Slashdot Mirror
Google Chrome Becomes World's No. 1 Browser
redletterdave writes "Just six months after Google Chrome eclipsed Mozilla's Firefox to become the world's second most popular Web browser, Chrome finally surpassed Microsoft's Internet Explorer on Sunday to become the most-used Web browser in the world, according to Statcounter. Since May 2011, Internet Explorer's global market share has been steadily decreasing from 43.9 percent to 31.4 percent of all worldwide users. In that time, Chrome has climbed from below 20 percent to nearly 32 percent of the market share. Yet, while Chrome is now the No. 1 browser in the world, it still lags behind Internet Explorer here in the U.S., but that will soon change. Chrome currently has 27.1 percent of the U.S. market share, compared to Internet Explorer's 30.9 percent, but IE is seeing significant drop-offs in usage while Chrome continues to rise."
It's superior to the other browsers in every way. Not surprised.
Like Chrome without the invasive EULA.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Statcounter just tracks requests. Google Chrome started using pre-loading pages, which artificially inflates page views.
Move along.
Rage against the machine, Mozilla.
The "Chrome effect" is the spike of internet trends that only happens on the weekends because geeks and other home-enthusiasts are using alternative browsers since there is no real restriction. What is the percentage of use during 9a-5p monday through friday? Looking at intra-week stats shows this heavily favors IE, or at least it has in the past. What is the trend for business adoption of alternative browsers?
I'm not sure what to think. I've wanted Microsoft to lose its dominance ever since it eclipsed Netscape browser in 1999, but to replace one evil company that abuses it users, with another evil company that spies on people, is like a pyrrhic victory.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
They game and spam other search engines
I clicked your link. I read the article you linked. It has nothing at all to do with the text you provided for it. O_o
:o
I can't tell if you accidentally linked the wrong article, or were doing a pretty clever gamble...
Good for Google and good for the web!
Their competitors (Mozilla) know they can't keep up with Google's advertising campaign. It's a shame that it hard to to get any sort of billboard or newspaper ad for Firefox.
At the moment the everything is competitive. But as you say, Google keep on introducing tags that only Chrome understands, I wish they would stop doing that and stick to ratified standard. Many web apps are only supporting Chrome only tags, your example was Angry Birds, mine will be Tweet Deck. Any others people can think of?
Advertising Internet Explorer, after all Microsoft has put us through with the previous versions, is like advertising for the garbage service. Anyone in the know who sees that blue E on TV must have a little bloop of bile come up into their throats. Microsoft is just REMINDING us techies to tell everyone to switch!
Can you please list some Chrome only tags? Are these tags Google created? Or are these HTML 5 tags that other browsers don't exactly support yet?
>>>they aggressively try to put Chrome on your computer if you install any other software from Google
How so?They install chrome w/o permission?
>>>they pay makers of Angry Birds to have Chrome-only HTML5
What??? It doesn't run on HTML5 Firefox or IE9? What error does it give you?
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Some of, but not all of, Chrome is open-source. You really want that transparency in a web browser these days. Use Chromium instead.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
BROWSERS: Do you adjust your browser stats for prerendering/pre-loading?
Two browsers are affected by preview-type requests - Chrome and Safari.
Chrome
Further to a significant number of user requests, we are now adjusting our browser stats to remove the effect of prerendering in Google Chrome. From 1 May 2012, prerendered pages (which are not actually viewed) are not included in our stats.
Some points to note:
Prerendering was announced by Chrome in June 2011. This change did not have any significant impact on our stats.
Chrome is currently allowing the detection of prerendering behavior via its Page Visibility API.
Google specifically states:
"Important: This is an experimental API and may change-or even be removed-in the future, especially as the Page Visibility API standard, which is an early draft, evolves."
This means that in the future it may not be possible to track/remove the effect of prerendering on Chrome.
If other browsers adopt prerendering then it may not be possible to track/remove the effect of prerendering on those browsers. In that case, the fairest solution would be to include all page views (prerendered or not) for all browsers rather than only excluding prerendering in Chrome. That scenario would require us to revisit this methodology change in the future.
Safari
The Top Sites feature in Safari shows preview thumbnails of frequently visited sites. These preview thumbnails are refreshed by Safari periodically. Unfortunately, it is not possible to exclude these previews from being tracked. To get a bit technical, this is because the "X-Purpose: preview" header is only sent with the request for the base page. The header is not sent as part of requests for images, CSS or JavaScript that have to be downloaded and executed as part of the Top Sites preview. With online web analytics (as provided by StatCounter) the relevant header information is not passed so these preview requests can't be detected and therefore can't be removed. Ideally Safari will change this to ensure to send the "X-Purpose: preview" header with all Top Sites HTTP requests, however this is not the case at present.
Where is the cake for Google, Microsoft?
You love to send one to Mozilla every so often, why not Google? Look at how far they have come! Isn't it amazing? Wittle Goog all growed up!
What? No cake policy? Aw, you're just no fun now.
These are the figures for visitors to a 250,000 visits a month site in the UK:
Internet Explorer 44%
Safari 20%
Chrome 17%
Firefox 13%
In any case, I'm not sure what 'choice' many visitors have. Some people get what their IT department installs, others stick with what is on (eg Mac/Safari or Windows/IE), others with what their familt IT support insists on.
Sorry, but it's not just because of marketing.
The fact is Chrome's a good browser, it moved the state of the web forward, and Chrome's win is well deserved.
In hindsight, Chrome's dropping of the menu was brilliant. I actually don't use 99% of the time.
Secondly, it's fast. It loads pages fast. It loads fast from a cold start. It loads a new tab fast. It loads a new window fast with Ctrl+n. Firefox is sluggish by comparison.
Thirdly, it doesn't have a propensity to crash. I don't bother quitting it if I want to restart it. I just kill it with xkill. I know that there won't be a problem (data corruption or whatever) when it starts up again. If there's some other problem (laptop battery down), it opens the tabs I had open if I tell it to.
By contrast, it's a joke how every time Firefox opens it has the "Well, this is embarrassing" tab ("We couldn't open the tabs you had open last time due to some error, etc.").
Fourth, there's the "senior moments". It's when the Firefox window goes gray in Ubuntu. Seems it happens randomly. Even little kids have picked up on that ("the internet's not working!"). No, Firefox is not working. Doesn't happen in Chrome/Chromium.
As for tracking, use Chromium and turn query completion off.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Still mainly a Safari (Mac) man myself, but I'm happy to see anything knock IE off its perch.
>>>tags that only Chrome understands, I wish they would stop doing that and stick to ratified standard.
Netscape/Mozilla did it when they were dominant. Microsoft did it too. Now it's google's turn.
BTW both those companies are good examples of how no monopoly lasts forever. New upstarts come-along and end the monopoly.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
I'm not sure what to think. I've wanted Microsoft to lose its dominance ever since it eclipsed Netscape browser in 1999, but to replace one evil company that abuses it users, with another evil company that spies on people, is like a pyrrhic victory.
My logic is to celebrate the contenders even if it's just more of the same corporations. Am I the only web developer that noticed that Internet Exploder started getting passably decent as Firefox & Chrome were breathing down their necks? I welcome any sort of race when before it was just the aborted full frontal lobotomy that is IE6 as a candidate.
Besides, roll your own chromium and kiss any privacy raping proprietary ties goodbye if you want (and without the loss of HTML5 support and standards).
My work here is dung.
Even supporting CISPA.
Read your own links. They haven't "supported the bill", they've "been supportive of finding the right language for the bill". As in, trying to fix it.
Nearly so. You can opt out if you find the checkbox hidden in a dark room in Alpha Centaury behind a warning of beware the leopard.
