SuperSite Blog

I need to change my avatar because I'm mostly on Chrome nowadays using IE for those sites that require ActiveX.

I guess Mozilla's FF3 Beta's got me used life w/o extensions which made it easier for me to live without them. Its all about performance for me now.

@Paul: "...OneStat understands the difference between usage share, which this is, and market share, which this isn’t."

^ Then why the word "market" in the title of the blog post? Just a thought. ;-)

Interesting news nonetheless. Sort of strange that Firefox is more commonly used in the US than worldwide, though.

jvd897

"Usage Share" and "Market Share" are both measures of the "Browser Market".

Interesting that even the Netscape browser, which was officially killed about 8 months ago, still has more usage in the US than Opera.

I was surprised to see how many people pick an alternate browser instead of using the one that came with their OS.

Not counting the PCs that are bundled with something other than IE as the default and not counting the Windows users who are using Safari we get:

15% of Windows users switch to something other than IE

31% of OS X users switch to something other than Safari

(Based on worldwide browser usage numbers and the 3.5% worldwide Mac sales and 96% worldwide Windows sales)

Thanks for the note, Mike. Although the idea of taking a percentage of the market still makes me think of market share...ah well.

Re: Netscape -- agreed. Although I doubt that Opera Mini/Mobile would add much market clout either, unfortunately.

I usually stick with software that matches the OS, except for Safari. I just never won me over. We still have a problem with the Active X control for Teleradiology [Centricity] and IE7 [except for me], but I like the IE UI for Windows better than all the other Windows browsers. Does that mean I'm getting so old that I don't like change? Of course, my $400 Vista laptop obviously uses IE7.

If I upgrade XP from IE6 to IE7, is it possible to uninstall it?

Google is apparently (and obviously) considering bundling deals with major computer manufacturers. That should no doubt increase market share. Such a move will no doubt affect IE but will also impact Firefox. Interesting times, we live in.

DRWAM

Whether you can uninstall IE7 to get IE6 on XP apparently depends on whether you have SP3 installed or not.

(Disclaimer: I haven't had XP on any of my real computers since long before IE7 came out so I don't have any personal experience on this but I saw a blog post about it last week from somebody building some test images)

This is odd.  I figured Mozilla would have made much more inroads than is shown above.  Internet Explorer is at 81% Worldwide which begs me to ask the question: Why is Microsoft so insistent on make IE 8 standards compliant?  81% makes me think that it is the standard.  I know it's a douche-bag thing to do, but it makes business sense that 81% is pretty damned good.

Google has to move fast towards the 1.0 mark and make a compelling argument for its browser. Everyone I know uses Firefox for the extensions (mainly ad blocking and UI customization) and the main reason for Chrome's existence is Google trying to get around anti-advertising tools.

If you don't get my point, try installing AdBlock Plus and CustomizeGoogle extensions in Firefox and suddenly you will see Google as a $26/share company, instead of a $260 one.

Result: doubleclick ads gone, text ads and sponsored links gone, banners gone, flash ads gone... all you will see is pure content.

I did not install SP 3 on the XP PC's as I was not sure if it would be a problem with our teleradiology. SP3 did seem to be slow on the older eMachine, but I bumped up the RAN from 1 to 2 GB and I swapped the old 2.7GHz Celeron for a 3.2 GHz P4, so I got more horsepower now, for the kids. The mobo died two yrs ago so it's a little then stock. My howme built XP box has a 3.4 P4 overclocked to 3.51GHz, but it only has 2GB RAM although a slightly better vid card [x800 Pro].

Note surprising at all.  Most users use what the comes with the computer.  Its the same theory when it comes to DRM.  For you typical joe user iPod owner, they buy music from iTunes and dont know/care even think about DRM, they use it.  

I think Mac users jump off the default more because just by the fact they are choosing a Mac over a PC means they are willing to try something out of the norm/majority.

Load up FireFox 3 with just Adblock Plus and show a user (Windows or Mac) the before and after and you will have a convert.  Its shocking at times when I use a computer that does not have Adblock on it and I get to see all the crap that is on a page.  Pages load faster, and there is more room for content.  This site included.

