Slashdot Mirror


Chrome Overtakes Internet Explorer For Most Popular Desktop Browser (thurrott.com)

Google Chrome is now the most widely used desktop browser. According to the latest figures from marketing and research firm Net Applications (which looked into data from over 40,000 websites), in April, Chrome captured 41.66 percent of the market, surpassing Internet Explorer which now sits at 41.35 percent. Brad Sams writes:This growth by Chrome should not be too surprising as Microsoft has left Internet Explorer behind for Edge but unfortunately, the Edge browser available to the vast majority of Windows 10 users is a sub-par experience as it lacks basic features like extensions. This is a big milestone for Google as their browser faced and uphill battle against Internet Explorer when it was introduced back in 2008.Also read: Windows Desktop Market Share Drops Below 90%

126 comments

  1. On the bright side by Locke2005 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Internet Explorer is STILL the most popular browser used to download Chrome so that you can install it! (But Edge is gaining...)

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:On the bright side by npslider · · Score: 2

      Well, if Microsoft can't produce a good browser, it makes sense to switch strategies and build the best free Chrome installer on the planet. Millions of customers smoothly directed to Google is better than nothing!

    2. Re:On the bright side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Internet Explorer is STILL the most popular browser used to download Chrome so that you can install it! (But Edge is gaining...)

      At least IE is good for something. Back in the Win 9x days we would call it "Aiiiieeeee!" because of how insecure and terrible it was.

      Chrome is far better in terms of features, stability, and security. Though given the history of Microsoft browsers, that isn't saying much. Too bad I consider Chrome to be spyware. I really, really don't like anything that phones home. Much of the tracking "features" are optional, some are not. Chromium isn't bad but I still don't like the Chrome-ish interface. Yes there are extensions for Chrome (including a good ad blocker) but nothing like what you can get with Firefox.

      What I really want: a multi-process Firefox, compatible with currently available extensions, that's just a web browser. With something like the old Firefox interface, with useful status bars and everything, before it decided to imitate Chrome. If I wanted Chrome-ish I would use Chromium for my main browser - why Mozilla can't understand that is a mystery to me. If Mozilla did all of this, they'd give Chrome and everybody else some serious competition again.

      By "just a web browser" I mean I also don't want RTC or any of that other bullshit that's not relevant to web browsing. If I want a chat program I'll pick one myself based on merit, not bundling. If I really wanted RTC, it should be a plug-in or extension so I can pick the implementation I like best.

    3. Re:On the bright side by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Leather seats. Don't forget, you want leather seats. Heated too. But you don't want the floor mats bundled. Give me the Lexus for free separately and the floor mats for free separately. Want to mix and match.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    4. Re:On the bright side by webguyPF · · Score: 2

      Congratulations Google on duping naive Windows users into downloading your spyware and setting it as their default browser, when they update Flash. How else do they become the number one browser? The differences between browsers are not enough for most people to care about. Firefox and Chrome both have plenty of extensions. One has a mission of privacy and open internet. One is a corporation whose stated mission is to steal your personal information

    5. Re:On the bright side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Leather seats. Don't forget, you want leather seats. Heated too. But you don't want the floor mats bundled. Give me the Lexus for free separately and the floor mats for free separately. Want to mix and match.

      Since you come across as such a douchebag*, you might consider becoming high level management in control of either Chrome or Mozilla. Preferably Mozilla, since lately they really enjoy making changes that are not desired by their userbase.

      * A non-shitstain would give a response along the lines of, "here's something closer to your stated preferences, you can download it [here]", or "here's an add-on/extension that's a little more like what you want", or "such-and-such tried that but didn't get enough support, but they take donations over here".

    6. Re:On the bright side by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      Of course, the world owes you that, right Your Highness? or you want a choice between Your Majesty, Your Royal Highness and Your Excellency?

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    7. Re: On the bright side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are coming off as a smug little prick. He never asked for anything off the wall. He said he wants his browser to do one thing and one thing really well, and that's, browse the web. sHOCKER.

      You must work for Mozilla or
      Something because you have the same condescending tone as they always do when discussing issues. Maybe that's why Mozilla lost all its steam. The same shitty attitude you have they always display.

      It's either you are wrong we are right or, we don't need that feature because WE don't use it. It's always about them and what they want. Never about the user or what they may want.

      TLDR: you are a fucking condescending prick.

  2. Netcraft confirms it by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2, Informative

    Firefox is dead.

    1. Re: Netcraft confirms it by Redbehrend · · Score: 1, Troll

      Over the past month so many exploits have come out I dunno how it's still even used, now they are going to use chrome base (They tapped out) so yea it's pretty dead lol

    2. Re:Netcraft confirms it by denis-The-menace · · Score: 0, Troll

      Mozilla is no longer chasing users or market share.

      Mozilla is chasing sponsorship $'s from third parties. (e.g. Pocket)

      Once Mozilla has exhausted this dubious source of $, they will sellout to a spyware provider; members of the board will each get a cut of the sale and dissolve Mozilla.

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    3. Re:Netcraft confirms it by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Too bad. I hate to see the main browsers controlled by conglomerates with records of being anti-competitive and playing games with privacy.

      Firefox could clean up its UI act and market itself as the anti-corporate choice. People might care about it again. Tap into the vibrant Bernie Sanders crowd.

    4. Re:Netcraft confirms it by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

      Firefox could clean up its UI act and market itself as the anti-corporate choice. People might care about it again. Tap into the vibrant Bernie Sanders crowd.

      Fair enough... but how do you make money with that plan?

    5. Re:Netcraft confirms it by irrational_design · · Score: 1

      This makes me sad. Competition is always a good thing. It would suck for Android if iOS went away (I don't consider MS Windows Mobile to be much of a competitor). It would suck for Chrome if Firefox went away (I don't consider MS IE/Edge to be much of a competitor).