But they don't force people to actualy use it.
Rethinking email
Look, when I download a browser, it's becuase of the way I use it and Firefox works for me because of the way I work. When I'm researching something, I like to bookmark what I'm looking at and FF is best at that. Chrome/Chromium sucks at it and IE isn't on Linux. I then go back, a read and study my bookmarks. I then cull them - because let's face it; most of the web now is just advertisements and sales pitches - many of them disguised as "articles" - and the insulting thing is that those people think we're stupid enough to think they're real.
Anyway, I lock down my computer so that if some asshole is able to infect my machine via the browser, at least I can contain it. I also take precautions so that if I need to, I can nuke the box.
BUT, I wish to hell that FF on linux's spell check would work on Slashdot! FF's spell check sorks fine on Windoes but NOT on Linux, WTF? It's getting really annoying!!!
The reasons you give are anecdotal. It is just a better browser (especially better than IE).
The updater on the Mac ate my internet connection for my WiFi hotspot. It's fixed now, but it was really sucking down my bandwidth for a while.
And Google knows when you wipe your arse, what you did it with, and how much you paid the undocumented nanny, while you were distracted from child-rearing, by the arse-wiping task.
They are willing to sell this to bidders. Don't worry! It's only in the "Aggregate". ;-)
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
it weren't designed primarily as an advertising medium that optimises the browser as a vehicle for tracking users.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
I see a problem with StatCounter stats -- biased demography. StatCounter (in contrast to other players) is used predominantly by small to medium sites.
Now who is the most frequent visitor to a small or obscure site? The webmaster! They keep looking at their site many times every day.
Hence, most of the StatCounter stats are from the webmaster demography. I can assure you that webmasters are biased towards Google. That means that they are more likely to use Google browser.
If you use a stats source that is used only by the biggest players (a la microsoft.com), you will see totally different stats:
IE: 54.09%
Firefox: 20.20%
Chrome: 18.85%
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0&qpcustomd=0
they pay makers of Angry Birds to have Chrome-only HTML5 version of their game
make websites that purposely only work with Chrome
There is no such thing as "Chrome-only HTML5" - those sites are just HTML5, that will work with Chrome. The sites will also run on other browsers if they support HTML5; it's hardly Google's fault if other browsers do not support HTML5, is it?
They game and spam other search engines [zdnet.com] like Bing too.
Interesting article! Did you bother to read it? In fact, it's the complete opposite of trying to game and spam search engines:
Google has demoted its Chrome home page in results for a search using the keyword "browser" following an effort to have bloggers promote the Google browser that backfired. Now, there is no Chrome ad at the top of the results or link to the Chrome page anywhere on the first page of results on Google. It's ranked in position 50, according to Danny Sullivan of SearchEngineLand, which first reported this news.
Google's statement, according to SearchEngineLand, is:
"We've investigated and are taking manual action to demote www.google.com/chrome and lower the site's PageRank for a period of at least 60 days.We strive to enforce Google's webmaster guidelines consistently in order to provide better search results for users. While Google did not authorize this campaign, and we can find no remaining violations of our webmaster guidelines, we believe Google should be held to a higher standard, so we have taken stricter action than we would against a typical site."
You don't get to Chrome numbers by being a browser for geeks/enthusiasts. 95% of Chrome users are casual users like your parents. They come straight from IE after clicking on a Chrome ad, thinking their internet will get faster.
Don't get me wrong, I still think Chrome is a good browser and I'm glad people use it instead of IE, but without heavy marketing it would be nowhere.
The Netscape monopoly was overthrown by Microsoft being willing to lose great deals of money and depending on your outlook being willing to leverage another monopoly.
The IE monopoly might very well have lasted a lot longer with concerted effort and government support.
I'm not sure how those examples lead to sanguine confidence that technological lock in is no bid deal.
Do these statistics include the default browser on Android devices in the "Chrome" group? Otherwise I'm extremely surprised by them. I can't believe that there's more than a person installing Chrome for each one that uses a PC without knowing what a "browser" is (and therefore is an IE user).
Yeah and their add blocking plug-in really works good for FaceBook.
there were two eclipses yesterday.
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
Outside of government enforced monopolies, they aren't even bad. If everyone loves Nike shoes and nobody buys any other brand, Nike has a monopoly. Big deal. They can't suddenly start charging a thousand bucks per shoe. People will just buy substitutes. It's only when the government says "we only approve of this shoe, all others are illegal" that Nike can start acting uppity.
I would have loved it if it was Firefox that toppled IE but Chrome have really done some mind blowing shit lately esp with the V8 engine..so big ups to chrome P.S: if there are aliens watching, the human race wouldn't appear as retarded now
The article sez: Google was spamming its own results, but stopped when people called them on it.
No it doesn't. To quote:
Google's statement, according to SearchEngineLand, is:
"We've investigated and are taking manual action to demote www.google.com/chrome and lower the site's PageRank for a period of at least 60 days.We strive to enforce Google's webmaster guidelines consistently in order to provide better search results for users.
While Google did not authorize this campaign, and we can find no remaining violations of our webmaster guidelines, we believe Google should be held to a higher standard, so we have taken stricter action than we would against a typical site."
The demotion is a response to a campaign in which bloggers were found posting low-quality content related to Google Chrome in an effort to promote a Google video about King Arthur Flour. At least one of the posts had a hyperlink to the Chrome download page, which can help a site rise in Google search results through Google's PageRank algorithm. But paying people to include such links violates Google's guidelines.
"So far, only one page in the sponsored post campaign has been spotted with a 'straight' link that passed credit to the Chrome page," Sullivan writes. "It's also unlikely that the campaign overall was designed to build links. But my impression is that Google's deciding to penalize itself anyway with a PR reduction, to be safe."
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Let me introduce you to the top assholes at Google:
--
Say NO to the Google creeps!
In other words they want CISPA to pass so google can turn-over User data to the DHS without risk of being sued by the user. Google, like all the other companies, wants the language to specify immunity for themselves.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
I wonder how much these numbers are inflated by the 'also install google chrome!' horseshit bundling they do. I work on so many hundreds of machines where the client has chrome installed and doesn't even know what it is.
Chrome has now "sold out", and may only be used "ironically".
The current "hip" browser is now Lynx in an xterm window set to use Helvetica (it's "vintage"). Please adjust your usage accordingly.
BTW both those companies are good examples of how no monopoly lasts forever.
This argument always grates with me, as if the fact that no monopoly (or anything else in existence) lasts forever somehow makes it okay. Firstly, it can still last a *damn* long time and hold things back for a significant part of one's lifetime. Secondly, in a lot of these cases, one monopoly can be (and frequently is) replaced by another soon after- something that is often touched upon or even accepted by those making that argument, yet with the assumption that this is somehow okay and significantly better than a single, long-lived monopoly.
Well, it's not. The fact that a monopoly might eventually fall when one is old and grey, only to be replaced with another monopoly (yay!) is a piss-poor substitute for a proper balanced and free market.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Better font rendering, better Java compatibility, etc.
The stats for my website paint an entirely different picture. I have Chrome as the second lowest primary browser at 8% share, only beating Opera who is at 1%. Even Android devices beats out Chrome at 9%. The top three are IE (54%), Safari (15%), and Firefox (13%).
Granted it is an e-commerce website that has a largely non-technical audience; but then again the majority of users (in America, at least) seem to be non-technical anyways.
I'd be interested in seeing what the browser spread for other high traffic websites are.
Never saw this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-yzUfB2S9s
But saw some other versions on ITV and Channel4 channels.
The only point there was that working with the House to change the bill is not tantamount to formally supporting it. Any claim that it is would be objectively false. Speculate all you like, but without any supporting information on what changes they've made/recommended, you're only making things up.
