Firefox's Market Share Hits 28% in Europe

Mitchell's Boy Toy writes "Firefox's market share has hit 28.0% in Europe as of December 2007, according to a French web metrics firm. That's a 20.7% increase from the beginning of 2007. 'Finland currently has the highest Firefox market share in Europe with 45.4 percent, followed by Slovenia with 44.6 percent and Poland with 42.4 percent.' IE share fell to just 66.1% in December, a 0.9 point loss in just a month. It should also be noted that Firefox's success could spell trouble for Opera's antitrust complaint: 'Firefox's continued success in Europe may undermine some of the arguments made by Norwegian browser maker Opera in an antitrust complaint filed against Microsoft in December of last year. Opera accused Microsoft of abusing its dominant position in the web browser market by tying Internet Explorer to Windows.'"

Comments

shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[yagu]

The summary suggests that Firefox's success could come at Opera's expense:

'Firefox's continued success in Europe may undermine some of the arguments made by Norwegian browser maker Opera in an antitrust complaint filed against Microsoft in December of last year. Opera accused Microsoft of abusing its dominant position in the web browser market by tying Internet Explorer to Windows.

Isn't the issue with Microsoft more correctly framed that Microsoft is using its monopoly and dominance of its OS to stifle competition in other markets, in this case, specifically browsers? I believe that if Firefox is actually close to 30% market share, Microsoft's position in browsers wouldn't (or would barely) meet the threshold for monopoly. It's their position in their OS. Opera's case shouldn't be at risk.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[bunratty]

Opera's saying that it can't compete because users won't download browsers when they already have IE installed along with Windows, which has more than 90% of the desktop OS market share. But wait! 30% of users download Firefox, what's up with that? I guess users will go out of their way to download other browsers, after all. That undermines Opera's case. Oops!

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[hkmwbz]

Actually, MS does and can leverage its OS monopoly. It has done so for many years, to the detriment of other browsers. To this day, many sites still require IE. Opera's complaint does not fall apart since it can be shown that Microsoft has indeed been involved in anti-competitive practices, and the recent IE8 standards switch just proves this point.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[Bogtha]

My point is simply that a browser can get 80% or more of the market without being bundled with an OS.

And b.emile's point was that this has only ever been demonstrated when the dominant operating system didn't have a browser bundled with it. The historical fact you point out is irrelevant because of this. You are excusing bundling because the desired outcome was possible before bundling was put into practice — you are begging the question.

There's no guarantee that IE usage will drop to a minority share just because it becomes unbundled from Windows.

It's not about making Internet Explorer drop to a minority share, it's about making browsers compete based on their value rather than whether the dominant desktop OS vendor makes them.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[Anonymous Coward]

Netscape peaked in 1996, 1997ish. Windows 95 came with IE 2, in 1995. Thus, Netscape continued to rise against a bundled browser for almost two years, and largely tanked because their browser turned to crap.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[mqduck]

Yes, people may have shown they go out of their way to download a different browser, but if the market is still severely skewed (IMO it is) because of a monopoly abuse, there is a case for a remedy. I don't really know anything about Opera's case, but isn't the more important monopoly to point out, that they have a monopoly on Windows? (werent they supposed to break up?! :-P)

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[thannine]

You're partly right here, but only partly. First of all, IE 2 was a very crappy browser, to the extent of being unusable. Also, at that point the web was full of "Netscape standard" quirks, that did not work well with IE.

After that IE got better, and Netscape got worse. But still, had it not been for IE bundling, it would never have gotten 90% market share. It might even have been that Opera would have won the battle, as for some time it was by far the best browser there was. But IE came with the PC you bought, at the time you just learnes that there was this thing called internets. And you could open the internets by clicking the "Internet" icon at your desktop.

There's just no way to compete with that, nor did that have anything to do with the quality of the browser.

Re:shouldn't undermine Opera's case

[argiedot]

Well, that's actually the point. They're using the Windows monopoly to promote IE by bundling IE with Windows. The monopoly is Windows, they're trying to corner the browser market by using their OS monopoly.

Bundling is bundling. The real question is....

[Joce640k]

What would Firefox's share be if IE WASN'T bundled.

Microsft's bundling definitely killed off the competition. That the competition has come back is proof of how shoddy IE really is, and that it should have been completely unable to compete with Netscape in a fair market.

Re:Bundling is bundling. The real question is....

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, all bundling is monopoly abuse. The explorer shell is killing off competition, they shouldn't be able to bundle a shell with windows. The calculator is bundled, thats killing off competition, get rid of it. Paint, Remote Desktop, support for zip files. Yeah, see how long Microsoft can compete if they aren't allowed to put stuff with their operating system.

Re:IE preventing users to get other browsers?

[Xtifr]

That's right. There are no download tools that could possibly exist besides a browser. Before browsers were created, nobody ever downloaded anything. Furthermore, there's no way that an OEM could possibly bundle their choice of browser with a system. If it isn't created by MS, it can't possibly be installed on a Windows system.

Re:Opera is selling a product?

[bunratty]

You're missing one critical but important point: Apple does not hold a monopoly on the mobile market with the iPhone as Microsoft does with Windows in the desktop market.

Re:here's a zinger for you

[SplatMan_DK]

Okay for all the complainers out there, consider this. If Windows didn't come with a web browser at all, how would you go to the site to download Firefox or Opera?
You are joking, right?

The presence of a working browser and a working internet connection is *NOT* a requirement for installing software.

I have a ton of software (including an FF installer) on my USB key, I have a CD with the typical software I need when I visit friends and family who require help with their computers, and if all else fails I buy a computer magazine from the closest newsstand or store. No problem at all.

If you could not get software (or a browser) at all without internet+browser, where would your OS even come from to begin with? Do you think is it impossible to install Windows/Linux+FF on a machine with a blank harddrive using a CD?

And has downloading software by using another computer become so unfashionable that I am the only one left on the entire planet using that procedure?
:-)

- Jesper

Keep in mind that FF is a freebie.

[Richard Steiner]

Firefox and Mozilla Seamonkey are both outside the original market (which was web browsers that were created as a profit center).

Just because free software which comes from outside the market exists and is starting to penetrate doesn't imply that the market isn't being dominated. MSIE is effectively destroying any attempts to create and SELL a competing web browser. Even Opera is free now. It didn't used to be.

Phhht

[Iron Condor]

Twenty eight percent.

Firefox is as popular in Europe as GW Bush is in the US.

And they both think that gives them some kind of mandate...

MS killed the browser market.

[jotaeleemeese]

Opera and Netscape used to be paid for products, but MS's monopolistic dominance in the OS field allowed them to give the browser away for free.

Microsofties will go all wobbly on their knees reminding us that IE was better than Netscape, but when your knees are wobbling you are most likely to miss the point: MS killed the incentive to produce a browser, the only way to "compete" was to give the browser away for free, the cost of producing such software was swallowed by MS, making it impossible for anybody else to compete in a level playing field, unless they worked gratis.

In an alternative universe where MS is ethical and the US's DOJ is fair, MS would have priced the browser realistically, Netscape would have died because it was shit and a multitude of companies would have entered the business providing innovation and reinvigorating the browser market.

The only way to re-establish some degree of advancement in the browser arena was for other people to give their work away for free. Any market that relies on handouts is no market at all. Thanks to MS for the favour... not.

Re:Opera

[AlanS2002]

how does Opera expect its consumers to download and install Opera without a web browser?

Ever heard of FTP?