    6. Re:Netcraft confirms it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit.

    7. Re:Netcraft confirms it by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Tips for (legally) screwing with that Pocket gizmo to give Mozilla headaches? Let's punish stupidity.

    8. Re:Netcraft confirms it by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      >> I hate to see the main browsers controlled by conglomerates with records of being anti-competitive and playing games with privacy

      You realize that conglomerates develop browsers for exactly this reason: they want to control and track eyeballs with a degree of lock-in that prevents competitors from getting a foothold. It's been that way for 20 years now.

      FWIW, many people's main browser for news, events and other web browsing these days isn't even a "browser" - it's the Facebook app on their phone.

    9. Re:Netcraft confirms it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citations please? Last I checked, their deal with Pocket wasn't exactly a significant windfall, it was just a convenient way to save time and money to get that feature into Firefox.

    10. Re:Netcraft confirms it by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      Y'know, that sounds about like when they got started, what with NutScrape dying and freed up the code to become Mozilla/FF. They were even the anti-corporate choice for a while. So yeah, this story feels real familiar.

      --
      C|N>K
    11. Re:Netcraft confirms it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And non-profits still have to have revenue in order to pay employees. Yes, yes, open source and all that jazz, but even the majority of fulltime people working on the linux kernel are paid by business/corporations to do so.

    12. Re:Netcraft confirms it by Merk42 · · Score: 2

      Mozilla is no longer chasing users or market share.

      Mozilla is chasing sponsorship $'s from third parties. (e.g. Pocket)

      Once Mozilla has exhausted this dubious source of $, they will sellout to a spyware provider; members of the board will each get a cut of the sale and dissolve Mozilla.

      As opposed to Chrome and IE that get it directly from Google and Microsoft respectively.
      How exactly should Mozilla pay their employees?

    13. Re:Netcraft confirms it by Junta · · Score: 2

      Right, but the general Linux ecosystem isn't as tightly controlled by a single entity.

      Sure IBM, RedHat, Canonical, attachmate, Google, Microsoft, amazon, and everyone else in the world is paying for development, but none of them has the ability to unilaterally make a move in the general ecosystem.

      In Firefox, it's monolithic, and they don't have any volunteers. In fact, in web technology the major players who care about the browser all did 'NIH' and rolled their own rendering engine and javascript runtime, rather than collaborating.

      As a major runtime environment, the webbrowser is very tightly controlled. Chromium won't do anything Google doesn't want it to, Firefox markets itself as a free ecosystem, but has monolithic development and management. Those are the only two prominent open source endeavors that have any remotely significant footprint.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    14. Re:Netcraft confirms it by Rudisaurus · · Score: 1

      Oh well, there's always Pale Moon

      --
      licet differant, aequabitur
    15. Re:Netcraft confirms it by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      UI, performance, standards compliance.
      There is no love for second best.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    16. Re:Netcraft confirms it by Rob+Y. · · Score: 2

      I just switched back to Firefox from Chrome on Linux Mint, because Chrome has developed a nasty habit of blanking and refreshing pages (and scrolling you back to the top) that renders it unusable. This has persisted for months through several Chrome updates. And yes, I've tried disabling all my extensions and hardware acceleration. Of course, I used Firefox for years, but on Linux, it has the nasty habit of blocking during connects to a new page - during which time the whole app becomes unresponsive. Chrome, for a while, looked like the best 'same experience everywhere' browser, but it's not without its problems.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    17. Re:Netcraft confirms it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are chasing users - chasing them away!

    18. Re:Netcraft confirms it by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      FWIW, many people's main browser for news, events and other web browsing these days isn't even a "browser" - it's the Facebook app on their phone

      I see it everyday here, on the bus to my work and back home: sad, but true...

    19. Re:Netcraft confirms it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>Tap into the vibrant Bernie Sanders crowd.

      >how do you make money with that plan?

      Just take 90% of everyone's stuff.

    20. Re:Netcraft confirms it by fbobraga · · Score: 1

      but, but, I still use it...

    21. Re:Netcraft confirms it by KGIII · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Have you seen what some of their employees do? Do they really need half of those people? Do they need dozens of evangelists? Does a non-profit need a director of diversity or whatever that title was that was brought up the other day? No - really. Do they need one of those? How much are these people making? It's a non-profit. They should be making a browser and, I guess, an email client. There. Done. They should be damned good versions, all told.

      That said - try the "Aurora." It's their special dev build. It's not the dev tools - it's their special dev build. It's not even installed, I just load the binary from a folder. It even updates like that. I stuck some binaries around and made shortcuts and made an alias so that I can load it. Oh wow...

      I've not been a fan of Firefox for years - but I've always tried to be supportive. Even my first paragraph is me being supportive. Whatever they're doing with the Aurora version? Do that. Stop with the crap. Stop with the social statements. Make a browser. Make it good. Done. They don't need evangelists, they're a non-profit browser company. They don't need diversity - they need skilled people who will do their job.

      Seriously, write a browser and keep Thunderbird. Thunderbird and Aurora are the only two good things they have right now. Aurora, by the way, is awesome. The dev tools are great but it's still great as a browser. It is not my default but it's almost good enough to be my default.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    22. Re:Netcraft confirms it by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      Let's say they reduce their staff down to what you deem necessary, the question still stands:
      How exactly should Mozilla pay their employees?

    23. Re:Netcraft confirms it by NotInHere · · Score: 1

      Right, but the general Linux ecosystem isn't as tightly controlled by a single entity.

      The only two relevant ways Linux gets used as of now is Linux/Android and Linux/systemd. While Linux itself is not controlled by a single entity, Android and systemd are.