I think when Google steps out of its area of expertise they dont do so well.  I think Chrome wont go far at all.

"3.4 P4 overclocked to 3.51GHz" being a 3.4ghz its probably a Prescott nick named "preshot" because it was so dam hot.  Can you tell a difference with that overlock?  A small town could probably use the power required to drive that beast:)

Most businesses will use IE in preference to any other browser as well.  It's centrally manageable and easily patched using standard mechanisms.  Other browsers need more effort to manage.

I am a fan of Firefox Portable though.  It's great that you can drop in a USB key and get a clean browser on any PC!

"I think when Google steps out of its area of expertise they dont do so well.  I think Chrome wont go far at all."

I disagree. If it's bundled with computers as the default OS, people might not switch to other browsers. Also, the browser, like Google's newly released Android OS has received great reviews.

"If it's bundled with computers as the default OS"

So are they going to create their own OS?  MS wont bundle it, nor will Apple.  I guess they could pay Ubuntu to drop Fire Fox.  You may have a point when it comes to going head to head with Fire Fox though.  Google is one of the largest contributors to Fire Fox.  If Google at some point stopped funding Fire Fox and it caused Fire Fox to stagnate because of funding problems Chrome might step into their shoes.

Then again Fire Fox has a big following now, somebody might step up, then again maybe not if you look at the economy.  

Can't tell much difference with overclocking, but I just keep it that way. The Prescott was so hot that I got the BSD when I stuck it in it's poorly vented desk cubby and the temp reached over 60 degrees C. I replacecd the stock Prescott fan [from the retail box] with a Silent Tower and she runs cool in the cubby. But I did pull it out a bit md ad another case fan to the MGE Ninja. And a PCToys temp gauge was added too.

@lindy:  I think shark was referring to OEMs bundling Chrome with Windows machines rather than MS, although I'm sure MS will give the OEMs more money to not bundle Chrome or FF

"So are they going to create their own OS?  MS wont bundle it, nor will Apple."

No. MS or Apple won't bundle it, but PC makers like Dell, HP, Gateway, Lenovo sure could.

blogs.zdnet.com/BTL

Ahh I dont miss the desktop PC gaming days.  Building your own rigs, extra fans, after market cooling, video drivers to fix issues with games, mega patches for games that you could not get right away with out some paid subscription to file shack or whomever because the free sites were slammed.

Once I switched to a console for the few games I play my last desktop got turned off.  I cant even imagine having one now, unless I was going to run a dedicated home server or FreeNas box.

Yes that is true, Dells come pre-loaded with Google Desktop and Google Toolbar.  I do feel sorry for Joe PC users these days, way to much crap come pre-installed.

If I bought a new PC today its first boot would be to Vista media for the clean install.

Oh DRWAM this weekend the 14.1 inch version of your Acer, same specs, was on sale at BestBuy for $399 and $389 at Office Depot or Office Max, so said my local paper.  That is a serious deal.  Usually 14 inch notebooks run more than their 15.4 inch counter parts, never understood why but they have.

It'll be interesting to see Microsoft pay OEMs to set IE as the default browser with Windows. I do think that Microsoft might try to get them to bundle Zune software with new PCs.'

The 14 in screen has probably better rez than the 15.6 in WS

That's the coolness of a cheap rig. You have left over money to buy that Xbox. [Wii sux].

So if MS gets the big 3 or 4 PC makers to bundle Zune software, does that count as advertising money? I bet it doesn't. Office trial bribery, I mean money probably also doesn't count to the 1.2 BIL.

But then again, I'm am a die hard MS Office fanboy. But at least I'll admit it. [OOO sux]

"I do feel sorry for Joe PC users these days, way to much crap come pre-installed."

