

Microsoft and Mozilla's continuing Chrome conundrum - acro
http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2011/06/may-browser-market-share-microsoft-and-mozillas-continuing-chrome-conundrum.ars

======
billybob
The biggest advantage Chrome has over the others (for now) is invisible auto-
updating. That alone makes it more compliant and more secure at any given
moment.

As a web developer, I want everyone in the world to have a modern browser,
always. When HTML6 comes out, I want to be able to use it. So my goal is not
just to get everyone to upgrade to FF4 or IE9, but to put everyone on a path
of continuous upgrades forever. Chrome is the easy way to do that right now.
So I will champion it.

Hopefully Firefox will get on board with this soon.

~~~
ansy
Invisible updating is a reason to convince someone else to use Chrome. The
reason I use Chrome is the fact it runs in a protected sandbox. If Firefox did
this I would seriously consider switching back.

~~~
shin_lao
IE9 does this as well.

~~~
ansy
IE9 isn't cross platform so it's a non-starter.

------
ZeroGravitas
Neither of those battles tells the whole story, and it's a shame to see the
same boring "browser versus browser" story again.

Firstly, out of all the other browsers that Mozilla would want to have take
share, Chrome is the obvious first choice due to shared ethos and belief in
the future direction of the web (e.g. WebM, WebRTC, WebGL etc.). The last
choice would be IE, which is where Chrome is mostly taking share. Chrome's
gains are therefore only a positive for Mozilla. Of course in a perfect world
they could take that share themselves, but in reality I don't think they've
got the advertising budget to reach many of those people still on IE. So
they're more like a tag-team than rivals.

On the other hand, Microsoft doesn't give a hoot if its browser is getting
trounced. Its sole purpose for existing is to hold the web back in defence of
their other cash cows, and it's the prospect of attack on that front that must
keep them up at night as Chrome uptake accelerates. Viewed in that light,
producing a half decent browser like IE9 is a failure, even if they have
salvaged some tiny upside by restricting it to their newer OSes.

~~~
larrik
Microsoft is intentionally holding back the web? I think that's attributing a
lot of malice to their actions, especially when you consider that MS basically
invented AJAX, or what they tried to achieve with ActiveX (despite the
security nightmare it became).

It seems much more likely to me that they are developing IE just like they
develop the rest of their software: slowly and with big tentpole releases. I
can't imagine you think they are intentionally holding back Windows and Office
as well?

~~~
bad_user
You need to look at the big picture.

Microsoft added the Microsoft.XMLHTTP wrapper in 1999 in IExplorer 5, which
was for its time a kickass browser. But when IExplorer 5 got released,
Netscape Navigator still had over 50% market share and IExplorer 5 was the
version that broke the camel's back (so to speak).

    
    
         what they tried to achieve with ActiveX
    

The only thing they tried with ActiveX was IExplorer lock-in. Also at that
time Java applets got really popular and ActiveX was the alternative. Suffice
to say ActiveX was not working in Netscape Navigator, but 1997 was also the
year Microsoft was sued by SUN for breaching the contract they had on
Microsoft's alternative Java 1.1 implementation, so investing in ActiveX was a
no-brainer.

Also, after IExplorer 6 most of the team moved to work on XAML / WPF /
Silverlight, so development practically grinded to a halt. For reference
IExplorer 6 got released in 2001, while IExplorer 7 in 2006 (5 years later)
and it took another 4 years or so for IExplorer 8. I'm not counting IExplorer
6 SP2, which was a release intended for security fixes.

So basically once the war with Netscape was over, Microsoft lost interest in
IExplorer and now they've picked up development again, but constantly lagging
behind the competition in features and you can clearly see their bias for all
things non-Microsoft - for example IExplorer 9 does not ship with WebGL, even
if it is a complete spec, since that would undermine their efforts with Direct
3D and Silverlight, 2 technologies which will never be web standards.

~~~
huherto
I couldn't agree more. Microsoft dominated the browser market just to slow the
adoption of any internet applications.

Google tried to break their lockin with partial success by helping Firefox and
later on by releasing chrome. Then Microsoft had to catch up again.

------
brudgers
> _"If Microsoft wants to halt the downward slide—let alone regain share—it's
> going to take more than a new browser release every so often."_

That seems to be a big "if." From Microsoft's perspective, it is difficult to
see producing the latest greatest browser as a key strategic goal - that's not
to say that a solid competent browser suitable for businesses and acceptable
as a default by ordinary consumers is not important.

For Microsoft the browser features which are critical are quite different from
those of other browser providers - Microsoft needs a browser which above all
provides a large degree of predictability, stability, and automation for
enterprise and business - pursuing Google's new release every week strategy
would be counter productive to Microsoft's need to provide a browser which is
well integrated into their technology stack. Consumer choice will never drive
Microsoft's browser development (hence we don't see IE for OSX or Linux).