Now I just need to remember where I put my knee high socks...
This signature intentionally left blank.
Why tags? How about Chrome Native Client the equivallent to ActiveX?
And why would I care about that?
Hey, shill, aka techLA, techNY, insightin140bytes, looks like your moderation on this post has something in common with ie market share. Straight down. Hahahahahahahahaha!
Do these numbers include or exclude Chromium? Btw, congratulations, Google!
So. If I make something really fucking cool that people all want then I suck?
Or am I evil?
Am I screwing over the market?
Being a monopoly is not a bad thing. Abusing monopoly powers is.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
I'm not a big fan of Chrome's UI. I use Chrome because more and more sites don't work with IE. Slashdot, ironicly, works with IE. Some finance sites are actually using MS stuff on the back end (scary) but strangely enough the scripts crap out in IE but work well with Chrome. The JavaScript seems like IE's weakest link. The Google PacMan doodle was the first thing I noticed that revealed a slow, leaky scripting engine. It seems like web developers have given up on IE users. It might have been driven by the desire to attract mobile users (who are known to spend more). MS hasn't lost the users, they've lost developers and users are following.
I know you are, but what am I?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Real hipsters use Gopher, and if you must use the web, telnet to port 80.
From TFA: "It seems like the only countries bolstering usage of Internet explorer, interestingly enough, are Asia and South America."
But last time I checked, the US was part of the world. So exclduing it from the count skews the numbers and therefore the conclusions. No MS fanboy, but I'm really sick of these so called stats that say one browser or another is number one. Seems to be once or twice a quarter these articles get posted on /. and none of them ever turn out to be without major flaws.
Well... it isn't chrome only, per se... but the way some of the browser functionality is set up makes it a PITA to support the different types of browsers. In order to develop for all browsers, you have to really check the user agent since somethings won't work in other browser implementations.
For example, I can code a site to utilize Mozilla's plugins, but then I also have to add code to support WebKit in order to get the same things to work on Safari/Chrome and also code to support IE9 for proper rendering of DOM and SVG objects.
It also helps that MS ties its browser to its own operating systems. As tablets and smart phones are used more and more to access the Internet and with so many of those devices running non MS operating systems, Internet Explorer market share will continue to fall. Four short years ago Windows had 95% market share. For 2012 it is at 85%.
The real danger for MS is that as more and more people become familiar with other operating systems like iOS and android they will eventually become more comfortable with the idea of a non-MS pc. If I were MS I would segregate my products and let each compete on its own on any OS. Even for businesses, there is a move to web apps and making sure they work on iOS and android so there is becoming less and less need for Windows (there are still a lot of businesses that need Windows but the trend is clear).
There is no such thing as "HTML5"
FTFY. It is a work in progress. Nothing called "HTML5" has been agreed upon by all parties.
those sites are just HTML5, that will work with Chrome
Because Google paid to have them work with Chrome. And since HTML5 isn't a standard, other browsers don't act exactly the same as Chrome, so it won't work quite the same. Not that it couldn't, if someone paid to have it developed for the other browser.
The sites will also run on other browsers if they support HTML5; it's hardly Google's fault if other browsers do not support HTML5, is it?
It's hardly other browsers' fault if Google decides to make Chrome slightly different, since there's no standard for HTML5 yet. Other browsers will support HTML5 once HTML5 actually exists. Right now it's a mish-mash of features that everyone calls "HTML5" but aren't standard across-the-board.
> How so?They install chrome w/o permission?
They have in the past, yes. For example, until Microsoft bought Skype, a default Skype install would install Chrome and make it your default browser. If you wanted to avoid that you had to jump through some hoops during the install.
How much money do you think Google paid Skype for that deal?
They have similar deals with Adobe (installing Flash will install Chrome too), some antivirus vendors (Kaspersky, say), and lots of other software distributors.
Welcome the the way business is done in the Googleplex.
> What??? It doesn't run on HTML5 Firefox or IE9?
Nope. It explicitly sniffs for WebKit and refuses to run on other browsers.
> What error does it give you?
"Your browser is not supported".
Well for the "make websites that purposely only work with Chrome" They are taking advantage that Chrome is very strong in supporting HTML5... Other browsers can support those features too, they just didn't yet.
And If the browsers did support those features do you expect Google to have a fit for other browsers using the Standard?
Googles fight with IE, is the fact that it is so far behind other browsers... Still... That supporting IE is hampering Googles style. That is why they made chrome, They needed a browser that supports the standards well. Not so much to corner the Browser Market but to be able to make its sites do what they want it to do... Then we get to use those standards and make better apps because of this. This is different then Microsoft or Netscape attempt to corner the browser market, where their goal was to be the company that made the standards to force other vendors to choose which browser they will support.
Companies Goals are to make money Giving Browsers away from free, cost the companies money. So you need to figure out what their profit motive for the effort.
For Microsoft they wanted to win the browser war and make IE as a platform to run Active X and pushing their .NET technologies. Give the browser for free make it popular try to keep all the developers using Microsoft Development schemes if possible, and make sure all the browsers are using Microsoft approved OS (most notably their own)
For Google their goal is to sell services and display adds, they don't need to lock you in to an OS or lock the developers in, it is in their best interest to maximize users and developers. To sell more services and display more adds, they need a wider group of people. To keep you using Google services, you need to be kept up to date on the browsers to get the new stuff available. Firefox was Ok, however I expect Google wanted priorities in the stuff that is supported, to match their product plans.
Netscape goal was to sell the browser, when IE came out for free, they had to give it for free and try to sell their other services such as their Web Server solutions... Part of Netscape's failure was they lost their business model, and couldn't compete with their other ones for more then a few years. As Netscape wasn't pushing Developer tools (as much) most developers went with Microsoft who had nicer output tools.
Opera was in the selling browser market. Their goal is to make a fast browser and they sell it to mostly mobile devices. Because of this they try to keep it fast and as standard compliment as possible, as to leverage their partners devices to keep them successful so they will buy their browser again.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I don't know why you were modded down. It's a valid point and as on-topic as most.
Being a monopoly isn't illegal or even wrong, on its own. It's any anti-competitive behavior that we usually have a problem with, legally and ethically.
Having some trouble finding the method these statistics are created. Isn't javascript a requirement to gather this information? If that is the case, wouldn't NoScript have quite an impact on the actual results with regards to FireFox? And for other browsers as well with similar capability.
Personally I don't enable the scripts for anything more than what is necessary.
So. If I make something really fucking cool that people all want then I suck?
That's both putting words in my mouth to the point of strawmanning *and* missing the point of what I was saying.
The point I was replying to (more in general than specifically to what the OP said) was the suggestion that monopolies are okay because they don't last forever, i.e. implicit in this is that monopolies would be a bad thing if they lasted forever, but they're don't, so that's okay. Which, as I pointed out, doesn't make it all okay at all.
However, since you raised the issue, I'd say that although they do have some advantages, I do not consider monopolies in general to be particularly desirable. Yes, I'm sure there are some "good" monopolies, but there are also a lot of bad ones. And when one company has dominance over the market, there is still the tendency for things to be have to be done according to their philosophy, even if they're acting entirely in good faith and not being "abusive".
And, of course, there is always the potential for a "good" monopoly (or one that is seen as good at one point) to turn bad- or be turned bad by new bosses or owners. Remember a few years back when Google was already dominating the market, yet also the darling of Slashdotters and could do no wrong? A few years on, the even-more-dominant Google, while not yet the "big bad", has lost the uncritical love of the fanbase due to increasing concerns over privacy and dominance issues.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
This is good news for all of us. MS has been slowing down development of open stardards like HTML5 to secure Windows monopoly. Open standards could mean open competition and that is something MS does not want to enable. If IE's share is small enough, MS has to support open standards to keep IE in game.
