homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.163.91.250
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Code, Content, and Presentation / HTML
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL

HTML Forum

    
Google's Chrome Market Share Drops Back After Initial Interest
engine




msg:3751243
 3:27 pm on Sep 24, 2008 (gmt 0)

Google's Chrome Market Share Drops Back Back After [informationweek.com]Initial Interest
Google's Chrome Web browser, which gained market share quickly within the first 24 hours of its release, has been steadily giving up its gains to Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox, a Web metrics firm said Tuesday. During the first day of its release Sept. 2, Google Chrome rocketed to 1% of the market, Net Applications said. Since then, the upstart browser has fallen to 0.77% as of last week, with the losses shared evenly between IE and Firefox.

"A bunch of people gave it a quick try, and its share has been sliding ever since," Vince Vizzaccaro, executive VP of marketing for Net Applications, told InformationWeek.
Last week, IE's share stood at 71.48%; Firefox, 19.42%; and Apple's Safari, 6.73%. Apple's browser has been immune to Chrome's entry, because the latter doesn't run on the Mac operating system, Vizzaccaro said.


 

Quadrille




msg:3751346
 4:55 pm on Sep 24, 2008 (gmt 0)

If Chrome has sufficiently galvanized the others so that they adopt its plusses, I think they'll be happy for now. But if not, then I suspect they'll be back with ad-ons.

All I miss for general browsing is autocomplete, so for me it's great for 95% of uses, then it's FF.

If FF learns (and I'm sure they will!), I'll probably join the drift back. But I expect a quicker FF, with the same tab security, combined with FFs modular setup, hopefully with a slimmer base to personalize.

maximillianos




msg:3751347
 4:56 pm on Sep 24, 2008 (gmt 0)

I use it. But not exclusively. Unfortunately their built-in spell checker is not as good as Firefox. So I have to keep using Firefox for that reason alone.

But I actually prefer Chrome... and hope they improve on that feature... but for now I'm still mostly in Firefox.

Lord Majestic




msg:3751352
 5:04 pm on Sep 24, 2008 (gmt 0)

They would have received longer lasting success if they used FireFox codebase. The people who switched to them were probably running FF in the first place rather than IE.

maximillianos




msg:3751355
 5:05 pm on Sep 24, 2008 (gmt 0)

All I miss for general browsing is autocomplete, so for me it's great for 95% of uses, then it's FF.

Are you referring to typing in a URL in the address bar? Mine works fine that way.

My only gripe about the address bar is they should include a dropdown icon to quickly jump to items from your history... Like Firefox and IE both have.

Oh, and the buttons (forward, back, new tab, etc) are all too small... Make them bigger and easier to click! =)

Quadrille




msg:3751363
 5:11 pm on Sep 24, 2008 (gmt 0)

Actually no, sorry, I meant the form pre-filling. Can't think what they call it.

Ah! autofill?

IanKelley




msg:3751395
 5:38 pm on Sep 24, 2008 (gmt 0)

FireFox codebase

Have you ever compared FireFox's initial startup time (with no/limited plugins) to other browsers? Somewhere along the way FireFox got clunky.

Swanny007




msg:3751404
 5:45 pm on Sep 24, 2008 (gmt 0)

I used Chrome for a few days and then went back to FireFox. Google knows enough about my browsing habits (even without their toolbar installed) so I decided to go back to FF. At least there are a few sites I visit that they won't know about (I think... umm...... maybe...).

Lord Majestic




msg:3751418
 5:56 pm on Sep 24, 2008 (gmt 0)

Have you ever compared FireFox's initial startup time (with no/limited plugins) to other browsers?

It's not very fast but it's okay - I keep browser open all the time so startup time is not an issue for me - opening new window is very quick.

Maybe Google should have spent their considerable expertise into improving Mozille/FireFox (they could have branded it as Crome) - I think if they did that they'd be more successful in their strategy to reduce Microsoft's dominance in browser segment. Not sure I'd like Google to take Microsoft's place though.

Tourz




msg:3751446
 6:18 pm on Sep 24, 2008 (gmt 0)

After going back and forth between FF & Chrome, I currently prefer using Chrome. Doing everything from the address bar is way more efficient. I am used to using the x1 desktop search appliance that gives new results as you type so it seems like a natural browser upgrade.

