Chrome Hits 20% Share As IE Continues Slide

jbrodkin writes "Google Chrome's rise in popularity has been remarkably fast and it's just hit a new milestone: more than 20% of all browser usage, according to StatCounter. Chrome rose from only 2.8% in June 2009 to 20.7% worldwide in June 2011, while Microsoft's Internet Explorer fell from 59% to 44% in the same time frame. Firefox dropped only slightly in the past two years, from 30% to 28%. While other browser trackers show Chrome with a lower percentage, there's a reason: StatCounter tracks total surfing, not the number of users. It's the Web's power users who are pushing Chrome to new heights."

Comments

Re:Better than IE

[yuhong]

IE9 finally implemented DOM level 2 and otherwise change it to match other browsers. Previously the DOM has seen little change since IE5, which was good in 1999 but not so good now.

Re:Google Evil (beta)

[thegarbz]

Giving free advertising to Chrome on Google.com is borderline evil, too. Leverage of monopolistic powers and all.

Sigh this again.

Google search does not dictate the terms by which people use it to search the web.
Google search does not have the sole product in the market, and users are free to use any alternative at any time without reprise.
Google search does not have a lack of viable competitors.

These are the terms which define a monopoly. People choosing to use Google search does not make Google search a monopoly, and pimping their other products on their page is not even remotely anti-competitive.

Google have ONE product that is a monopoly and that is internet advertising. You can apply the above rules to see:
Google does dictate the terms by which people run advertisements in a non-negotiable way.
Google does not have the sole product in the market, but advertisers are not free to use alternatives due to a lack of customer base by the alternatives.
There is no viable alternative to Google's advertisements due to a lack of customer base by the alternatives.

This is a monopoly.

Re:Embracing a New Enemy

[Ash-Fox]

I find it sad that an audience who ran away from MS a decade ago is willing to embrace something so easily from an arguably much more sinister source.

Care to follow up with information on more sinister stuff than the Halloween documents, patent trolling and the numerous anti-competitive practices to lock out alternatives, as I am unable to find them in search.

I look forward to reading your sources.