Of course no browser sould be strong enough to control the market but Chrome is open.
Except it's not like ActiveX at all as nacl is aggressively sand boxed and cross platform. But thanks for playing.
Why tags?
Well, because that's what GGP said:
But as you say, Google keep on introducing tags that only Chrome understands, I wish they would stop doing that and stick to ratified standard.
(emphasis added)
I'm not GP, but I'd also like to hear about these supposed Chrome-only tags -- I'd bet most of them are not only also found in chromium and other derivatives, but in other webkit-based browsers as well.
> those sites are just HTML5,
No, those sites are HTML5 plus some browser-specific additions, some of which are Chrome-only, some of which are WebKit-only, some of which are IE-only, some of which are Gecko-only, some of which are Firefox-only, etc.
> The sites will also run on other browsers if they
> support HTML5
Oh, really? Please try running http://getcrackin.angrybirds.com/ in a non-WebKit browser. The page relies on sniffing for a -webkit CSS property in a way that relies on a bug in WebKit's CSSOM implementation, and if that bug is not present of if that prefixed property is not supported, will just show you a "This game can only be played on Chrome" message and a "Download Chrome" button instead of just letting you play the damn game.
Of course if you change the source of your browser to duplicate the CSSOM bug and pretend to have support for that -webkit property, the game does work (especially well if you also add support for yet another non-standard CSS property, actually).
> it's hardly Google's fault if other browsers do not
> support HTML5
It's Google's fault if they push the idea that "Chrome" and "HTML5" are the same thing. It leads to sites like the one linked above and comments like yours....
Insofar as one can talk about "Google" as a monolithic entity anyway. Which is not very much, as evidenced by the quote you give. There are a number of distinct parts of Google that have pretty different goals (e.g. the people doing marketing and bundling deals for Chrome are pretty scummy, the Youtube folks want to build DRM support into HTML, the actual Chrome developers are pretty reasonable for the most part and not exactly always happy with the actions of other parts of Google).
Last I checked sound synth was still using Flash on Firefox.
But I think that's more a decision to use mp3 and not ogg.
Why tags? How about Chrome Native Client the equivallent to ActiveX?
Native Client is equivalent to ActiveX in the same way that Google's evil is equivalent to Microsoft's; only occasionally and mostly by accident.
I think Native Client is a bit of a misguided experiment. I worry that a sandbox implemented directly on so many different physical processors will have great difficulty being secure. However, it's not that they aren't aware of these worries and aren't trying to take them into account.
Every time that someone tries to say that "Microsoft is not as evil as they used to be" remember that they keep trying to add features from the above ActiveX list into their new ARM based Windows. Neither Apple nor Google will ever be as sneakily anti-customer, anti-consumer and anti-humanity as Microsoft is. Not even if their management specifically sets out to be.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Monopolies are not anything other than good.
The only times a monopoly is bad is when...
A) Government grants one.
B) Monopoly uses government to create regulations to hinder competition.
or
C) When government fails to protect the market from abusive monopolistic practices. (Which are already illegal.)
That is pretty much it. Other than those cases the ability for a monopoly to exists comes only from its ability to server its market extremely well.
There is nearly a monopoly in the search industry. Because Google did so well for so long. Now Microsoft is spending massively to become better.
This makes Google need to step up their own system to keep on top. This is good for us. Which ever way you go you get served better.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Monopolies are NOT illegal. I swear to god this is one of the most misunderstood facets of US law. The Sherman Anti-Trust law establishes one illegal act. This is for a Trust (a business with a monopoly on a sector of the economy) to use that Trust to gain another Trust in a second business. In other words, it's illegal for Microsoft who has a monopoly in Operating Systems to use that Monopoly to gain a Monopoly in Internet Browsers.
The Sherman Anti-Trust act came about because the large Trusts of the early 20th century used their Trust to gain control of other businesses. Carnegie used his Trust in Railroads to gain a trust in Steel and Coal. Rockefeller used is Trust in Oil to manipulate early Automobiles, plastics and the petrochemical industry. JP Morgan used is Banking Trust to basically screw everyone.
It's not illegal to have a Trust or to gain a Trust unless you already have a Trust that you are using to gain a second one. The Sherman Anti-Trust act has as a penalty for abuse of a Trust in that it allows the government to forcibly break up the business into smaller pieces (or leavy a fine and restrict the business), but if you never abuse the Trust you can't be punished under the Act. Admittedly it's hard for a Trust NOT to abuse the Trust to further their business but it's not illegal to have a Trust.
They are just uncomfortable with how brazenly the current wording spells it out.
The right move would be to come out against the bill. Why is that so hard for them?
Monopolies are not anything other than good. The only times a monopoly is bad is when...
The problem with saying something so ludicrously OTT like "monopolies are not anything other than good" is that you then sound like you're contradicting yourself in your next sentence. "Monopolies are generally good except when..." would have sounded more level, but would not have let you express your apparent love of monopolies(!)
Other than those cases the ability for a monopoly to exists comes only from its ability to server its market extremely well.
That's exceptionally naive. What about monopolies formed from companies intentionally buying out their competition (which doesn't even *have* to be done via "abusive practices")?
There is nearly a monopoly in the search industry. Because Google did so well for so long. Now Microsoft is spending massively to become better. This makes Google need to step up their own system to keep on top. This is good for us. Which ever way you go you get served better.
And what happens in situations where it would cost a massive amount of money to enter a market, and it still wouldn't be worth it because the monopolistic market leader was so far ahead and likely to remain there due to the network effect and/or economies of scale?
Facebook is bordering on this, Google+ has not proven to be a success so far despite probably being the most likely to topple them. Are Facebook being abusive in order to maintain their position?
If not, does this then make it desirable that I have no real choice if I wish to use a social network (the whole point being to use the one that everyone else uses) despite Facebook's laughably bad-faith approach to privacy?
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
You're burying the lead. A brand new, fresh install of Windows of any OS variation going to google.com will see a "get chrome" button. Not some hyperlink somewhere hidden, not some fudged search result, right on google.com itself. So....yeah. In fact, I think the wording is "Chrome: A better way to surf the web. Click here to get it" or something to that effect.
Also, I guarantee that offering the free angry birds app inside of Chrome as a plugin was 50% of their market share alone.
Used to be a monopoly was 60% of the market not 90% like MS...
I thought Microsoft's OS monopoly was forcing everyone to use IE by including it with Windows?
Oh yeah, what was the first thing i did on Windows 8 preview? Install Chrome, baby!
Another example: http://grouek.com/ctrlpaper/
Works fine in Firefox, say, if I spoof the UA as Chrome. Refuses to work otherwise, and not because Firefox doesn't implement WebGL or something. Just because it's sniffing specifically for Chrome. And again, Google encourages that.
That's exceptionally naive. What about monopolies formed from companies intentionally buying out their competition (which doesn't even *have* to be done via "abusive practices")?
What about them? Are they doing something wrong? If not....
And what happens in situations where it would cost a massive amount of money to enter a market, and it still wouldn't be worth it because the monopolistic market leader was so far ahead and likely to remain there due to the network effect and/or economies of scale?
What would you suggest? Dismantle the company before it can do anything wrong solely because it made the investment and succeeded?
Pour taxpayer funds to start a competitive company? Again. If they are serving the customer and not doing anything illegal then I am cool with it.
Facebook is bordering on this, Google+ has not proven to be a success so far despite probably being the most likely to topple them.
Not a crime. No problem here.
Are Facebook being abusive in order to maintain their position?
