Slashdot Mirror
Firefox May Soon Overtake IE In Europe
peterkern writes "The July browser market share reports are somewhat inconsistent, but if we believe StatCounter, then it looks like Firefox will be overtaking Microsoft IE's market share next month. The two browsers are both within 1 point of 40% market share, IE above and Firefox below. Europeans are more crazy about Firefox than Americans: In Germany, Firefox has a 61% market share, while IE has only 25%. Google Chrome is, according to StatCounter, now above 10%. ConceivablyTech has more details, including market share data from both StatCounter and Net Applications (which as of this month is limiting its free data)."
as long as other browsers have a big enough market share that MS has to continue play nice and follow standards it's not even that important.
This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
Of course this is all irrelevant to firefox making history by overtaking IE in Europe. An analogy, many parts of the world have universal healthcare but it would still be history for the USA if it was introduced there.
It's getting harder and harder for Steve Ballmer to point to his resume and be able to justify his work over the past decade. While Microsoft has pushed out upgrades to all its software, the big picture is gloomy enough to make him sweat at upcoming board meetings: total loss to the ipod in the music market, total catastrophe in Microsoft's internally-competing music formats and platforms (Plays for Sure?), impending catastrophe in smart phones as RIM, Apple, and now Android eat his lunch, and growing irrelevance of desktop office software. Yes, they skirted disaster with Vista and pushed out Windows 7 which is generally well liked. But Microsoft is slipping behind in key growth markets and lack of vision and leadership is a big part of that.
If I were on the Board, I'd be telling Ballmer to go work on his golf game, and bring in new leadership. Microsoft has lots of talented developers and engineers. But upper management is sinking the ship.
If this were Usenet, I'd killfile the lot of you.
And Firefox has succeeded in doing what it was really meant to do - getting rid of the hell that was IE6. As long as microsoft keep trying to imporve their implementation of standards, then I don't care if people use IE or not. Personally, I use Firefox because of NoScript, AdBlock and DownThemAll, and the fact it has a master password for it's password database (unlike Chrome).
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
I'm hoping the big change comes as corporations replace IE6. Moving to IE8 puts them in almost the same position they're in now 5 years down the road with respect to standards compliance, tie-in to the OS, etc, but it seems that's what most are doing. Perhaps some of them will have learned something.
In Germany, Firefox has a 61% market share, while IE has only 25%.
And a huge part of that is companies that are suffering from Microsoft lock-in. Seriously, when I see people's private computers, be it friends or people at the airport, etc. - it is probably 80% or more Firefox. In most of the companies, however, IE is still the corporate standard, and quite often the only allowed browser.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Have you noticed that Europe has a much bigger uptake of Linux, Firefox and in the older days Amiga?
I've often wondered if this is Europe being "open minded"....
I would love to be able to say the same about Australia...
AC
Really, selling online I've noticed that Europeans are terrible consumers. They don't listen well to our support staff, they immediately charge back if the service is not up to par, etc. etc. It's a hell dealing with Europeans.
If you're looking to make money, honestly, invest in US consumers first. Much easier to part them from their money and to convince them not to cancel/buy more.
So what you're saying is that we're less gullible and more demanding? Why thank you, that's really nice of you.
I'll let you get back to assraping ignorant 'merkins now ;-)
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Those sites should not make their ads annoying. Google text adds are fine most of the time, unless page has crapton of them. Discrete page fitting ads are fine as-well. But you cant really live without an ad blocker on today's web where certain ads scream at you and prevent you from focusing on the content. It's visual mostly, but some people still haven't gotten the memo about self playing voice adds being a bad thing...
Sites must find ways to profit. The mission of a browser (or any app) is providing the best user experience, and ad block is part of this. You cannot stop technology development and adoption just because some guys don't know how to make money.
But here in Germany we have more than enough problems with our costly health system. Politicians are trying to reform it for at least a decade, because a breakdown has been imminent for decades. So I don't think, it is an example of a good health care system.
>>>Do what is good for them? What a stupid, shit headed, arrogant faggoty cocksucker you are.
Ooops. My fault. I forgot my sarcastic tag. I was not being serious. Hence the reference to the Democrat Congresses' $950 fine to punish the People for not buying health insurance. Congress must force the People to do what is good for them.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Well it happens in the US, not just in healthcare but also schools. If I choose to attend a private hospital/school instead of the public variant, I must pay EXTRA money on top of the money I paid to the Uncle Sam monopoly. It's akin to if I decided to buy a Mac or Amiga computer, and yet still had to pay $1000/year to the Microsoft Monopoly.
Choice is not choice, if someone else controls the money.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
That's partly because the US sucks at regulating anti-competitive practices.
$ make available
So you are against taxation, not just national healthcare? That's what tax is - it's money to the Government, even if you don't personally benefit.
It's akin to if I decided to buy a Mac or Amiga computer, and yet still had to pay $1000/year to the Microsoft Monopoly.
Well no, Microsoft aren't the Government.
Yes, like the road system, and the fire service, and the military.
You can choose never to drive on the roads if you walk everywhere, but your taxes still pay for them since the society you live in requires certain things (like the ability for trucks to deliver things to the town you live in).
You may not directly consume the services you pay for with your "monopoly" taxes, but you surely are not foolish enough to think that no government is a better option, or a government that cannot levy taxes. Part of being in a society is that you can do a lot that helps everyone for a little input from the individual.
You can try to be isolationist if you like and live off the grid because you don't want a "monopoly" taking your money, but then don't complain to me when you can't get mail delivered to you, can't get food delivered to where you live, or electricity, or water, or education for your children. If your house catches fire, don't complain when the fire department doesn't show up to put it out, on the road that the state built, using water piped there via state-owned water pipes. Don't complain when then police don't attempt to recover your stolen car and instead tell the local private security firm you hired to look after your local community to do it.
A nation of 260 million individuals who solely looked out for number 1 would very quickly descend into chaos.
Also, your attempt to draw literal parallels between a monopoly position of a company and that of a tax is just amusing. The concepts are different, and you are being deliberately disingenuous. If you are genuinely serious, then I just feel sorry for you.