    24. Re:Netcraft confirms it by NotInHere · · Score: 2

      You realize that facebook built that app for exactly this reason. They want to murder the openness of the internet, and make money with that. Not really enough yet to replace good old MS as no #1 evil us tech corp, but still a big deal.

    25. Re:Netcraft confirms it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      god you're dumb

    26. Re:Netcraft confirms it by sootman · · Score: 1

      > Firefox could clean up its UI act

      Oh, but they've done that. Several times!

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    27. Re:Netcraft confirms it by markdavis · · Score: 1

      >Firefox is dead.

      No, Firefox is not dead. It is the only major, multiplatform, open source, open standards, and fully openly developed browser. Chromium almost makes the mark, except it doesn't build well for many Linux distros.... and since it is lock-step with Chrome, even though it might not contain as many [unacceptable] Google ties, it can't really be said it is openly developed. It is also hostile to customization and hostile to centralized configuration.

      If Firefox is dead, so are all hopes for a non corporately-controlled browser. Chrome might be nice for some people, but it is a binary, with god-knows-what stuff in it. It is a privacy and backdoor nightmare and can change to be anything Google wants it to be in a heartbeat (and without anyone knowing). VERY BAD for everyone. I tend to think that none of us really want to trade a horrible, corporate-controlled, monoculture called IE with another one called Chrome.

      Indeed Mozilla/Firefox has issues- and they need to address them quickly. STOP TRYING TO BE CHROME is the most important thing of all. There is already a Chrome, and countless Firefox users have been pissed off at what Mozilla has been doing to it for years now. STOP TAKING AWAY USEFUL FEATURES. STOP DUMBING DOWN THE UI!!! STOP ADDING IN THINGS NOT RELATED TO WEB BROWSING!

    28. Re:Netcraft confirms it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, you might not see any value in their other initiatives, but Mozilla aren't just here to please you. They have always done more than just make a browser and email client, and it would actually be a loss to us all if that's all that they did. Without Mozilla's other work the web would be a worse place, and if you think everything is as simple as you boil it down to, then I strongly encourage you to join Mozilla and prove your management skills. It's easy to talk big, until you actually try to do what Mozilla has been doing. It took the world's biggest tech firm to give us a better browser than Firefox, and to finally beat Microsoft's browser. The fact that Firefox came close in the face of their opposition, and yet still does so many other things, is not something to balk at.

    29. Re:Netcraft confirms it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already are the anti-corporate choice, and everyone knows it. And every time they try to change their UI, people tell them off. Their userbase dislikes change, and other people have no real insight to offer that Mozilla hasn't already been doing. On top of that, nobody's paying attention one way or the other, because nobody really cares about Mozilla or Firefox anymore, just some vague sugar-coated notion of what they think Mozilla should have been all along.

    30. Re:Netcraft confirms it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yes ,of course we all know that you are doing it much better, I can't way to try the browser you are going to built, I'm sure we all be able to trust you will protect our privacy and not sell out for profit

    31. Re: Netcraft confirms it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. When the search engine's default links for popular FOSS software points directly to malware versions (**** you, Yahoo), Firefox has sold out. Rubbish. Free web my @$$.

    32. Re:Netcraft confirms it by mcswell · · Score: 1

      It seems to still be running on my computer. And maybe I'll switch to Chrome when they put a real menu on it. (In Windows. I understand that in the MacOS, it does have a real menu.)

      Actually, Vivaldi looks pretty good.

    33. Re:Netcraft confirms it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would pay $20 a year for a good, end user centric, privacy centric, standards compliant browser. Mozilla is wasteful with their resources and have gotten off the path that Phoenix started down.

    34. Re: Netcraft confirms it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same way other non profits do I'm assuming. They aren't the first non profits company. And if they are having trouble paying employees then why not fire some of that dead weight at the top.

      Nahhhh that makes to much sense. We need more SJW to run this company. It's the only way. :/

    35. Re: Netcraft confirms it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation please. What have they done that has been game changing or whatever it is you think they are doing?

      All I found was this: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Mozilla_on_GitHub

      And guess what, 75% of
      Those projects, noones ever heard of, used, and/or most are discontinued/left for dead.

      Oh but I do see rust and servo. They are
      The future of course. Ask any hipster. Rust is bug free. And servo is the future of all web browsing rendering engines.

    36. Re:Netcraft confirms it by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Their userbase dislikes change

      It's not change that's the problem, it's change for change's sake alone. If they had a GOOD reason to change, that's fine. Most of their changes appear to be random shuffling to most users. The purpose and logic, if any, is lost.

  3. Or it's a net gain as I don't want extensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seriously, it seems like half of them just exist to do the same thing, and the rest are security holes.

    1. Re:Or it's a net gain as I don't want extensions by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      Good for you if you like ads. I don't.

    2. Re:Or it's a net gain as I don't want extensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a LOT of slashdotters and geek types don't understand is that, for most users, less really is more.

      For most internet users the browser represents the largest effective attack surface and securing it as much as possible will make them the most safe. So much malware targets browsers for good reason and forcing chrome to only allow signed apps from known trusted sources has been one of the best things I've encountered when it comes to securing end user's systems. SO much adware and malware used to drop shit extensions and plug-ins in to the browser and would make the thing unusable.

      Lock that shit down. If you want your flexible geek stuff go get one of the chromium based projects. You can have your chrome and eat it too.

      I manage some public access systems used for job search and one of the things I do is use a GPO to force Chrome (Enterprise version of chrome supports group policy) in to incognito mode. Why? Well one because it leaves no persistent information on the system once the browser closes.. And two because incognito mode disables all extensions by default. Just less to worry about. (The systems are also actually thin clients connecting up to a VDI host. Upon logout all changes are discarded and a fresh system image is loaded. That way no persistent user information or malware can remain)

    3. Re:Or it's a net gain as I don't want extensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I shouldn't need an extension to deal with advertisements.