If they are being abusive then people can choose to stay or go. Facebook is not a need.
If not, does this then make it desirable that I have no real choice if I wish to use a social network (the whole point being to use the one that everyone else uses) despite Facebook's laughably bad-faith approach to privacy?
Yes. It is desirable. People can learn that there are alternatives. They can bite the bullet and drop out of Facebook. Those that do win back their freedom. Those that do not do not. If you move to a competitor you can get with like minded people. This is good. If your grandmother will not make the move then you can visit, call, snail mail. You know all those things we did before Facebook to maintain real relationships with those we needed to.
Those others are not nearly as important as you think. You relationships will improve or die out. All based on the effort you want to put into them.
As it should be.
But if you want to continue to use Facebook even though you know they are selling you out and you do it with open eyes then that sir, is fully on you.
A choice you make. Good or bad, your call.
But to break up and or destroy a company that many people (sheeple) seem to like because you can not gather the will to leave voluntarily is not and can not be the answer.
Slashdot sucks! Slashdot is the one I like them most though.
Government regulation of Slashdot must be what we need. To protect the people who have to post here but can not stand the way they have to post here.
See. Does not make much sense, does it?
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
You actually aren't helping it be understood well.
This is true only for astoundingly large values of "one".
A "trust" is not a business with a monopoly, but a particular form of combination of businesses (whether or not it forms a monopoly.) And the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (15 USC Sec. 1-7) itself (and, a fortiori, US antitrust law which includes but is not limited to the Sherman Act) makes illegal more than just leveraging an existing monopoly to monopolize another area of business. Particularly, the Sherman Act:
You can reasonably argue that Sec. 1 and Sec. 3(a) are the same "act", and that Sec. 2 and Sec. 3(b) are the same "act", which gets you two illegal acts under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. But you can't reasonably argue that there is only one illegal act created by the Sherman Act.
Also, the Sherman Act isn't the whole of US Antitrust Law, which also includes the Clayton Act (15 USC 12-27, 29 USC 52-53) and other provisions.
The Sherman Act does not actually specify (or limit) the remedies for violation, aside from the criminal fines, or even expressly make final equitable relief available (preliminary injunctions are specifically referred to in the Sherman Act.) The Clayton Act does expressly provide (and regulate) some equitable remedies available for violations of Antitrust laws (including the Sherman Act.)
Should they not promote their own products on their own pages? Should Apple include a link to Dell in its search results?
Yeah yeah, Google's a search engine used to find information on other sites, fuck off. That argument holds no weight and is complete bullshit. When I go to Dell's support site, I am looking for support results, but still get offers on other Dell products, same with Microsoft, same with Ubuntu, same with any other fucking company.
Google is under no obligation to hide their other products. Now, if they were spoofing the search results and spamming Chrome links in the results any time anyone searched for internet browser I'd agree with you. But they're not, they're putting a sparkly ad on their front page, and one ad in the Ads section on the main page. Big, fucking deal.
Keep on knockin'
https://robbiecrash.me
Native client is weakly cross architecture (in that Native Client exists on both ARM and Intel, but won't run the same binaries -- Portable Native Client aims to resolve that) and more strongly cross OS (in that it is supported on every OS Chrome is available on, and will run the same binaries on every OS using the same [ARM or Intel] architecture.) "Trying to become cross platform" implies that it isn't cross OS or cross architecture now, which is misleading.
Sniffing for WebKit doesn't make it Chrome-only.
By the way, there is a MAJOR reason why usage of Internet Explorer is falling: it lacks automatic spell check. I've read a lot of web browser users have switched to Firefox or Chrome in Windows XP/Vista/7 because IE 8.0 (Windows XP) and IE 9.0 (Vista/7) lack the ability to check spelling.
However, IE 10.0 for Windows 7 and 8 does include spell-checking for the first time, and that may dissuade a good number of users from using alternatives. And unlike IE 8.0 and 9.0, IE 10.0 is WAY more HTML 5.0 compliant, too.
>>>The IE monopoly might very well have lasted a lot longer with concerted effort and government support.
You accidentally hit the nail on the head. The only way for a monopoly to survive is via Government protectionism of said monopoly. (Example: Comcast in my county is protected by government grant of monopoly.) In a free market a monopoly will only last as long as it keeps customers happy, but if the monopoly abuses its customers, then they will flee to other alternatives.
Like how they fled from Microsoft Explorer to Google Chrome.
Or from Kmart (once THE dominant retail chain) to Walmart.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
What does it make it, for you? WebKit-only?
Note that it sniffs for WebKit and if it doesn't find it tells the user to go download Chrome.
So to prevent that, grab the number from:
http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/chromium-browser-snapshots/Win/LAST_CHANGE
and edit the following url replacing INSERT_NUMBER_HERE with that number:
http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/chromium-browser-snapshots/index.html?path=Win/INSERT_NUMBER_HERE/
You don't suck until you start cutting deals to have your product be the default included with everything, so they never find out something better is out there.
it works just fine for me in firefox.
Google+ fucked up by trying too hard.
I liked Buzz, it played to google's strengths (I always had a gmail window open for chat and email), and automatic tight communities (people I regularly chatted with). They should of slowly scaled it up, integrated with Picassa, etc.
Instead they dumped it, made something new, and tried to get everyone to switch. 30% tired it out, didn't want to go to yet another site, and staid with the 70% who didn't try it.
Facebook grew naturally, and destroyed Myspace over a long period of time, google fucked that up with google+, but I think Buzz could of done it.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
It has a long way to go....
1. Internet Explorer 27,966 34.69%
2. Safari 16,894 20.96%
3. Firefox 12,672 15.72%
4. Chrome 10,126 12.56%
5. Android Browser 7,185 8.91%
6. Mozilla Compatible Agent 3,232 4.01%
7. Mozilla 1,760 2.18%
8. Opera 313 0.39%
9. Opera Mini 177 0.22%
10. IE with Chrome Frame 107 0.13%
> What??? It doesn't run on HTML5 Firefox or IE9?
Nope. It explicitly sniffs for WebKit and refuses to run on other browsers.
Bullshit, chrome.angrybirds.com works perfectly on Firefox 12.0 on Linux x86_64.
A brand new, fresh install of Windows of any OS variation going to google.com will see a "get chrome" button.
The user will be using Internet Explorer because it was installed when Windows was. The home page will default to a Microsoft site like MSN or Bing then the user will have to navigate to Google (by actually typing something in), click on the Chrome is great button, download it and run it after accepting a warning that files from the internet my be dangerous. It is hard to argue Google has some kind of unfair advantage here. If people are actually clicking on what amounts to another ad it shows that they like Google.
More rambling by me To go even further the Internet Explorer icon doesn't get removed. Changing the default browser doesn't have much of an effect since most people are likely to get online by open the browser directly. Hmmm, I wonder how many people download Chrome and use it because it defaults to opening on Google's homepage. Given that most people don't know how to change their homepage I could see people opening Chrome just because they think it is a link straight to Google search and with IE they have to type it in each time.
I find that button to download Chrome highly offensive in my nice accessible Firefox browser. Google's search results are pretty easy to listen to in NVDA or any other screen reader, but Chrome itself is a nightmare. That button say's "Click me, and never listen to the web again!" Google's Android OS sucks for accessibility. Google Docs is another attack against the low-vision community. If Google were some no-name outfit, I'd cut them some slack, but as the #1 browser, #1 cloud document editor, #1 phone OS... at what point do we get to class-action law-suite these a-holes into submission?
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
You talk as if Google was practising Microsoft-style evil. It is not. Google Chrome source code is under either the LGPL or BSD, so other vendors can easily copy Chrome's extensions.