One complaint: I wish Chrome's 'back button' would work better when using dynamic forms. i.e. less need to refresh submitted data. It seems to come up with that error page more that FF.

IanKelley




msg:3751455
 6:26 pm on Sep 24, 2008 (gmt 0)

It's not very fast but it's okay

It's what it implies that matters... Too much ineffiency. Sure it's not a big deal on a mid range PC. But what about UMPCs and internet appliances? If you look at Google's goals with Chrome it's clear they needed to start from scratch.

arieng




msg:3751465
 6:41 pm on Sep 24, 2008 (gmt 0)

dynamic forms. i.e. less need to refresh submitted data

Here here. I've been using it almost exclusively and this seems to be the most aggravating shortcoming.

pageoneresults




msg:3751466
 6:42 pm on Sep 24, 2008 (gmt 0)

They are testing the market. I'd say their test was highly successful too. Now it is back to the whiteboard, take the feedback received and come out with an upgraded version at which time the flock will follow again. Remember, Google love the "Beta" label and will probably keep this in Beta for quite some time.

Google are working on things in other areas that will all come back and tie into this. I'm going to spend next week putting together an entire history of their acquisitions, I have part of it already just need to finish. I think if we see everything in one "picture", we'll see how Google Chrome is just one small piece of the big puzzle that they are slowly piecing together.

The Gorg continues to assimilate. It is a machine that is unstoppable at the moment. Maybe we can aim that Large Hadron Collider thingy their way? ;)

skipfactor




msg:3751525
 8:08 pm on Sep 24, 2008 (gmt 0)

"A bunch of people gave it a quick try"

>>They are testing the market. I'd say their test was highly successful too. Now it is back to the whiteboard, take the feedback received and come out with an upgraded version at which time the flock will follow again.

Chrome was advertised/linked on the home page for less than ~24 hours. They got what they needed & back to the drawing board. Obviously, capturing market share is not what they're after (yet).

frontpage




msg:3751635
 12:27 am on Sep 25, 2008 (gmt 0)

Now there is a small cottage industry to de-Chrome-ify people's computers.

Regarding to Google, "Google Chrome is a browser that combines a minimal design with sophisticated technology to make the web faster, safer, and easier". Unfortunately, each Google Chrome installation contains a unique ID that allowing identifying its user. Google doesn't make it an easy job to remove this ID.

UnChrome helps you with this task. It replaces your unique ID with Null values so that your browser cannot be identified any longer. The functionality of Google Chrome is not influenced by this. You only need to apply UnChrome once.

[abelssoft.net...]

Quadrille




msg:3751641
 12:42 am on Sep 25, 2008 (gmt 0)

Love it!

Chrome Hats to the fore!

I remember exactly where I was when Chrome was launched, and I was kidnapped by aliens as a direct result.

(They spared me the probe, honest!).

I wonder how much malware the decromer leaves behind!

[edited by: Quadrille at 12:43 am (utc) on Sep. 25, 2008]

Solution1




msg:3751751
 8:37 am on Sep 25, 2008 (gmt 0)

I'm using Chrome just for Google Apps, mainly Calendar. I keep logged into Google on that browser, while not on my main one, Firefox. I love the Firefox add-ons, so switching to another browser isn't an option for now. For websites that I don't completely trust, I use Opera, that I keep with Javascript and Java turned off.

frontpage




msg:3751875
 1:01 pm on Sep 25, 2008 (gmt 0)

@Quadrille
Chrome Hats to the fore!

Mock personal privacy all you want. But to ignore the implications of Chrome is just whistling past the grave yard. Never before have we had a piece of software that collects so much information from users of the internet.

"It makes sense for Google to do a browser and compete with Microsoft, and undoubtedly they can design a browser that is state of the art," said Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy. "In this case it sounds like they developed a state-of-the-art surveillance program as well." Chester noted that the Chrome ID could be easily correlated with other identifying information that Google collects, including IP addresses, cookies and log-ins to Google services such as YouTube or Gmail."

As for your published accusation that Abelssoft installs malware on users computers, you are braver than I to make a public statement like that.