    4. Re:Or it's a net gain as I don't want extensions by danbob999 · · Score: 1

      But unfortunately, it's still the best way to deal with them.
      I prefer extensions than forced unwanted features such as Hello and Pocket.

    5. Re:Or it's a net gain as I don't want extensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course you shouldn't, but that's the way it is. The only browser I've ever used with built-in adblock was Konqueror.

    6. Re:Or it's a net gain as I don't want extensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use like 2 extensions, adblock for the ad over-loaded websites, and IPvFoo so can see if I'm connecting to websites over IPv4, or IPv6.

      I ran on Firefox for a while, but its syncing sucks and its slow, the other plus about Chrome is Flash is built in, so no need to install it.

  4. Chrome + IE Tab addon by OffTheLip · · Score: 1

    For the few sites that prefer IE, IE Tab completes the deal for me. Occasionally use Firefox but it seems slow in comparison to Chrome. Win7 OS as basis for my observations.

  5. Chrome has done me well by npslider · · Score: 1

    I have enjoyed Chrome since I switched to it. The only time I use IE on a new box is to install Chrome. The sheer difference in speed over IE alone sold me. Pair that with some handy extensions, and I am a happy customer.

    I used to be a Netscape user, always had a flare for using non Microsoft Browsers. It's a shame Netscape died the slow, agonizing death it did. RIP Netscape - you failed to keep up with the times and were killed by both a decline in speed and a Microsoft Monopoly.

    As for privacy, I figure my data is already going to someone, I may as well enjoy the ride. However I am looking closely at Vilvaldi...

  6. Extensions? by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · · Score: 3, Insightful

    99% of people out there don't understand what they are and they are for, so, unlikely.

    The two most important reasons are: firstly, Google loves to peddle its browser whenever possible (they own the largest ad network for that), and, secondly, IE has a reputation of being slow and unreliable.

    As for the Edge browser - it is really fast but its fonts rendering on low DPI screens is beyond awful (just like all other UWP apps). Also its UI is way too cumbersome for a lot of people.

    At the same time with the advent of Windows 10 Microsoft has stopped caring which browser you actually use - they own your PC and your data.

    1. Re:Extensions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      99% of people don't understand extensions?

      Adblock statistics contradict that claim:
      https://blog.pagefair.com/2015...

    2. Re:Extensions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny that "extensions" by definition are something beyond what is bundled in the "basic" package.
      Just because they have a huge mindshare among geeks, it doesn't make it any more necessary. This is a little like internet access, compared to clean water and so on. If I were to ask for basic stuff beyond the obvious (HTML, CSS, flashless video) then I'd try to vote in ad-blocking, but obviously that's not doing too well as a default, unless browse the web using Lynx :)

  7. Fastest Browser wins. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    IE Gots its majority, because it booted and ran faster than Netscape (By cheating by integrating it in the OS)
    Firefox got some traction in the mid 00's Due to a bunch of security issues in IE. However Firefox goals of a Small Lightweight quickly become bloated, so IE once again reasserted it dominance.
    Google Chrome, Had a bunch of things going for it.
    1. It nagged users who used IE to switch.
    2. It installed without Admin access
    3. It was fast
    4. It supported the web standards well.
    5. No major security issues.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Fastest Browser wins. by npslider · · Score: 1

      And it does all this while collecting your web surfing habits, so in the near future, merely typing the URL of your favorite restaurant dispatches a Self Driving Delivery Car to your door. If it's not there in 20 minutes, it's free, except if a bus is encountered...

    2. Re:Fastest Browser wins. by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

      Unless you are surfing in incognito mode... which you probably should be if you're worried about how much data Google is collecting on you.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:Fastest Browser wins. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #5 isn't accurate. Chrome has always had major security issues, it just has fewer of them. That makes people feel safer without actually making them truly safer.

      #4 is also a bit much, because Chrome was pushing a lot of their own stuff, including stuff that was eventually accepted as a broader standard. It's a double-edged sword, and shows us just how they will act in the future now that they have more weight to push around.

    4. Re:Fastest Browser wins. by npslider · · Score: 1

      Good point.

      Truth is, I'm not that concerned about that. I keep my nose clean, well in so far as I know. No telling these days.. what is allowed today may be illegal tomorrow. Soon it may be illegal to use Ad blockers.

      I for one, do want my pizza delivered before I know I want it. If my Google Overlords can do that, I for one welcome them.

    5. Re:Fastest Browser wins. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I'm a fan of Opera which is basically built on Chromium but has all the nasties ripped out and a bunch of new stuff added. The Dev version has a built in (free) VPN and ad blocking. Those will trickle down to beta and then to stable. You can cheat and use a second extension (it doesn't eat resources really) that only comes up when you're at Google's Chrome site - then you can install and use both the Opera extensions and the Chrome extensions.

      I am not invested in Opera. I've just been using them for... Hmm... Wow? 20+ years now? We used to have to pay for Opera or see ads. Seeing ads was not an option, so I paid. They were REALLY bad from about version 15 to 21 and became tolerable at 23 and usable at 25 and good at 28. They switched from Presto to WebKit. It's light, fast, feature-rich, and I have yet to find anything I wanted to do that can't be done.