But did Google *pay* for Angry Birds to do that?
And what is your source for that Skype behaviour? A quick Google search found nothing.
Giving up IE, which is merely insecure, for Chrome which actively tracks you. Sigh.
In a post-webkit (and Opera!) world, there are plenty of other really great options out there, and I really think it is important that we push other browsers, other search engines, other blog services etc to prevent Google cementing their strangehold on virtually all facets of the online experience.
Go experiment with other search engines. Go try a different browser. Try living without google for a day. Because otherwise if they ever turn evil (whether or not they already are is open to debate), we're fucked.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
According to Google.
The gospel according to .....
Just like to point out something. I'm typing this on Firefox. Firefox is getting worse, but its still the best browser around. Ignoring proprietary joke ones, and ignoring Opera which failfailed, Firefox is still the only one that delivers everything you need. And that includes a Master Password and a Go button, Goog couldnt even goog that right.
> But did Google *pay* for Angry Birds to do that?
I have no idea what their contract, if any, with Angry Birds looked like.
But they have certainly been encouraging web developers to do just that, yes.
> And what is your source for that Skype behaviour?
Personal experience, for one thing. You can see a screenshot from the advanced install at http://people.mozilla.org/~khuey/skype-install-2011-10-3.png if you want.
As far as a Google search not finding anything.... https://www.google.com/search?q=skype+chrome+bundling shows http://www.webmasterworld.com/goog/4135280.htm and http://www.winrumors.com/skype-for-windows-updated-to-remove-google-product-bundling/ and http://mynetx.net/6494/skype-removes-google-integration
It also finds, not coincidentally, http://www.osnews.com/comments/25184 (do read the first response too!) and http://www.salsitasoft.com/2011/09/23/wonder-how-chrome-is-growing-market-share-ask-adobe/
A similar search on Bing also finds http://www.quora.com/Just-got-a-Skype-update-and-they-wanted-me-to-install-Chrome-Why
Adobe's (Omniture) Net Averages appears to roughly agree with those stats as of May. Those are aggregated stats from everybody that uses Adobe's web analytics, (some of the largest websites in the world).
Aside from Adobe, the only people that might have a better idea is somebody like Google or Facebook that pretty much everybody uses.
IE: 48.3%
Firefox: 19.4%
Chrome: 19.7%
Safari: 9.1%
That's old information. The version under development allows a portable representation.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
I'd give mod-points, but I'm not allowed since I posted. Totally fair to call them on that; shouldn't be the case.
Keep on knockin'
https://robbiecrash.me
They're forgeting to take into account the many other browsers out there that people use. I myself primarily use Lynx, but also have installed Midori, Arora, Opera, w3m, FireFox, and several others on this current machine. The Machine that sits behind me has AOL 6.0 which I often use just for amusement. With all of the tracking shit in Google Chrome, I don't use it. I radther go through the trouble of compiling a windows build of Chromium than to use Chrome.
Should they not promote their own products on their own pages? Should Apple include a link to Dell in its search results?
If they were truly secure about their position, worth, value, etc?
Damn right they would, with an itemized comparison.
Let their customers look at the shit Dell sells and prices, and compare it to Apple's quality products, and see what a value it is.
Replying to myself; I misread your (grandparents) comment. I don't totally agree that ARM+Intel=cross platform (what about MIPS and Power at least), but generally your comment was right.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
What's wrong with Scriptno? https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/oiigbmnaadbkfbmpbfijlflahbdbdgdf
Semantics is the gravity of abstraction
those sites are just HTML5
HTML5 is not yet a standard. It's still under development, largely by the various web giants competing with each other and implementing incompatible experiments. By the time HTML5 is standardized, nobody will use it because early prototypes of HTML6 will be the new hotness and the same story will repeat all over again.
If you want standards compliance, you have to build around HTML4.
It also helps that MS ties its browser to its own operating systems. As tablets and smart phones are used more and more to access the Internet and with so many of those devices running non MS operating systems, Internet Explorer market share will continue to fall. Four short years ago Windows had 95% market share. For 2012 it is at 85%. The real danger for MS is that as more and more people become familiar with other operating systems like iOS and android they will eventually become more comfortable with the idea of a non-MS pc. If I were MS I would segregate my products and let each compete on its own on any OS. Even for businesses, there is a move to web apps and making sure they work on iOS and android so there is becoming less and less need for Windows (there are still a lot of businesses that need Windows but the trend is clear).
Microsoft couldn't provide IE for iOS even if they wanted to, Apple doesn't allow alternative browsers on the platform (that are not just front-ends to the built in Safari engine, or as Opera Mini offloading the rendering/script engine to a server)
I've never even tried it, as far as I can remember. I am quite satisfied with Firefox and don't need another browser. Are there more people like me out there?
-- Cheers!
I always read the newspaper. On paper.
-- Cheers!
http://www.ie6-must-die.com/
Not sure why people have doubts it was inevitable as IE is a very poor browser compared to Chrome and Firefox.
Thank you for taking the time to supply me with the links.
I do, however, think you exaggerated a bit when saying "jump through some hoops".
Unchecking two checkboxes is not jumping through hoops.
Anyway, I still hope Chrome to eclipse MSIE; it is open-source (and under permissive licenses),
so other browsers can implement its features leading to a more advanced Web.
Regards
I realized that if anyone had, just five or six years ago, told me that KHTML would be the dominant rendering engine in 2012, I would have laughed at them until I turned blue.
You accidentally hit the nail on the head.
I'm confused. What government grant enabled the IE monopoly?
Nope. It explicitly sniffs for WebKit and refuses to run on other browsers.
Liar.
Works on Firefox.
> Unchecking two checkboxes is not jumping through
> hoops.
Last I installed Skype, you had to select the "Custom Install" option to even get to the part of the install process that had the checkboxes. If you did the default install, Chrome just got installed silently without ever asking you.
> Anyway, I still hope Chrome to eclipse MSIE; it is
> open-source
Except it's not. Large parts of it are open-source, but some pieces relevant to actually providing a good user experience are not.
And even the open-source parts are not under a license that allows, say, Microsoft or Opera to use the code.
And of course "open source" doesn't even mean the code is reusable: for example the Pepper implementation is open source, but very tightly coupled to Chrome's internals in ways that make it pretty much impossible for someone else to reuse.
Furthermore, Chrome is busy trying to push features like NaCl which would tie the web to particular hardware architectures if they actually gained traction. So Chrome dominance would be terrible for the evolution of the web, just like MSIE's dominance was terrible.
The best outcome here would be a 3-way or 4-way or 5-way (or more!) split in the market with approximately equal market share so that web developers actually code to standards instead of to particular browsers...
Cutting deals to have your product defaulted into something is good business practice.
There is such a thing as anti competitive behavior, but that is not it.
But do not let me stand in the way of your blinding hate.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
I've owned 2 Dell laptops and they are still working great. The one I'm using right now I've had for going on 3.5 years and I still don't need to update. It's still fast and smooth. The battery on the other hand is shit but that's my own fault for keeping it charged to 100% and never unplugging it. I pretty much killed it.
Dell desktop computers on the other hand I won't touch.
long story short, I'll buy a Dell laptop over an Apple laptop any day. #1 reason why.. Apple's over priced hardware. It's not worth it unless you have money to burn or need to appear as though you have money to burn but swim in debt.
Not this again...
Last time I was speccing a laptop (admittedly a few years ago now), I ran through the Dell site & configured something as close to the MacBook Pro I was using as my reference baseline, and the price of the comparable business-class Dell was only $50 less than that of the Mac. The Dell was also a nice machine, but it had less full software bundled (there was nothing like the iLife suite, for example), and lacked a couple of the hardware bells & whistles such as the backlit keyboard. Overall, though, it was basically a draw.