Here is Abelssoft's statements on Chrome.

I firmly believe that it is better to have control over your own privacy without having to trust that Google doesn't do anything bad with your data," said Sven Abels, president of Abelssoft, a software company in Delmenhorst, Germany, that is offering free downloads of its UnChrome software.

Maybe Firebox should get Chrome Hats like you suggested.

"We don't have a unique identifier because honestly we don't want to have that data about our users," said Mike Shaver, vice president of engineering for Mozilla, the maker of Firefox. "We don't want to be in a position to put their privacy at risk in that way."

Quadrille




msg:3751906
 1:33 pm on Sep 25, 2008 (gmt 0)

I've read similar stuff.

But I cannot imagine one single way that the information gained could conceivably be useful to Google - or anyone else.

And, strangely, not one of these commentators has suggested one, either.

I'm afraid that 'it's bad because it's bad' just does not convince me. YMMV

Quadrille




msg:3751936
 2:31 pm on Sep 25, 2008 (gmt 0)

As for your published accusation that Abelssoft installs malware on users computers, you are braver than I to make a public statement like that.

Strange that with all your concern for privacy, you have no concerns about one company developing software specifically to attack another company's software.

Surely you should be advocating the full-frontal 'stop chrome doing it in the first place', not 'setting a thief to catch a thief'?

I know nothing about abelsoft or their software, and I admire your cionfidence that their stuff has no intended or unintended side effects (how do you know?).

But I know quite enough about their business ethic - and I prefer Google's, thanks.

frontpage




msg:3751970
 3:15 pm on Sep 25, 2008 (gmt 0)

But I cannot imagine one single way that the information gained could conceivably be useful to Google - or anyone else.

Logic trap.

If it the data is not useful to Google, why collect it in the first place?

If the data is not useful to the US Justice Dept, state attorney generals, and national, state, local governments, why subpoena it?

If the data is not useful to internet Adwords competitors, why subpoena it in civil cases?

Even the most ardent Google supporters recognize that the vast volume of data Google collects on individual users is viewed as data mining gold mine.

"My main concern is the ability to collect users' Web addresses, and therefore your complete surfing on the Web could be tracked," Germany's data protection commissioner, Peter Schaar, said of Chrome.

Due some research on Deep Packet Inspection and Doubleclick Cookies and the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

FAQ: When Google is not your friend

[ecoustics-cnet.com.com...]

poppyrich




msg:3751997
 3:39 pm on Sep 25, 2008 (gmt 0)

@quadrille

But I cannot imagine one single way that the information gained could conceivably be useful to Google - or anyone else.

frontpage absolutely correct. Hey, I don't mean any disrespect, but I too, was once naive.

One small piece of data can be used to acquire a whole bunch of other data. It is amazing what can be statistically surmised about you from one little thing.

And on business ethics - Google's going to do what it takes to keep their stock price up and the money flowing. That's every business's ethic and rightly so. But Google is a monopoly in the same class as MS, there is no where else to go, no one else to deal with, no choice.
Kings, no matter how benevolent, still act like kings. They can't help it, they're King!

Quadrille




msg:3752004
 3:48 pm on Sep 25, 2008 (gmt 0)

Logic trap.

If it the data is not useful to Google, why collect it in the first place?

They collect it from individuals, but use it statistically, in bulk: that's always been my understanding. If anyone can cite anything that contradicts that, I'd be happy to take a look - but I've never seen any suggestion of Google using individual info individually, while I have no problem undertsanding wy it has a bulk value. No logic trap.

@poppyrich

Hey, I don't mean any disrespect, but I too, was once naive.

But you do mean disrespect, and you still are ;)

As to your more serious point, I really have no idea what you are talking about.

poppyrich




msg:3752038
 4:26 pm on Sep 25, 2008 (gmt 0)

Dear Not Naive, ;)

Not sure which serious point you're referring to but I assume it's the part about Google being King.

Here's how a King thinks:

(In a voiceover by James Earl Jones...)