      I have found others who wanted tab stacking. It doesn't do that. Vivaldi does - I think you mentioned them above. Vivaldi isn't bad. I'm not a browser agnostic - I love my Opera. I'm just willing to use a better browser if one comes along and I do use different browsers for different tasks.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    6. Re:Fastest Browser wins. by npslider · · Score: 1

      I tried Opera, I did like it, but, me being a creature of habit I kept using the same browser anyways. It was not that I did not like Opera, but that I was too used to what I used every day. To me, Opera was the Rolls-Royce of web browsers: a fancy ride to surf the web with, but at the end of the day, I preferred my less glamorous Honda Accord, complete with cracked windshield and worn off bumper stickers.

      *Disclaimer: I drive Toyota, but the Accord just has that reputation of being driven forever and fit my metaphor better.*

      Funny thing is, I can't recall what browser I was using back then. I pray it was not Internet Explorer (during my short bout of insanity after the destruction of Netscape).

    7. Re:Fastest Browser wins. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      6. Came bundled by default with useful software, so if you didn't pay close attention and uncheck the box it would install itself whenever you updated, IIRC, Java, and I think a couple of other things.

      Any software that needs to piggyback itself on other packages like that is really great software, yes I do say. That earned itself a place on my list of "uninstall immediately" packages whenever I see it installed on something I manage.

    8. Re:Fastest Browser wins. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Chome is the new Ask toolbar crap that is side-installed by default with other software. And it is funny that people complained about stealth installation of spyware, but somehow are OK with the same crap when done by Google.

  8. Google becoming too powerful? by Aethedor · · Score: 1

    This worries me a lot. Google is growing too powerful. They more or less defined the new HTTP/2 protocol. They own the search market. In other words, they determine what can and what cannot be found on the internet. Now, they're on their way to own the browser market. With that, it's easy for them to make changes in how the web works. That, and Googles reason for existence: information. Personal information. If the really want, nothing can be kept secret for them.

    --
    It doesn't have to be like this. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.
    1. Re:Google becoming too powerful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Serious question:
      What's the end-user alternative? To knowingly use sub-par services just so that one company doesn't do too well?

      If the alternatives were any good then fair enough, but for now I will support the leader because they do what they do best.

    2. Re:Google becoming too powerful? by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

      I'm _still_ not having any problem finding free porn on the web, so I'm not seeing a problem here. Isn't search one of those industries that should be considered a "natural monopoly"? Yes, government regulators do need to keep an eye on Alphabet (It's not just Google anymore) to make sure they are serving the public good, but regulators are doing that, at least in Europe.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:Google becoming too powerful? by Aethedor · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying they're not doing a good job. Their browser works well, is fast, is easy to use/install. I full understand why many users choose Chrome. But that doesn't change the fact that they're growing more and more powerful. And no matter how good their software is, it's still a company that has personalized advertisements as their core business. To make an advertisement personal, they need to know personal information about you. What worries me is that in the nearby future, it might be hard to get around Google if you want to do something on the web.

      --
      It doesn't have to be like this. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.
    4. Re:Google becoming too powerful? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft pretty much dictated a lot of industry standards too... and that was one of the GOOD things they did! Would you rather have standards like those compiled by CCITT, which were both ambiguous and impossible to implement?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    5. Re:Google becoming too powerful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not disagreeing. I just wonder if there's anything that could or should be done about it or if the die has already been cast.

    6. Re:Google becoming too powerful? by Aethedor · · Score: 1

      From all my experience in my daily IT work, I would say that it's an unstoppable thing. People don't care about this. They don't care about security, privacy and IT companies obtaining all the power. They simply don't care. From my point of view, because they really don't understand. They have no clue about how a computer works, what a company who writes the software can do, what privacy truly means and why it is so important and in what ways privacy can (and will) slowly be taken away. Without anybody noticing and to a point from where there is no return. Most people are simply ignorant.

      --
      It doesn't have to be like this. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.
    7. Re:Google becoming too powerful? by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      Why on earth is "They more or less defined the new HTTP/2 protocol" a bad thing? Now, if it's a bad protocol, sure. But Google doing the work to improve web standards, and (presumably) making it available in an open source and unencumbered implementation is a good thing, no? Even if you hate (or fear) Google.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    8. Re:Google becoming too powerful? by mrchaotica · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What's the end-user alternative?

      What we really need is to make a concerted effort towards replacing all these centralized web services with distributed equivalents:

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    9. Re:Google becoming too powerful? by Aethedor · · Score: 1

      It's not really a bad thing, but it's just another step in Google defining the way the internet works. But on the other hand, HTTP/2 is a merely a protocol by Google, for Google. Unless you're like Google, you won't benefit from it. And that's my point. Google is, step by step, optimizing the internet for themselves.

      --
      It doesn't have to be like this. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.
    10. Re:Google becoming too powerful? by penix1 · · Score: 2

      All of the issues you raise boil down to one line....

      People are using hardware and software like an appliance no different from their toaster. As long as they get what they want, when they want it, they will give up any freedoms.

      That is why every EULA out there is meant to strip consumers of their rights. Their right to sue is stripped in favor of "arbitration" which is weighted towards the company paying them, stripped of their right to copy even for backup via DRM, stripped of their right to be secure by all the tracking and "targeted" advertising. The list goes on and on...

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    11. Re: Google becoming too powerful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what if you like marked up linked hypertext, and not all the scripting and automation and stuff that brings your browser to a screeching halt when you're trying to read a web page?

      What if you though communication was working pretty well on the web of, say, 2003?

    12. Re:Google becoming too powerful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That does return us to the question of what people should be doing "if they cared"... Should they be using sub-par solutions? If everyone cared would it be any different?

    13. Re:Google becoming too powerful? by Aethedor · · Score: 2

      True. It is

      Big companies who know very well what they are doing, thinking their products through very well, knowing their customers very well and are taking time to fill in all the tiny details.

      versus

      Consumers who use products without really thinking about risks, who see computers simply as a means and not as a goal, who don't understand technology and who still don't believe that companies will abuse their naivete for their own profit.

      Guess who wins...

      --
      It doesn't have to be like this. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking.
    14. Re:Google becoming too powerful? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      A long time ago they were using phrases like, "User Friendly." (They weren't referencing licensing and rights.) They wanted a computer in ever home - and still do. Not just a dumb terminal but a full, multi-function, programmable computer. There are many who advocate for it - even to this day.

      I've voiced, for many years, that there may be some unintended consequences. Sure, it looks good on paper but is it really going to end like people expected? I doubt it. Utopia is a rarity and that's why it's so valuable.

      Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't change that part of the past - even if I could. (Even if I thought it would make things "better," I would not change it.) I'm grateful that the masses bought desktops. If they hadn't, we'd still be spending 12,000+ USD on a mid-range system with peripherals. Well, some of us still do spend that and more but we can get fairly decent setups for much, much lower. My laptop's kind of stupidly expensive but I was splurging and I like it. (It's a Titan X4K. Yeah, I decked it out with all the fixings. There's a 'configurator' on their site. Yes, yes I did add that... And that... Oh, and two of those.)

      Anyhow, I imagine that if those people hadn't bought all those early Pentium boxes and kept doing so then the "mobile workstation" that I'm typing on right now might never have been developed or it would be a $50k device.

      So, I'm grateful and there have been so many good things to come from it. I'm really excited to see where it goes. But, there are a number of consequences for those actions and one of them is the monetization of the web space, the subsequent abuses, the tracking of users, and the continued efforts to lock people into being with just a few large companies.

      I've been turning back into a content creator instead of just a passive consumer and I'd not done anything in that arena since about 2007. It's actually hard to develop a decent site, using the now-standard tools, without relying on third party libraries and all that stuff. I finally compromised with myself and realized that the best I can realistically hope for, if I wanted what I wanted, was to either sit down and write *everything* myself or to accept that some third party sites would be called. I've kept them to a dull roar and, importantly to me, I've made sure that the site also works even if you block the third party content. It might not be as pretty, it might not be as quick, but you can do everything you want to (on the site) while blocking all third party scripts. That was important and I will not compromise on that.

      But, wow... So much has changed. Holy crap. I was only "gone" from 2007 until the start of this year. I wasn't even 'gone" so much as I just didn't do anything. I still paid attention - somewhat. Still, it's like I'm a n00b or from a whole century ago. If you're in it, you might not notice how much it has moved and how quickly it has done so. Man, it's fast moving.

      But yeah, it's a push. It's almost like a return to dumb terminals and mainframes. We've got supercomputers in our pockets and we want to compose documents on a web hosted version of Office? *sighs* It's almost like I'm on a different planet - but I did figure out how to enable it so that people can do that there. Should be fun. :D

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    15. Re:Google becoming too powerful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They simply don't care. From my point of view, because they really don't understand.

      I had a conversation about this with my brother and sister recently. They very clearly understood the privacy implications.
      But they said it's worth it. They believe their privacy is a fair price to pay for the services they're buying with it.
      Sure, a lot of people just don't get it. But even some of the people who do are just fine with it.

    16. Re:Google becoming too powerful? by raind · · Score: 1

      +1 Informative

      --
      Get up!
    17. Re:Google becoming too powerful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What we really need is to make a concerted effort towards replacing all these centralized web services with distributed equivalents

      But... how?

      This is a very serious question, because people argue time and time again that if more people as a whole did something, we'd get change. Yes, sure, that's absolutely true. But trying to convince others (not to mention yourself) to use alternatives that just don't do the job as well as the current market leaders is a fools errand and has shown time and time again to simply... not... work (Linux desktop, non-MS Office file formats anyone?).

      There has to be a tangible reason to move to a search engine that doesn't do as good a job as Google. There has to be a reason to use a cloud service that requires local storage instead of something that's actually fits the definition of cloud storage (i.e. distributed across machines). There has to be a reason to use a social platform that virtually no-one's heard of compared to where everyone else you know is on. Lofty goals that appeal to morality and ethics just don't work, we know this. Not everyone feels the same way about such things, and you'll certainly do yourself no good if the tangible benefits aren't there.

      In other words, ideolism dies once you're an adult and learn critical thinking.

    18. Re:Google becoming too powerful? by rippeltippel · · Score: 1

      Someone has started already, and with the bigger picture in mind: www.fermat.org.

    19. Re: Google becoming too powerful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook killer: KGiii.gq

      Civil discussions. Growing everyday. The users control the site.

  9. it's all about marketing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    the willingness to spend huge amounts on global advertising campaigns,

    the sleeziness to pay for installs just like spyware,

    plus the ads^H^H^Hnags on google's pages (placements and pageviews that nobody could buy if they wanted to, and google's chrome folks paid nothing), including discontinuing support for browsers (some of which are not or were not actually eol at the time) with an 'install chrome instead' message.

  10. Adblock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In today's world of an adblocker being a necessary component of a web browser, it's no wonder a browser with extensions would lose out

  11. and almost has as many bugs! by Matheus · · Score: 1

    I've generally liked Chrome and have been using it pretty much since it dropped. That being said I use all 3 major browsers and lately have been experiencing more and more sites that just don't work properly in that browser. Given these could all be situations where a particular site is doing something non-standard and Chrome is just dealing with it appropriately but when massive major site after massive major site don't work quite right there I'm guessing the fault lie more on Google than the web devs. I'm also still fairly peeved that the mobile version of the browser is still so heavy weight. Chrome on Android is a resource hog. You would think they could be better citizens on their own OS..

  12. Agree: Dollars rule the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too many paths to utopia are fun to build and to travel, but rarely lead to anywhere. The open source movement is a great hobby for large numbers of programmers but very few contributors see any financial gain from their efforts. It amazes me how many people wonder why things like bugs, poor documentation, etc. are often prevalent in open source projects. Nobody wants to do the drudgery when they are not getting paid. They do the fun stuff and then leave it half unfinished.

  13. And yet many websites don't work with it by DidgetMaster · · Score: 2

    I am still surprised when I connect to some website with Chrome, Firefox, or Safari and basic things do not work. I can't print their document or fill out their form or get some basic thing to work. It spits out some obscure error message or just does nothing. Then I go to the same site with IE and it works fine. This drives me insane.

    1. Re:And yet many websites don't work with it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Like what?

      No seriously, I'm just curious because I've personally not had any problems. Obviously that doesn't mean that all sites work because of my user experience, I just like citations with my anecdotes...

    2. Re:And yet many websites don't work with it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, including google.com! If I tap a sponsored link in mobile safari, I get a 'URL can't be shown' error. Have done for the last year or so!

    3. Re:And yet many websites don't work with it by rmist · · Score: 1

      Its not the browser, stupid. The websites are broken (or IE friendly).

    4. Re:And yet many websites don't work with it by Torodung · · Score: 1

      Ticketmaster's "print tickets" function (absolutely critical) failed to work in Firefox, and worked in IE. That's one example I ran into a while back. Fx devs may have fixed it by now.

      On a lighter note, Firefox won't use Diffie-Hellman for key exchange, and IE will. I can't log in to my university cloud services without mucking about in about:config with Firefox (I have to explicitly tell it to use DHE anyway). I'm not sure this is a favorable thing for IE.

  14. Re:Netcraft confirms it [Firefox wane] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    non-profits still have to have revenue in order to pay employees

    How about putting non-intrusive ads on the right-half of error pages, such as "page not found" or "network connection not available" pages? (Thanks the unreliability of typical telecoms, the 2nd is quite common.)

    I have no problem with that as long as they don't interfere with regular operation, don't hog bandwidth, and it's clear they are ads.

    I would suggest they manage any graphical ads through organization servers instead of link to a sponsor's own server, to reduce riff-raff. They'd probably have to cache some ads for the case the network connection is down.

  15. Chrome is a great browser, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    it's constantly phoning home to the mothership logged in or out. Of course your data tastes better to Google with cookies, so I use Chrome for just Google-related things, logged in or out. I never leave the Googlesphere logged into my Google account.

    A friend recently purchased a Google OnHub device and raves about it. Problem is you must have a Google account to connect, giving Google a veritable firehose of your personal data. This bothers me on a number of levels. How long before the correlation starts between companies? How long before Domino's lets Google know how many pizzas you order? How long before Google informs your insurance company about your "discreet" inquiries into odd medical scenarios and perhaps purchases related to these? How long before "off-putting" book titles are fed to government because they appear to be subversive, politically incorrect, whatever?

    1. Re:Chrome is a great browser, but... by NotAPK · · Score: 1

      Hey, that's cool, I do the same. I run Chrome, logged into my Google account, for G+, maps, Gmail, contacts, analytics, etc...

      I then run two other web browsers for doing different things: one for private and important online services, such as net banking. Another I run for general web browsing (which is Pale moon with a rash of extensions to protect my privacy: NoScript, AdBlock Edge, Disconnect, and Self-Destructing Cookies.

      Vivaldi seems nice, I've found it does some things pretty well.

    2. Re: Chrome is a great browser, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How long before younger people just say "that's dumb. Why do you worry about stuff like that?"

    3. Re: Chrome is a great browser, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Young = inexperienced. As an IT security guy, I can point to all manner of issues with respect to not caring about what data you share. Young people think it's OK to hang it all out there. Do a little reading about oversharing. What if the worries the above poster mentioned do come to fruition? What then for you? Think it cannot happen. There are many countries around the world where this can and does happen. Take a look, if you will, at just how draconian the UK has become in the last 10 years with regards to online matters. Now give it another couple years. No, thank you.

    4. Re:Chrome is a great browser, but... by iamacat · · Score: 1

      It sounds to me like you have both logically available choices - accept analytics by running Chrome and have your crash/performance/malware issues fixed by others, or install open source Chromium and fix it yourself. As for other claims about collection/misuse of your personal data, you are assuming that everyone is always out to get you without a concrete proof. I would recommend using SSL to order Domino's pizzas all the same.

  16. Margin of error. by westlake · · Score: 1

    in April, Chrome captured 41.66 percent of the market, surpassing Internet Explorer which now sits at 41.35 percent.

    Net Applications posts disclaimers that its publicly accessible stats lack the QA expected by its paying customers. In other words, they can be a little rough around the edges and the horse race shouldn't be taken too seriously.

  17. Firefox could of had that market share. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If only it listened to its users. Expect Opera to pass Firefox in market share eventually.

    1. Re:Firefox could of had that market share. by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      I think that listening to its users was the main problem. It ended up including way too many features.

    2. Re:Firefox could of had that market share. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And has now been purchased by a Chinese concern with ties to the Chinese government. No, thank you. Waiting to see what Vivaldi do...

  18. The problem with chrome by danbob999 · · Score: 1

    is that they still do not allow adblock on their mobile version.

    1. Re:The problem with chrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      that's what happens when the OS (android) and browser (chrome) are owned by the same company as the online services they drive users to (google, gmail, etc), and the advertising networks they use (doubleclick, adwords).

      i fully expect adblockers to be yanked from the google 'store' for desktop and chromeos users at some point in the not-so-distant future. considering chrome's new position as the top desktop browser, that time may be sooner rather than later. companies love to abuse market position.