Now, I grant you that I could have started off with a specific Dell model instead, tried to find a matching Mac and simply not been able to find one, but that's a different issue. The Apple product matrix is much sparser, particularly as they don't target the low-priced end of the market, but like for like, Macs really aren't all that overpriced compared to the Dells.
No, its current information.
The version under development is under development, and the capacity you reference that is under development (Portable Native Client or PNaCl) was specifically addressed in GP.
Yes, if it sniffs for WebKit and only runs if it finds WebKit that makes it WebKit-only. I would think that would be fairly obvious.
Chrome is a proper subset of the set of all WebKit browsers, so something that is WebKit-only but does nothing to assure that it is running on Chrome beyond sniffing for WebKit isn't Chrome only.
That doesn't make it Chrome only. It makes it a WebKit-only app that recommends Chrome to non-WebKit-users that try to access it.
If you really care I can find you examples of Google encouraging truly Chrome-only pages (as in, sniff for "Chrome" in the UA).
But in any case, how is encouraging WebKit-only things any better than encouraging Chrome-only ones?
Other than those cases the ability for a monopoly to exists comes only from its ability to server its market extremely well.
That's exceptionally naive. What about monopolies formed from companies intentionally buying out their competition (which doesn't even *have* to be done via "abusive practices")?
What about them? Are they doing something wrong? If not....
You appear to have missed the point, which is strange as I had included your original quote to make the context clear. You asserted that "other than those cases the ability for a monopoly to exists comes only from its ability to server its market extremely well ". I provided a counterexample.
What would you suggest? Dismantle the company before it can do anything wrong solely because it made the investment and succeeded?
Pour taxpayer funds to start a competitive company? Again.
That was your suggestion not mine. I don't claim to have all the answers, but your assertion (as is often argued by those in your position) that anti-monopolistic actions are being taken *because* the company succeeded (or as some others have gone so far as to suggest, to punish them for this success) is missing the point. Regardless of how a company got there, the (potential) issue is that the company is a monopoly and in situations where that isn't desirable... it isn't desirable.
The opposite of the "punishment" argument is the sort-of-implication by some that companies should be allowed to retain their position- even if that would otherwise be considered not desirable- as some sort of reward for doing well, or pioneering or whatever. But viewing it in terms of punishment and prize, either way is missing the point.
If they are serving the customer and not doing anything illegal then I am cool with it.
By definition "illegal" doesn't say anything about the way things should or shouldn't be, only the way the existing laws are set up. Saying you're not bothered because they're not doing anything illegal or (later on) "not a crime" is somewhat circular and pointless(!)
There is nearly a monopoly in the search industry. Because Google did so well for so long. Now Microsoft is spending massively to become better. This makes Google need to step up their own system to keep on top. This is good for us. Which ever way you go you get served better.
And what happens in situations where it would cost a massive amount of money to enter a market, and it still wouldn't be worth it because the monopolistic market leader was so far ahead and likely to remain there due to the network effect and/or economies of scale? Facebook is bordering on this, Google+ has not proven to be a success so far despite probably being the most likely to topple them. Are Facebook being abusive in order to maintain their position?
Not a crime. No problem here.
Again, you appear to have missed the point. Your originally implied that if there's a monopoly (e.g. Google) then any potential competition (e.g. Microsoft) will up their game and work harder and "This is good for us. Which ever way you go you get served better."
I provided a counter-example.
If they are being abusive then people can choose to stay or go. Facebook is not a need.
This again is where you get naive. In a society where the majority of people are using Facebook, where social interaction increasingly takes place through Facebook, where not having or not using Facebook means that you are left out of important parts of interaction with that society (even in a non-work context) and placed at a disadvantage... where does one draw the line between a luxury and a need?
And yes, I *do* consider non-essential, non-work-related social interaction a "need" to some ext
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Last I installed Skype, you had to select the "Custom Install" option to even get to the part of the install process that had the checkboxes. If you did the default install, Chrome just got installed silently without ever asking you.
If that is true, it is indeed wrong. I hope it was a misunderstanding on Skype's side. I hope that Google did not do this intentionally. Or that the Google employee that did this is an exception to the rule of don't be evil. Anyway, it shows that we consumers must be constantly vigilant.
Except it's not. Large parts of it are open-source, but some pieces relevant to actually providing a good user experience are not.
AFAIK, chromium has an excellent user experience.
And even the open-source parts are not under a license that allows, say, Microsoft or Opera to use the code.
The Google-authored parts of Chromium (including V8) are under the BSD license, so Microsoft/Opera can use them at will. Webkit is under the LGPL, so Microsoft/Opera can incorporate parts of it under the reasonable condition of providing source code of the changes they did to the Webkit code (while their proprietary code remains closed).
Furthermore, Chrome is busy trying to push features like NaCl which would tie the web to particular hardware architectures if they actually gained traction. So Chrome dominance would be terrible for the evolution of the web, just like MSIE's dominance was terrible.
But NaCl is under a BSD-like license. And Google is busy developing Portable NaCl, which removes CPU architecture-lock-in.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Native_Client.
And when I said Chrome should eclipse MSIE, I didn't mean Chrome should reach 100% of market. Ideally (in my opinion) the market would be 34% Firefox (my preferred browser), 33% Chrome and 33% Opera.
Finally, I agree that Google is no saint; but I ask you to agree that it is not as evil as Microsoft. MSIE needs to die.
Monopolies are NOT illegal.
Yes, I'm well aware of this. The post of mine you were ostensibly replying to had nothing to do with that, mentioning nothing- not even by implication- about the current legality or illegality of monopolies... because that wasn't what was being discussed!
Quite why you chose to post the above in "response" then is unclear, as it's bordering on a non-sequiteur in the context of my original comment.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Its your argument that they are doing it. I don't really care one way or the other if you present evidence for it or not, though if you keep making it while presenting evidence that doesn't support it, I might keep pointing that out.
> AFAIK, chromium has an excellent user experience.
As long as you don't want the PDF viewer, or Flash, or the H.264 video, or the MP3 audio, or a few other goodies.
> But NaCl is under a BSD-like license.
I have heard people from Opera and Microsoft explicitly express concerns about the licensing of NaCl; whether it was copyright or patent issues I can't tell you.
> And Google is busy developing Portable NaCl
If they ever manage that (which is somewhat doubtful), we can revisit the situation. In the meantime, PNaCl is vaporware, and Google is pushing hard to get people to use NaCl.
> but I ask you to agree that it is not as evil as
> Microsoft
See, that's the funny thing. It's not as evil as Microsoft in 2000. It's just about as evil (in the browser space) as Microsoft today. More evil in some ways, less in others. Apple is more evil than both of them, of course. ;)
So no, I don't agree that MSIE needs to die in general. IE8 and earlier sure do, though.
http://grouek.com/ctrlpaper/ is a good example.
Google could pretty easily prevent this for its "chrome experiments" via a simple policy of requiring capability sniffing, not UA sniffing for them, the way other UAs do for branded demos. But they sure aren't doing that.
Chrome also gets views for every tab you have open. Because its more easy for every day users to open tons of tabs, I think thats one of the main reasons Chrome gets ahead.
Firefox has many tabs too, but is slower about it and less mainstream.
As long as you don't want the PDF viewer, or Flash, or the H.264 video, or the MP3 audio, or a few other goodies.
You can use any PDF plugin, and flash plugin is also available. Regarding MP3/H264: if there were strong demand
for them, Open Source developers would have already implemented it. Also, dropping MP3/H264 is arguably a
good thing.
