Chrome 15 Is Now World’s Most Popular Browser (Version)(browserfame.com)
browserfame.com
Chrome 15 Is Now World’s Most Popular Browser (Version)
http://browserfame.com/321/chrome15-most-popular-browser-worldwide
19 comments
"If we consider all versions collectively, Internet Explorer continues to rule the world with around 40% usage share. Chrome and Firefox have 24.75% and 26.15% usage share respectively."
Another way to see this: Firefox and Chrome together rule over IE.
Made me smile.
Made me smile.
Something that this highlights: I really like it how I usually have no idea of what version of Chrome I am running.
I run both Firefox and Chrome and know which version I'm running. That would be today's builds. Grab the FF Nightly and Chrome Canary builds and help beta test. Close to half the Internet is getting upgraded every 6 weeks. More testers needed.
Can you run multiple versions side by side? Because I need to know if my site is compatible with the current version of Chrome, not the nightly. Would still like to be able to check out new stuff, though.
Chrome updates itself automatically, so you probably running the latest version.
Yes, that was my point exactly.
As someone who's uneasy about how much influence Google's gaining, I switched back to Firefox for about a week recently.
FF8 seems better than previous versions as far as performance goes, but Chrome still seems to be the king, and as a dev I spend so much time on the web it really matters.
FF8 seems better than previous versions as far as performance goes, but Chrome still seems to be the king, and as a dev I spend so much time on the web it really matters.
I prefer Chrome's dev tools, but there have been really nice speed improvements in Firefox 9 and 10 you should try out if you're thinking about giving up on it.
Couldn't FireFox adopt WebKit?
These stats are absolutely inaccurate. According to their FAQ:
"We do not manipulate the data in any way. We do not collate it with any other information sources. No artificial weightings are used. We simply publish the data as we record it."
Yet, 25% of their hits are recorded in the United States. Their recordings are not distributed in a same way users are. Data should be weighed up/down according to how much data they got from a region, how many people live there and what is the Internet penetration. I think that the graph (and not just this one) would look VERY different. Conclusion: Title is misleading. You can't say something is world's whatever when you have data from four countries.
edit: Inaccurate in the context of how they are interpreted.
"We do not manipulate the data in any way. We do not collate it with any other information sources. No artificial weightings are used. We simply publish the data as we record it."
Yet, 25% of their hits are recorded in the United States. Their recordings are not distributed in a same way users are. Data should be weighed up/down according to how much data they got from a region, how many people live there and what is the Internet penetration. I think that the graph (and not just this one) would look VERY different. Conclusion: Title is misleading. You can't say something is world's whatever when you have data from four countries.
edit: Inaccurate in the context of how they are interpreted.
Hello,
Thanks for your comment. I'm from StatCounter and would like to address your concerns.
Weighting stats means that the stats are only as good as the weighting methodology used. If the weighting data is inaccurate or out of date, then it renders the data completely incorrect. For these reasons, we choose not to weight our data in any way and instead we report is as we record - other commentators can, however, weight the data as they wish.
I'm not sure why you think we only have data from 4 countries. We have a very large global sample size of over 15 billion hits a month. You can view the country break-down here: http://gs.statcounter.com/faq#sample-size
Thanks for your comment. I'm from StatCounter and would like to address your concerns.
Weighting stats means that the stats are only as good as the weighting methodology used. If the weighting data is inaccurate or out of date, then it renders the data completely incorrect. For these reasons, we choose not to weight our data in any way and instead we report is as we record - other commentators can, however, weight the data as they wish.
I'm not sure why you think we only have data from 4 countries. We have a very large global sample size of over 15 billion hits a month. You can view the country break-down here: http://gs.statcounter.com/faq#sample-size
I understand that it is not really possible to make it perfect. And I also understand why you share raw data and it's probably the best way to do it. I just wouldn't make such strong conclusions from it.
Google is making a huge shift from dominating search to dominating the browser and the mobile OS, which have basically become the platforms on which most modern technology is going to be built.
