of all the new features that I won't use and I have to figure out how to update and re-enable my all addons which have now magically turned off.
When I open a web browser, I want to do something. If you get in my way of me doing something for 30 seconds every few weeks plus spend 5 minutes trying to get selenium or other addons up and running again, you have failed at your purpose as a web browser.
It is even worse when you have a scenario where you have a few dozen firefox installs across various VMs.. I dread FF updates now because it means that I'm either reimaging test machines or going through a bunch of updates.
Re:Chrome (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets see... Firefox changes release schedule, and in doing so screws up addons and creates irate IT staff. Firefox usage decline accelerates.
Yep, we know for sure that pissing off your users has nothing to do with dropping market share!
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Would that be the 7 that only came out a few days ago?
The same 7 that still doesn't have an MSI installer?
(yeah, I hate it too.. but Microsoft has made things such that only MSIs work smoothly with the system, the rest require odd kludges. As much as cursing Microsoft is a stress-reliever, practical thought dictates that an MSI should be written. Yes, I'm familiar with the 3rd party solution that even allows us to wrap the standard installer into an MSI, thanks. )
The same 7 that wasn't (and still isn't) offered to me as an update? (apparently due to phased rollouts)
The same 7 that suddenly was no longer offered because it mysteriously hid addons?
( Thankfully, there's an Add-On Recovery Tool. *groan* http://lifehacker.com/5845069/add+on-recovery-tool-restores-missing-add+ons-in-firefox-7 [lifehacker.com] )
The same 7 which, when it was offered at random (I guess that uses a different path from the About screen one), told me 3 Add-ons were not yet compatible (they are now) even though none of the changes in FireFox 7 were likely to have affected them?
( yes, blame the add-on developers... no, wait, blame checking for a version number tag... no, blame needing add-ons at all. )
No, I couldn't imagine at all why people would have tried Chrome years ago and stuck around with it while the team behind FireFox sort of, almost, got its act together... but then decided to be more like Chrome (yes, I read the denial write-up that was covered on Slashdot.) and alienated a chunk of their existing userbase as a result because they took some of the perceived worst aspects of Chrome rather than the good ones.
Example: They removed the 'http://' in front of addresses in the address bar. All good and well - apparently this makes it look less cluttered and people who have never used the internet before won't be scared off by the "ache tee tee pee colon slash slash" thing. ( But then FF scares the bejeebus out of them when they visit a 'secure' site by still leaving the 'https://' in front. )
A common knee-jerk reaction was "zomg how am I supposed to copy/paste a link now?"
To which the defendants said "it will still add the 'http://' when you copy the URL".
And sure enough, click in the address field, copy it (ctrl+c, ctrl+insert, right-click and choose Copy) and voila... 'http://' is magically inserted in front.
Now, accidentally press ctrl+v or shift+insert or right-click and mis-click on Paste.
Not to worry, ctrl+z (undo) restores the URL.
Select it, copy it, paste somewhere.
Whoops - now where did my http:/// [http] go?
Now, yes, obviously that's a bug in a completely different section of FireFox that has nothing to do with the 'http://' insertion code. But back when 'http://' wasn't removed, this was a non-issue. The bug may have been there, but you wouldn't have hit it.
I guess it's a good thing that new features expose old bugs... but a typical end-user is just going to be annoyed.
I still use FireFox for the add-ons, but they're pushing their luck with a lot of people.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
I keep seeing people claim they prefer Chrome because it's faster. But every time I see benchmarks, the differences are negligible. My best guess is that something about the way Chrome draws the screen gives the impression that it's faster, even though overall it isn't.
Myself, I primarily use Firefox, mostly because the Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit whose raison d'etre is to work towards the common good, and its history bears out that intention.
Privacy and customization are paramount... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm still happily a Firefox user. Mozilla has given me an open-source browser with nigh-limitless user customization and control, with seemingly the least amount of conflicts of interest embroiled in its development. The entire Chrome ecosystem seems to be part of Google's recent wave of bad decisions that seems to highlight they can no longer be trusted to act in the best interest of the user and privacy, when there is money to be made; contrary to the Google of five years ago who seemed to be able to resist the void.
Chrome as a browser seems to be better serving Google's needs than the user's needs. Be it the lack of comprehensive AdBlock,NoScript, and HTTPSEverywhere addons (and tons of others) and other user privacy settings, Chrome vs Chromium "conveniences" and other issues, its appearing more and more to me like a better version of IE - integrated and serving Google instead of Microsoft. That's not what I want in my web browser.
Especially amongst the educated, open-source and privacy knowledgeable community I'm surprised how many have switch to Chrome, typically citing resource or speed uses. I really don't think its acceptable to be the sort of person who runs 20 high-end addons including a ton of Stylish and Greasemonkey scripts and then says the browser is using a lot of memory with your sixteen tabs open.
Firefox, Thunderbird, and other Mozilla projects are more important now than ever - open source, standards compliant, privacy respecting, user focused and customizable. Everyone here would balk if I suggested we should all switch to Internet Explorer, Hotmail, MSN, Bing, and Skype because of convenience - Why kowtow to a monoculture just because its Google? This is not to say never use Google products, but we need to make it perfectly clear that we do so because they offer terms that serve our needs, including privacy, as users - not because we have so much invested we're now locked in. Google's gleaming facade has dulled considerably with some of their more recent decisions and spots of possible greed, arrogance, and apathy may be showing up - they need to know that we won't stand for it.
While Firefox isn't perfect, I urge everyone to be alert and make their usage decisions with the long-term ramifications in mind. In a world where most business interests would rather have you access their "cloud" services through a dumb client, completely on their terms, we need to stick up for some of the last bastions of user focused software that can be introduced to laypeople with ease and show them a real difference in the experience! How many of you introduced a friend or relative to open source software with a Mozilla product, which they found to give them better security, privacy, features, and customization? That's worth its weight in gold, so to speak. Sure, the geek community will always be able to roll up Midori or Lynx or some sort of other custom Gecko/WebKit browser from the bowels of a repository, but Firefox is relatively unique in that its features are nearly as accessible, secure, and powerful for the layman as they are for the guru. Trading that in for a product which is controlled by a corporation who's shortest distance to money infringes on user privacy and security is not a smart idea.
Re:Just goes to show... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't even know about it and everything just works (including all my addons)
How does the number and functionality of your Chrome Add-ons compare to Firefox add-ons?
Re:Chrome (Score:5, Insightful)