The idea that Microsoft losing browser market share is a disaster lacks an
explanation of why. IE's market dominance was a liability for Microsoft (e.g.
the EU settlement) and IE itself is largely a cost center not a revenue
generator - how many consumers upgraded from XP just for IE9 and how much
revenue did that generate relative to the amount Microsoft spent on supporting
IE6 over the years?

If Microsoft was like Google or Mozilla, the loss in browser market share
would affect their bottom line. But they aren't, and it doesn't.

------
Shenglong
I really feel the battle is being fought on the wrong field. While it's great
and nice to have more release dates and new features as an assortment of
letters and numbers that the majority of the population has never heard of,
past the initial adoption, browsers are very much a marketing problem.

If you ask the average surfer how excited he/she is about WebM, WebRTC, WebGL,
XAML, WPF, etc in a new browser you'll probably get blank stare, a dropped
jaw, and at best, a response of "how fast is it?" Chrome has begun to set a
precedence for being fast and uncluttered, which is why the majority of people
have probably switched. I ran/run a fairly large project serving primarily the
17-22 demographic, and in the course of a year from January 2009 to 2010,
Chrome useage on my forums had increased from just under 5% to a stunning 29%.

Realistically, the IE brand is already damaged. If MSFT really wants to
compete with Firefox and Chrome, their best bet is to create another browser
for the new-adopters market.

~~~
quanticle

      If you ask the average surfer how excited he/she is about
      WebM, WebRTC, WebGL, XAML, WPF, etc in a new browser you'll
      probably get blank stare, a dropped jaw, and at best, a   
      response of "how fast is it?"
    

That's true, but it doesn't matter. When sites start using these advanced
features, and the Chrome user shows the Firefox user, "But look what my
browser can do!" that will drive adoption of Chrome.

EDIT: Also, XAML and WPF aren't web technologies. They're Microsoft
technologies that are intended for the desktop. Put simply XAML is the UI
layout language used by WPF and WPF is the .Net replacement for WinForms.

~~~
Shenglong
You might be right, but consider the adoption timeline for major technologies.
It isn't sudden, and I really can't think of a big visual change, other than
Flash. I remember when Flash 4 was new, and I was making Geocities websites
with frames on Netscape. Most widespread technologies will be adapted by
browsers before the masses use it - it's inevitable. I don't think feature-
innovation is a KSF for browsers.

It's actually interesting. I asked a few friends about this, and while all of
my consultant/banker/business friends agreed with me, 3/5 of my engineering
friends talked about features.

------
steveb
Even with a minority share, Google has all the initiative in the browser
market right now. They have forced their competitors to speed up development
and support standards. Rapid releases, HTML 5 support and fast javascript
engines benefit google as the overall web experience gets faster.

A secondary benefit for Google is that Microsoft is basically forced to
commoditize their own platform APIs in order to stay relevant in the browser
market.

~~~
brudgers
> _"in order to stay relevant in the browser market"_

The question is, "What is the browser market?"

For Opera, Mozilla and Google (and increasingly for Apple), the browser is
critical to their cash flow because it allows them to capture data and
monetize it through datamining or through licensing branded versions. For
those companies, browser adoption goes directly to the bottom line. But those
economics don't really apply to Microsoft's core business of selling software
rather than user information. For Microsoft having IE used for 80% of browsing
was a liability not an asset - monetizing their near monopoly was not a viable
option because of the legal problems it would create.

------
pnathan
My browsing experience is very minimalistic: I want adblock, flashblock, and
_speed_.

Firefox is bloated and slow on every platform I've used it on since Firefox 3.
Back when Firefox was Phoenix (0.7 or so), its goal was to be "lean and mean",
so I switched from Mozilla Netscape.

I use Chrome because it's fast and does exactly what I need it for. If Firefox
wants me back, it will have to be much faster (UI, not web-wise), and not suck
memory like a vacuum cleaner. Likely it'll have to use per-process tabs with
some spiff sandboxing too.

Chrome continuous update is pretty awesome as well.

~~~
JonnieCache
_> and not suck memory like a vacuum cleaner._

Not this _again._ It isn't 2003. If you want speed, then you want your browser
to take up as much RAM as possible. What else is it there for? Storing
recipes?

Trust your kernel to manage your memory, it's cleverer and better qualified
than you.

~~~
shin_lao
FF consumes more memory than IE9 on my machine and is much slower.

Consuming too much memory can slow down your program, especially if your
memory gets fragmented.

The kernel only manages the virtual memory, processes manage the heap
themselves through an userland library (provided by the OS or a third party).

~~~
JonnieCache
Good points. I probably spoke a little too hastily. I have become a bit
aggressive about allegations of firefox's memory 'leaks' over the years, but I
guess this is one place where people are actually informed enough to make them
legitimately :)

------
sp332
Windows 8's squares and panes (edit: "tiles") will be programmable using HTML
& JS. I think it's very likely that MS will add proprietary extensions to that
JS code that will only render correctly in IE 10. I don't really know if MS
still has enough clout to parlay that artificial "advantage" into browser
marketshare, but they might.

------
billybob
I wonder how much of that loss is due to people adopting Mac vs PC?