These stats are based on the calculation of StatCounter.com
In other words more people on Firefox use ghostery and adblock so they never load statcounter in the first place.
In other words more people on Firefox use ghostery and adblock so they never load statcounter in the first place.
Here's the actual graph, the image in the linked article is terrible to look at.
http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version-ww-weekly-201132-...
http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser_version-ww-weekly-201132-...
What's just as amazing is in just two weeks, about 95% of Chrome 14 users 'switched' to Chrome 15. That same transition from IEX -> IEX+1 probably takes two years.
That's the power of transparent, automatic updates.
That's the power of transparent, automatic updates.
The real news is IE share, worldwide, is now only 40%!
So we're trading a browser from a company with a desktop monopoly for one with a web search monopoly. I'm trying to get excited here. It's a shame Firefox couldn't win, but it's tough going up against a determined multibillion dollar behemoth, especially when they get to leverage their monopoly (sound familiar?) by advertising on one of the world's most popular webpages, google.com, for free.
Chromium is as functional as Chrome and it's 100% Free Software. That's why you should like the Chrome family over IE; you can open up the hood and play with the little bits inside. With IE, you're stuck with whatever Microsoft is nice enough to give you.
Also, Bing advertises on Google too. And Google has basically paid for (and continues to pay for) Firefox's development.
If there's someone to hate here, it certainly isn't Google.
Also, Bing advertises on Google too. And Google has basically paid for (and continues to pay for) Firefox's development.
If there's someone to hate here, it certainly isn't Google.
I think your biases are showing here. No one said anything about hating anyone. It's about companies (with fudiciary obligations which aren't to the customer) are taking very strong dominating positions in key technologies.
Being Free Software really isn't a concern to most people. Try being a small company that tries to block aggression from Google or Microsoft. Will it matter that Chrome is free? It's not like you can go in and say, "Here I changed Chrome. All users now use this version." For 99.999% of users free software is meaningless.
What would make Chrome much more interesting is if they gave maintanance of it over to a standards body or even a university. At this point "free software" is just nice window dressing.
Being Free Software really isn't a concern to most people. Try being a small company that tries to block aggression from Google or Microsoft. Will it matter that Chrome is free? It's not like you can go in and say, "Here I changed Chrome. All users now use this version." For 99.999% of users free software is meaningless.
What would make Chrome much more interesting is if they gave maintanance of it over to a standards body or even a university. At this point "free software" is just nice window dressing.
Yes, they must be. I think Free Software is cool, and I am not upset that Google pays people to write it. I resisted using Chromium for a long time because I thought the Firefox folks were "fighting the good fight". But honestly, their software engineering practices suck compared to Google's and their product is, as a result, not as good. The great thing about freedom is that you can use both. Or you can take the good features from Chromium and put them in Firefox. Or you can make your own web browser.
You can also advertise it on Google as much as you want; they sell ads to pretty much everyone (including themselves).
In the end, I don't feel like Google is wronging me.
You can also advertise it on Google as much as you want; they sell ads to pretty much everyone (including themselves).
In the end, I don't feel like Google is wronging me.
could you expand on why you think mozilla's engineering practices suck ?
I have sometimes had a similar feeling, but I have too little competence to be a judge of that.
Because they are not as rigorous as Google's. At Google every commit is read and reviewed before it lands in source control. And they have an entire team dedicated to building the testing infrastructure, so they can do things like testing Flash against every possible input to see if there are any security holes. (There were.) Google is all about being super careful about every line of code. I don't know for a fact that Mozilla isn't, but the quality of the code that I've read in each browser makes me think Google has a better process. But I could be wrong.
> At Google every commit is read and reviewed before it lands
> in source control.
Something Mozilla has been doing for 12 years.
> And they have an entire team dedicated to building the > testing infrastructure
As does every browser developer.
> so they can do things like testing Flash against every > possible input
http://www.squarefree.com/2010/07/14/fuzzing-talk-at-the-moz...