Here at the castle, we have a philosophy;

"Introduce early, iterate often"

And it works! No matter how lacking the early version may be it's no problem. If one of our subjects doesn't like it, (which is hard to imagine because, hey, no matter what its shortcomings, WE made it, right?) they can roll back with just a click.
Therefore, I command that this new browser shall conform to this philosophy. Release it to the entire Kingdom amidst much fanfare! And then we'll fix as we go along.

Jump to a few months later at the castle. A messenger arrives...

Sire, the people are refusing to upgrade. In fact, - and please don't beat me, sire, I'm just the messenger - some are actually UNINSTALLING. The people are saying the first release was a waste of their time and that, unlike an online app which doesn't require a download and install, they've decided to forget the whole thing.
Many in the Kingdom are talking about a blue "E" on their desktop, but I have no idea what that means. What are we to do, sire?

Hopefully you get my drift and I don't have to write an entire episode.
I posted about this on another thread - only time will tell if I'm right - but I think Google blew it. First impressions count for an awful lot in marketing. Chrome just didn't deliver. Few will be coming back for another go.

pageoneresults




msg:3752053
 4:47 pm on Sep 25, 2008 (gmt 0)

Few will be coming back for another go.

Ah, but if we look at all the other things that are going to tie in with the Chrome Browser I do believe most of those will come back for the improved release. At the same time, there will be another large group of new users.

They were tasting and still are. Expect to see major announcements before the holiday/end of year with new features, tie ins with other G products, etc. Chrome is Google's Window to the World. And so is Android. This is all just guesswork on my part. ;)

poppyrich




msg:3752635
 1:56 pm on Sep 26, 2008 (gmt 0)

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

What I don't like about it is, dammit, yet another browser to test against.

I think there's real frustration and disillusionment among web designers and developers about exactly where the entry of new browsers into the market and the movement towards "standards" has brought us.

Quadrille




msg:3752700
 2:50 pm on Sep 26, 2008 (gmt 0)

yet another browser to test against

Actually, I agree there's an issue (!), but doesn't Chrome generally behave like any Mozilla browser?

Browser standards keeps a thread constantly alive in the css forums - but I don't think there's any 'moving towards' - it's largely a matter of agreeing standards, then certain browsers ignoring them.

Surely browser standards are a 'good thing' - if only those that signed up to them would keep their word?

Then designers could design to 'standard' with confidence.

I can't see designers seeking a world without standards - and I don't really see designers seeking to prevent new browsers; in my experience, most decent designers have a shopping list of ideas they'd like to see embraced by browsers, and I can't even imagine freezing browsers where we are - it would be like Henry Ford insisting that auto design froze at the Model T, because he couldn't be bothered to move forward - I've never come across a web designer with that problem :)

KevinBoss




msg:3752890
 6:10 pm on Sep 26, 2008 (gmt 0)

I started using it a lot and then backed off.

I really like Chrome. The only reason I can't use it totally is because of the firefox plugins that I constantly use. When I can use my plugins (seo for firefox & web developer toolbar) with Chrome I'll switch.

I'm sure I'm not alone.

EdHayes




msg:3754456
 2:00 pm on Sep 29, 2008 (gmt 0)

As with most things Google develops in-house these days, Chrome is nothing special. Insanely arrogant of them to assume that they had anything valuable to offer.

It wouldn't be so bad if they weren't doing so woefully badly at their core stuff at the moment. Google are taking their eye off the ball and they're getting away with it purely because of lack of competition.

Google's natural search is, in my opinion, the worst it has been since it launched 10 years ago. The last 2-3 years in particular have seen a dramatic worsening. It's almost like the Alta Vista days at the moment. There are times, quite frequently now, where I genuinely can't find what I'm looking for. Amazingly, Yahoo has actually been better the last few times I tried (but this may have been a fluke).

Anyway. I digress. I hope Chrome disappears for good. The world doesn't need yet another slew of browser compatibility issues. We do have a desperate need however for a decent search engine.

Quadrille




msg:3754485
 2:45 pm on Sep 29, 2008 (gmt 0)

>>this may have been a fluke

Trust me, it was.

>> I hope Chrome disappears for good

Trust me, it won't.

But welcome to WebmasterWorld - there's always room for one more Google-basher! ;)

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Code, Content, and Presentation / HTML
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved