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%

Comments

On the bright side

[Locke2005]

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

Re:On the bright side

[npslider]

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!

Re:On the bright side

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:On the bright side

[webguyPF]

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

Netcraft confirms it

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Firefox is dead.

Re:Netcraft confirms it

[Tablizer]

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.

Re:Netcraft confirms it

[Merk42]

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?

Re:Netcraft confirms it

[Junta]

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.

Re:Netcraft confirms it

[Rob Y.]

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.

Re:Netcraft confirms it

[KGIII]

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.

Re:Netcraft confirms it

[NotInHere]

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.

Or it's a net gain as I don't want extensions

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Extensions?

[Artem S. Tashkinov]

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.

Re:Google becoming too powerful?

[Locke2005]

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.

Re:Fastest Browser wins.

[Locke2005]

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.

And yet many websites don't work with it

[DidgetMaster]

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.

Re:Google becoming too powerful?

[mrchaotica]

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:

• Google Search -> YaCy
• Gmail, Google Drive, etc. -> OwnCloud
• Google Maps -> OpenStreetMap
• Hangouts -> XMPP
• Youtube -> ???
• Facebook -> Diaspora
• Etc...

Re:The problem with chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Google becoming too powerful?

[penix1]

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...

Extensions?

[PmanAce]

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.

Re:Google becoming too powerful?

[Aethedor]

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...

Aurora / Development Edition is just as offtrack

[xenoc_1]

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.