Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google's Chrome Declining In Popularity

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the still-no-mac-version dept.

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.

22 of 489 comments (clear)

  1. I know why... by Iceykitsune · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    GENERATION 24: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
    1. Re:I know why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:I know why... by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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(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.

    3. Re:I know why... by Kjuib · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Firebug holds the gold as a web developer

      --
      - Your stupidity got you into this mess, why can't it get you out? -Will Rogers
    4. Re:I know why... by sulfur · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:I know why... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

      Now, Mozilla.org says that most popular add-on right now is Video DownloadHelper with about 340K downloads each week. However, its developers have released 32 versions in the last 22 months, 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.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    6. Re:I know why... by otter42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I respect your math, but disagree with your conclusion. New technologies do not go straight to users. They get picked up by early adopters, who then tell everyone about them. Half of the students at my university were using Firefox after we left. Mostly because nerds like me installed it on their computers. When people like us start installing Chrome on everyone's computers, everyone will move to Chrome.

      So without plugins and without Linux and Mac support, I won't support it. And if I don't, my parents, girlfriend, colleagues, and friends won't, because they don't really care, and why should they?

      --
      www.eissq.com/BandP.html Ball and Plate System. Amuse your friends. Crush your enemies.
    7. Re:I know why... by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also, it's important to understand that all users of addons are not using any particular addon. VideoDownload helper? I've never even heard of it honestly, but I DO use Adblock Plus and NoScript. Other users use other addons. Now certainly many, many of these addons have overlapping user bases, but the percentage of users who use ANY addon is going to be a very different figure from the percentage of users that use any specific addon.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    8. Re:I know why... by fermion · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I think lack of OS independence and adblock is a critical issue. I would think that Chrome can't really compete in the non IE 30% of the market that is comprised largely of users that (A) have permissions set to install new programs and browse in something that is not IE, (B) know how to install a new browser, (C) are motivated to move from IE and (D) are motivated to take the time to deal with a new application. I am sure a significant percentage of these users are not on MS Windows platforms and those that are move from IE to block ad or, in the case of the Mozilla crowd, have some innate need to pimp their browser.

      So Chrome is largely going to attract current IE users that are attracted to the Google brand. But these IE users have stayed with IE even when other options are available. Many of them stay because they do not have the ability to move to another broswer. Many because of the learning curve. I question whether there is a significant number of MS Windows users that care enough to use chrome, or if MS will let them go without a fight.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    9. Re:I know why... by quanticle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, its not that. Its just that its Google's own fault for releasing quality software and labeling it "beta" as well. For example, GMail is still officially in "beta", but the quality of GMail is far above the quality of Google Chrome.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
  2. I thought it was in beta by UndyingShadow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:I thought it was in beta by thehorse · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:I thought it was in beta by fm6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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, 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.

    3. Re:I thought it was in beta by jonbryce · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apart from Outlook Web Access, nobody else had ajax when GMail launched. And nobody else had 1GB of email space.

      What are Chrome's unique selling points?

  3. Just don't need another browser by xaosflux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Just don't need another browser by LWATCDR · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  4. I guess I'm one of the 1.5 by Derek+Loev · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:I guess I'm one of the 1.5 by megamerican · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

      --
      If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
    2. Re:I guess I'm one of the 1.5 by initialE · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Chrome's not on a deadline to turn that 1.5 to 50.1

      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
  5. Stability by hob42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. Google isn't looking for browser market share by SlashDotDotDot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google wants to be able to drive the future of the web and how it is used. To do that, they need some say in how browsers are built. Even if only 1.5% of people use Chrome, they still get this. For example, Google needs users to have browsers with fast Javascript so their apps work well. By releasing Chrome, they put pressure on Firefox and IE to meet their performance benchmarks. As they add other features, other browsers must take notice.

    --
    /...
  7. Why didn't they just contribute to Firefox? by mikehoskins · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...stop the presses...

    This just in... Google should have contributed to Firefox, instead of reinventing the wheel. Following a wave of hype, market share is now declining... News at 11, 10 Central.

    ...cue commercial...

    Speaking of FreeBSD/Linux/Solaris/AIX/BeOS/whatever OS you can name, chances are there is a Firefox to suit you.

    Unlike any other browser in the history of the planet, there are also approximately 1.2 gazillion plugins for Firefox. The vast majority are cross platform, due to Firefox's Gecko/XUL/Chrome (note the name).

    Firefox has momentum. I.e., it's growing on IE (pardon the pun) as well as Safari/Opera. (Was that an estimated 300 million FF users, out of 1.5 billion on the Internet?)

    In addition to this, the future Firefox 3.1 is supposed to have a really, really fast JavaScript engine that rival's JS in Google's Chrome browser.

    But wait, there's more. Wasn't it Google Gears that was supposed to create disconnected (on- or off-line) desktop apps on Firefox. Why throw in the towel?

    There's even more! Google could have wrapped this all up neatly in a "plugin framework," and written it with less effort, and made themselves a defacto-must-have-it part of Firefox, and have impacted more users in less time.

    People could have even written themes and other plugins that bolt on to their "plugin framework," the same way Firebug has its own add-ons (like YSlow).

    So, why, why, why did they move away from Firefox and reinvent the wheel, instead? I saw no features that couldn't have been done as a Firefox Add-On.

    ...back to your regularly scheduled program...

    Maybe I'm wrong, here, so feel free to flame away and moderate me out of my miserable existence!