Jesse and company have been writing lots of other fuzzers that aren't public yet as well...
Seriously, what you described above (pre-checkin code review and fuzz-testing) are all standard industry practices for web browsers and have been for years.
Something Mozilla has been doing for 12 years.
> And they have an entire team dedicated to building the > testing infrastructure
As does every browser developer.
> so they can do things like testing Flash against every > possible input
http://www.squarefree.com/2010/07/14/fuzzing-talk-at-the-moz...
Jesse and company have been writing lots of other fuzzers that aren't public yet as well...
Seriously, what you described above (pre-checkin code review and fuzz-testing) are all standard industry practices for web browsers and have been for years.
You could have verified the assumption that Mozilla doesn't do code review in 5 minutes here: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/
What do you think the "r=" lines are?
What do you think the "r=" lines are?
Actually, we are trading a browser from a company with a desktop monopoly and an internet monopoly for an environment in which said monopoly has ~40%, another monopoly has ~30%, an independent player has ~20%, and a bunch of smaller players (including Mobile) share the rest. And both the ~30 and ~20 are platform independent, largely FOSS systems.
This certainly seems like an improvement to me.
This certainly seems like an improvement to me.
exactly. Mozilla has often been great for pushing the web forward, but it's still made up of humans, so if they "win", it is unlikely to be an improvement for users or the web.
It's almost ridiculous how lucky we are to in fact have three major market-share holders with largely compatible platforms competing for our attention.
It's almost ridiculous how lucky we are to in fact have three major market-share holders with largely compatible platforms competing for our attention.
I too would have liked Firefox to win but I think it's nothing to do with advertising the reason for Firefox declining and it's simply that Firefox has lost it's mojo. From version 4 they killed their browser.
They may have redeemed themselves recently but I wouldn't care to look, Chrome picked up where Mozilla left off. Chrome is a fantastic browser and I never have issue with it. Firefox 4 and 5 used to crash at least once per day. If it wasn't crashing then the ram usage was spiralling out of control.
I would rather put my trust in Google than Microsoft, I believe that Google have the interest of a faster more up to date web than Microsoft do and I go with their values.
They may have redeemed themselves recently but I wouldn't care to look, Chrome picked up where Mozilla left off. Chrome is a fantastic browser and I never have issue with it. Firefox 4 and 5 used to crash at least once per day. If it wasn't crashing then the ram usage was spiralling out of control.
I would rather put my trust in Google than Microsoft, I believe that Google have the interest of a faster more up to date web than Microsoft do and I go with their values.
I live in Chrome and Firefox all day for web development. Firefox is playing catch up but they didn't kill their browser. Maybe just starved it for a while. And while I agree I'd rather google then microsoft have browser dominance, they're not perfect and shouldn't reign supreme.
In the past month, Google has advertised on the new tab page for their chrome book using a mechanism for emergency updates (in some cases people can't close the ad), and started a fight in the chromium community about supporting Dart directly. Neither one is a major offence but both exhibit they have their own interests at heart.
Spdy is another good example. (I like Spdy, and I think its a good idea, but...) SPDY™ is trademarked to Google. It currently has no rfc. (Just a mostly empty draft. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-agl-tls-nextprotoneg-00.htm... ) It was developed internally and not opened to comments. They control the largest implementations both server and client side. And while they're selling it as a way for everyone to make the web faster, they still have full control. (Apache support is here, nginx doesn't support it, Amazon uses it heavily for the kindle fire.)
In the past month, Google has advertised on the new tab page for their chrome book using a mechanism for emergency updates (in some cases people can't close the ad), and started a fight in the chromium community about supporting Dart directly. Neither one is a major offence but both exhibit they have their own interests at heart.
Spdy is another good example. (I like Spdy, and I think its a good idea, but...) SPDY™ is trademarked to Google. It currently has no rfc. (Just a mostly empty draft. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-agl-tls-nextprotoneg-00.htm... ) It was developed internally and not opened to comments. They control the largest implementations both server and client side. And while they're selling it as a way for everyone to make the web faster, they still have full control. (Apache support is here, nginx doesn't support it, Amazon uses it heavily for the kindle fire.)