  19. Java applets for banking by fbobraga · · Score: 1

    The absence os Chrome/Chromium in this area is a deal breaker for me, and keeps me on Mozilla's :P

  20. "...it lacks basic features like extensions" by tlambert · · Score: 1

    "...it lacks basic features like extensions"

    Unlike Chrome, which supports NPAPI?

  21. Extensions? by PmanAce · · Score: 2

    Just curious on how the vast majority of users (the parents type or the not so savvy type) would care about extensions let alone use them? "sub-par experience as it lacks basic features like extensions" Don't think for them it's a sub-par experience.

    --
    Tired of my customary (Score:1)
  22. It will change soon. Win10 supports bash and ssh by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Windows 10 has promised full support for ssh, not just a client but a server as well. I am sure there is going to be support for ftp might even support wget. Even if there is not, Google will find a way to use ssh to install chrome painlessly without going through IE or Edge.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  23. Well it's finally done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chrome has some things going for it. One is that it runs on almost any OS platform. It also has mostly what users want in a browser. Internet Explorer and Edge are stuck on Windows and even more so with Edge only on Windows 10. Very dumb move by Microsoft in making a browser run on so little hardware. Should have gave up did a deal with Mozilla and made Firefox their browser of choice. Would have at least given users a option that was worthy. Now days you have Chrome and then the rest.

  24. The extensions argument is bullshit by aliquis · · Score: 1

    The biggest flaw of both IE and Edge is that they are slow as fuck once you have a few tabs.

    Extensions .. would likely just make them even slower (well - except for ads maybe.)

  25. Not in my stats. by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

    I run one pretty typical website (i.e. not named chromeuserslove.com). Where I don't see a whole lot of IE.

    Personally I see IE as the new AOL. It kind of tells you that you are dealing with a rank amateur.

    1. Re:Not in my stats. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok, but that just means you are stupid, nothing else

  26. Aurora / Development Edition is just as offtrack by xenoc_1 · · Score: 2

    I have no idea why you're praising "Aurora" as somehow better than "Firefox", when it is simply a rolling alpha test version of what will BE Firefox in 2 releases (12 weeks). Firefox Developer Edition, which is what the Aurora channel of Firefox is called for Windows, Mac, Linux, has the same dumbed-down UI, the same Pocket and Hello RTC, as Firefox. You still need Classic Theme Restorer and/or Status-4-Evar to make it a sensible and full-featured UI. I normally install both extensions.

    If you are a developer, some of the dev tools are nice. The responsive view simulator is great. But otherwise it's the same damn thing, or what will be the same damn thing in a couple or so months.

    The only real benefit otherwise is that you can still install unsigned extensions, if you set the proper about:config flag.

    Yes, the manual or automatic updates are nice, but basically the same as Firefox release and beta, except daily. For Firefox Mobile Aurora, it is convenient that it's a non-appstore direct install and update. I had one old tablet that never supported Chrome decently and official Google Play Firefox Release and Beta refused to show as compatible. Installing Aurora manually both worked fine and kept it getting browser updates. But that's an edge case.

    I do have Firefox Developer Edition installed and in use as my browser default on both of all my Windows and Linux systems. But that's because I do use some of the dev tools and a couple of unsigned extensions. Not because it's somehow better.

    Posted from Mobile Firefox Aurora.

  27. I had the impression ... by Peteroo · · Score: 1

    ... that this happened a couple of years back. Someone want to straighten me out? :)

    1. Re:I had the impression ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... that this happened a couple of years back. Someone want to straighten me out? :)

      I sort of had that impression too. What I think you and I recall is the similar news that the COMBINATION of alternative browsers exceeded Internet Explorer's titanic share, back when Chrome + Firefox + (mobile) totals reached 50%. The mighty have fallen, since I recall IE being in the 90%
      Actually, I googled and here's a relevant link: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7053712/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/ie-drops-below-percent-market-share/

      The end of that article says Firefox had like 5% while IE was slightly under 90%. They contrasted it with a 95.5% dominance from 2004. They also said the MS browser had little to fear from competitors. How wrong they turned out to be. I was surprised to see the date at the end of the article: 2012.

    2. Re:I had the impression ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NetApplications have a special and secret (yes, really) methodology which causes them to put out completely different numbers than anybody else.

      They also monitor only 40k sites while everybody else monitors millions.

      Their numbers are complete garbage

  28. Telemetry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe Firefox doesn’t phone home like Chrome does. Therefore, it “appears" as if Firefox marketshare has dropped.

  29. What makes ANY browser faster & safer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This does-> APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-4 32/64-bit http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...

    Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/antivirus + less security issues/complexity. Compliments firewalls (w/ layered drivers blocking less used IP addys vs. hosts blocking more used domains) & DNS (lighten dns load). Gets data via 10 security sites.

    Works vs. caps & HTTP PUSH ads w/ firewalls.

    * Ads rob bandwidth/speed paid for, security (openbid adnetworks abuse), privacy in tracking + anonymity.

    Hosts add speed (hardcodes/adblocks), security (bad sites/poisoned dns), reliability (dns down), & anonymity (dns requestlogtrackers) natively. Hosts != blockable by ClarityRay (like. souled-out to admen inferior wasteful redundant slower usermode browser addons)

    APK

    P.S. - Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/... (Verified by Malwarebytes' S. Burn "I've seen the code & yes it is safe" http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi... )

  30. I can't believe it too this long! by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

    I'll bet there are still people using AOL too!

  31. Shity browser overtaken by even more shity Browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read the title of the article as

    "Shity browser overtaken by even more shity Browser that also happens to be Spyware".

    Since the Presto Opera, it didn't happen to exist decent browsers. I still have hope on Vivaldi or Otter Browser to change the currently negative situation.