Well, blame all the anti-Microsoft people (including the NOIS Coalition) who lobbied for that part of the antitrust ruling. One of the outcomes of DOJ v Microsoft was banning Microsoft's old policy of giving a discount to system builders who didn't fill their Windows system with crapware as compensation for the lost fees the system builders had been getting. Microsoft felt that a consumer should have a consistant experience with Windows no matter who they got the system from.

While that policy helped the consumers and the system builders, it hurt the crapware vendors so the court ruled it was unfair. (One of the many cases where this case violated the traditional rules of "there must be consumer harm" in antitrust law and set new precedent.)

"I think when Google steps out of its area of expertise they dont do so well."

For once, I'm going to agree with Lindy on this one. Aside from search driven text advertising, they really haven't had a big commercial success that they didn't buy and are still pretty much a one trick pony. (And, yes, I'm including GMail in the "not a commercial success" group, despite Paul being a big fan, the numbers aren't there to claim it's successful)

Pingback from  Google Chrome takes one-half of one percent of the Web browser …

That's just incredible. MS is damned if they do an damned if they don't. Farckin' lawyers. Some liars, I mean lawyers [I think it may be different, but then again maybe not] got rich[er].

doc, I think those bundling deals are part of the marketing expense and would be included in the $1.2bn. Of course, mike would probably know better.

I like gmail for one reason, free IMAP.  I hate, and I mean hate its conversation thread BS in the webmail, I cant stand that deleted email is not deleted until it is removed from the "All Mail" folder.

I was a hot mail user for years, but wanted IMAP.  Hotmail's new interface is so much nicer now, please just give us IMAP.

http://www.pcdecrapifier.com/  supposed to be good.  I have never used it, since I format and install what I want.

Firefox leads the all important 'mindshare' market.

DRWAM

To be fair, there are lots of liars who aren't lawyers.

I'm always amused by the people who are so confused by 4 versions of Vista because one of the key parts of testimony in the DOJ trial was that the users shouldn't have to live with Microsoft bundling things like disk systems and device driver interfaces and virtual memory managers. The "ideal", they said, was that you should buy the Windows microkernel and then pick and choose every other component with no inherent preference for Microsoft components. So, you'd pick a network driver from one company, a TCP/IP stack from another, a security subsystem from another, a memory manager from another, etc. You'd end up with about 30-40 pages of choices to make every time you wanted a copy of Windows. (Microsoft won that part of the trial)

"The "ideal", they said, was that you should buy the Windows microkernel and then pick and choose every other component with no inherent preference for Microsoft components. "

That is a mistake and a marketing mess. Shown already by the marketing mess that is Vista and the numerous editions of Office, Windows Servr and SQL Server. A messy joke, really.

"Internet Explorer is at 81% Worldwide which begs me to ask the question: Why is Microsoft so insistent on make IE 8 standards compliant?  81% makes me think that it is the standard.  I know it's a douche-bag thing to do, but it makes business sense that 81% is pretty damned good."

IE8 currently has less usage - or market, whatever - share than Chrome, so I can see why they would.

It's much easier to make the new versions standards compliant than making them broken the same way the previous versions are. Web pages mostly get made to standards and are then separately fixed for the different IE versions - at least when done professionally. (A lot of web designers also use Mac and Linux.)

Support for old IE versions inevitably gets dropped at some point, which means they get obsolete much quicker than they would if they followed standards. (This, of course, suits Microsoft just fine because the answer is to get a new version, which probably requires a new version of Windows as well.)

Anyway, when someone sees a page that works just fine in Firefox or IE7 but doesn't in IE8 they'll probably blame the browser, not realizing that the page's standard code makes it work on FF and hacks make it work on IE7.

Mike, I don't see how you can say the court violated the "consumer must benefit" precedent when it ruled against Microsoft re: so called "crapware".

It's up to the consumer to decide if certain software is "crapware" - Microsoft's discounts leveraged its market dominance to exclude third party software developers.

Heh. Chrome has been out for less than a year and it's already nearly equaled Opera in world wide market share.

Nice.

Google, hurry up with the Mac version. Chrome is quickly overtaking Firefox as my main browser on Vista :)  

"Farckin' lawyers."