I have heard people from Opera and Microsoft explicitly express concerns about the licensing of NaCl; whether it was copyright or patent issues I can't tell you.
I would thank if you provided links.
If they ever manage that (which is somewhat doubtful), we can revisit the situation. In the meantime, PNaCl is vaporware, and Google is pushing hard to get people to use NaCl.
I read nativeclient.googlecode.com/svn/data/site/pnacl.pdf and it seems that PNaCl is well within the reach of Google and LLVM. And the creation of optimised portable bitcode will benefit the whole software market. And PNaCl seems very active - http://code.google.com/feeds/p/nativeclient/issueupdates/basic.
As for Google pushing hard, it may be a good thing. This will showcase the superiority of Chrome, helping make it more popular. And we need Chrome to be very popular by late 2012, when Microsoft will launch Windows 8. Microsoft wants to lock WIndows 8 to MSIE, which could be a disaster. But if Chrome is popular by late 2012, then it will be in Microsoft's best interest to support Chrome.
I still want MSIE to die. One of the reasons for my hate is that I find it outrageous that a clearly inferior product is used only because it comes bundled with Windows.
And I am sorry for the bad English. I typed in a hurry and English is my second language.
Everyone who ate carrots between 1895 and 1897 is dead. Therefore carrots are 100% fatal. Take the blue pill.
> if there were strong demand for them, Open
> Source developers would have already
> implemented it.
Oh, it's implemented. It just can't be legally shipped.
> I would thank if you provided links.
I said "heard". As in, people talking, with their mouths. So no links, sadly, sorry.
> and it seems that PNaCl is well within the reach of
> Google and LLVM
Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on how you define "within reach". And in particular, there is a good chance that by the time it's portable enough it'll be no faster than JavaScript in most cases.
> This will showcase the superiority of Chrome
Assuming you accept the proposition that Chrome is superior, of course.
> Microsoft wants to lock WIndows 8 to MSIE, which
> could be a disaster.
Sure. Just like Apple locking iPhone to Mobile Safari could be a disaster. But the latter hasn't happened yet, and the former is not necessarily going to happen.
Furthermore, having Windows 8 limited to "MSIE or Chrome" is just as much of a disaster as having it be just "MSIE", in my opinion.
And for what it's worth, for a lot my browsing on Windows (which is somewhat limited; I don't usually use Windows) IE9 is a much better browser than Chrome. So while I agree that old IE versions need to die, that has no bearing on Windows 8, which won't be running those old IE versions.
Dear Microsoft, Please step up your game. I will eagerly await Microsoft Browsing Essentials.
I really have no idea what you want.
You seem to believe that monopolies are inherently bad due to the fact that they can be abused.
You have no suggestion for what to do about it. Just a blanket statement that because of the potential for abuse monopolies are bad.
Drugs are not bad, Guns are not bad, Money is not evil, Power is not a thing to be avoided, Love is not for all intents and purposes "a bad idea".
All can be and have been used against people in horrible ways.
I would like to be able to get the drugs I think I need, buy the guns I want, make a shitload of money, have a bit of power and continue to be in love with my wife.
I am not evil, but I must add that I would love to come up with an idea and implement it so well that every time someone thinks of a way to make it better I am already one step ahead. I would love to be the only viable company providing this service or product.
I see nothing wrong with striving toward these goal and neither I think should you.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
No, nothing on that site is an example of Google encouraging anything, except demonstrations of web technologies that work in Chrome, independently of whether they are Chrome-only or not.
Arguably so, but there is a big giant excluded middle between "preventing" and "encouraging"; absence of the former is not the same as the latter.
Please provide evidence that other UA's require capability sniffing for branded demos. I can't, on a very cursory examination, see any. For instance, Mozilla DemoStudio's only firm requirements appear to be providing source code under an open license, packaging in a zip file and certain file organization requirements in that file, and using client-side technologies. Supporting multiple browsers is a "should", and there is no stated requirement or recommendation regarding UA and/or capability sniffing.
I still disagree, but I fear I am wasting your time.
Only on Slashdot would two nerds discuss whether or nod MSIE needs to die.
Regards
> but there is a big giant excluded middle between
> "preventing" and "encouraging"
Sure. I've encountered Google evangelists "encouraging" as well. No links, sadly: this was in-person conversation.
> Please provide evidence that other UA's require
> capability sniffing for branded demos
I've seen demos that were using UA sniffing taken down by other UA vendors before. It's hard to provide evidence that something has been removed, obviously...
If only Google would figure out how to hire some decent usability analysts. E.g. Chrome's bookmark manager has a search function that won't what? It won't search the names of the folders you create only the bookmarks themselves. Duh? Hello! WTF is wrong with them in Mountain View?
Social Credit would solve everything...
They have similar deals with Adobe (installing Flash will install Chrome too)
Brilliant marketing partnership, considering Chrome didn't even run Flash in a stable fashion the last time I could be bothered to tolerate the pain of Chrome use half a year ago
most of the people i know, have various plugins like noscript, adblock and others, making js statistics collection from firefox impossible
This isn't reflected in our stats :
1. Microsoft 50.7%
2. Google 23.2%
3. Mozilla 17.9%
This is on a large UK based newspaper site.
So, you are asking us to believe, with no evidence beside your word, that browser vendor demo sites that have posted rules on submissions also have secret rules prohibiting UA sniffing, that they don't announce (when announcing those rules would, unlike keeping them secret, actually encourage demo developers to build demos accordingly.)
I'm not asking you to believe anything. I'm providing you with information. You can choose what you want to do with it.
You can also choose to think that Google can do no evil, if you want. Nothing wrong with hope and all that.
I really have no idea what you want.
*I* started out by pointing out the flaw in the "monopolies don't last forever, therefore monopolies aren't a problem". You were the one who brought up the issue of monopoly legality and other issues in your reply that weren't directly relevant to my original post, and now you're complaining that *I* don't have all the answers?!
I do know what you want apparently- you want us all to accept that "monopolies are not anything other than good" (even though you yourself had to qualify this assertion immediately after you made it(!)).
I would love to be the only viable company providing this service or product.
Well, maybe you would. Of course, if you were the only "viable" company, then there would be no competition and nothing pushing you to stay "one step ahead".
I see nothing wrong with striving toward these goal and neither I think should you.
You're telling me how I *should* think about your desire to be a monopolist? This does come across as a little preachy and egotistical.
My feelings towards capitalism is that it works best when it's not tied down too much (giving it no reason to make the effort nor space to make the effort it)- but also when it's not allowed to run amok with no check on its own self-interest. I don't trust anyone that far, even if *they* think (or claim) that they're entirely benevolant.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
DragonWriter, you might want to know the person you are talking to is Boris Zbarsky - a lead Mozilla developer for over a decade, member of multiple W3C working groups and generally one of the smartest and most respected figures in the industry. So yeah, I do think you can trust him :)
I think that Google can do evil.
I also think that people who want to say that Google is doing evil ought to substantiate those claims. And, particularly in the immediate case, that some claiming that Google is doing evil by failing to adopt a policy that requires capability sniffing instead of UA sniffing for browser demos when supposedly there is some undefined group of other major browser vendors (which narrows the options down quite a bit) that, as a matter of policy, require capability sniffing instead of UA sniffing for a browser demo site analogous to Google's Chrome experiments site ought to be be able to point to evidence of other major browser vendors that do, in fact, have such a site with that requirement.
Well, maybe you would. Of course, if you were the only "viable" company, then there would be no competition and nothing pushing you to stay "one step ahead"./quote?
History is filled the the dying remains of companies and countries that rested on their laurels.
If you do not stay one step ahead you create room for a competitor. When there is room for one someone else who wants to make it big will show up. They always do.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?