...said the doctor. 'Cuz we all know the medical profession is full of "white-as-snow" professionals who never overbill (particularly when it comes to Medicare patients), don't accept trips and offices full of freebies from drug companies, and don't forge prescriptions.

Oops. Is my bias showing? See, I can paint with a big brush, too.

"To be fair, there are lots of liars who aren't lawyers."

That is true. According to recent court documents, plenty of them seem to work at Microsoft.

shark47 said:

"So are they going to create their own OS?  MS wont bundle it, nor will Apple."

No. MS or Apple won't bundle it, but PC makers like Dell, HP, Gateway, Lenovo sure could.

blogs.zdnet.com/BTL

********''

You bring up some good points, and here are a few random thoughts:

1) Google might already have their own OS, the internet.... weird in a way, but its kinda of a yin yang thing. They have no OS, their OS is everywhere.

2) What does that say for MS? There are numerous reports  on the web, (don't have time to search it out). Plenty of vendors appear to be looking for a way out from under MS's thumb. A few years ago that would have been unthinkable, some are now questioning it. HP appears to be VERY actively looking to minimize or hide vista. There are also reports that HP might very well be looking to create their own OS.

Could it happen? I'm not sure but out of the PC vendors HP is the best positioned to do this; I can also see for the home market they have their own interests in mind.

I'm not saying anything by this, merely pointing it out that for HP and Google they are looking at their own interests and not MS's.

In my 22 yrs of being an MD, I've never met a single doctor that was even accused of the fraud that you mentioned lotsa, but I never numerous lawyers, in fact too numerous to count, many of which have been dis-barred. We doctors are friggen saints in comparison. We get audited by Medicare too. It's hospitals and the non-MD/DO practioners as well as FMD's that have been in the news, which is so infrequent that it's news worthy. And BTW, drug companies have had a makeover long ago, limiting the 'extra expenses'. You refer to a microscopic minority and are way off.

"That is true. According to recent court documents, plenty of them seem to work at Microsoft."

Errr, lotsamystuff, I hate to break it to you, but this sort of stuff goes on everywhere. In some cases it comes out, in others, it doesn't. The fact that there was even an internal debate means that your fantasy of Microsoft being inherently evil is false. But you knew that, didn't you? :-)

Actually Sharkster, MS is giving away many services for free [Live stuff], which is some good stuff. Also, they have plenty of apps for Medicine, most free which will decrease medical errors [most of which are NOT due to doctors Lotsa] as well as school programs, etc...They could have just colleted their profits for Windows and Office, but chose to take an higher road, much of which is not known. Even this Mac user is impressed, but I may see more than you guys due to my Physician IT council at our 3 hospital system.

OK Lotsa, I actually did attend a CME lecture dinner at the Chop House last week, but it was the first in years and most in attendance were technologists. But at least I'm honest about it.

Peace,

Doc

"The fact that there was even an internal debate means that your fantasy of Microsoft being inherently evil is false."

Funny how all of a sudden Mike Galos has stopped asking in every blog entry comment thread for anyone to point out when Microsoft ever once lied in their marketing.

Mum:

What part of "Vista Capable" was proven to be a false claim? Vista Capable != Aero Capable. Vista Capable = Capable of running Vista. The user could turn off Aero and run Vista Basic interface, and yet get all the OS advancements offered in Vista. Just not the Aero interface. While this was an impossibly dumb certification decision, the product labels itself were not false. The PCs were all capable of running Vista.

Consider a parallel: iPhone ads say [and I paraphrase] "puts the Internet in your pocket using the first full-featured browser for mobile phones." But once I bought the phone, I found that flashy webpages with cool Flash and Shockwave animations don't play on the iPhone. Can I say that Apple duped users by implying their Mobile Safari browser was 'full featured' while it could not play Flash content? Somehow the iSuckups don't consider this as a deceptive marketing practice. iHypocrites.

Pingback from  Your Publicity To You  » Blog Archive   » Google Chrome takes one-half of one percent of the Web browser …