> I would rather put my trust in Google than Microsoft, I believe that Google have the interest of a faster more up to date web than Microsoft do and I go with their values.
As someone who is deeply concerned with Google's dominance of the Web (and increasingly mobile), I would dearly love for you to list out your reasons for trusting them, so that I can change my mind. In the meantime I'll stick to Firefox, loss of mojo or otherwise.
As someone who is deeply concerned with Google's dominance of the Web (and increasingly mobile), I would dearly love for you to list out your reasons for trusting them, so that I can change my mind. In the meantime I'll stick to Firefox, loss of mojo or otherwise.
Can I ask a question, what phone do you have?
HP Pre3 (unlocked) with webOS.
So do you generally stay away from dominant companies who are the ones innovating?
You don't think webOS is innovative because it isn't dominating? Therefore you believe there is a relationship between domination and innovation? I'm sorry, but I disagree. Brand loyalty, marketing, and just plain inertia factor into all of these technology choices that we make every day, including what browser we use. I choose not to use Chrome, not because I think its dominating, but I do not share your trust in the company behind it (and you have yet to explain why you do).
Although I should have mentioned this in an earlier response, you have actually twisted my words. I actually said
>I would rather put my trust in Google than Microsoft, I believe that Google have the interest of a faster more up to date web than Microsoft do and I go with their values.
Not I trust Google over every company in the world. And I state my reasons for trusting Google over Microsoft. Because I think they are more in tune with the values of what I think the web should be about.
Yes I also think the more domineering companies are the most innovative. Do you think if WebOS was so innovative and fantastic HP would have canned it? Would HP (or google) be anywhere near the level of phone we have today if it wasn't for the iPhone?
You're right in that it has a lot to do with marketing and Google would not have got Chrome to where it is today without their ability to market it but if it was crap then there would have been no uptake? They don't get a 25% browser share from developing something that doesn't work?
Look at Google Wave, massive marketing, everyone looked forward to it and it was rubbish. It's not all about marketing or love for a brand. It's a mixture of everything. I also don't start dismissing a companies products because they are getting too big, I don't want the next best thing, I was the best tool for the job. Regardless of who it is (within realms of common sense)
>I would rather put my trust in Google than Microsoft, I believe that Google have the interest of a faster more up to date web than Microsoft do and I go with their values.
Not I trust Google over every company in the world. And I state my reasons for trusting Google over Microsoft. Because I think they are more in tune with the values of what I think the web should be about.
Yes I also think the more domineering companies are the most innovative. Do you think if WebOS was so innovative and fantastic HP would have canned it? Would HP (or google) be anywhere near the level of phone we have today if it wasn't for the iPhone?
You're right in that it has a lot to do with marketing and Google would not have got Chrome to where it is today without their ability to market it but if it was crap then there would have been no uptake? They don't get a 25% browser share from developing something that doesn't work?
Look at Google Wave, massive marketing, everyone looked forward to it and it was rubbish. It's not all about marketing or love for a brand. It's a mixture of everything. I also don't start dismissing a companies products because they are getting too big, I don't want the next best thing, I was the best tool for the job. Regardless of who it is (within realms of common sense)
[deleted]
I'm a Google fanboy, but I'm not sure if I want them to have a majority in the web browser space.
While they do move faster than MS, they also seem to have an habit of working on something internally, then one day they announce the feature in Chrome, dump a library to the other browsers and expect them to just integrate it. And since they control the biggest websites, there's immediately an unfair pressure; "Oh, you don't want to use SPDY? Well, then your browser will be slower on Google sites than Chrome" (they don't say - or probably even think - that, of course, but it's true)
Mozilla talks a lot about their development and seems to be more interested in a better web, and not just a better browser.
While they do move faster than MS, they also seem to have an habit of working on something internally, then one day they announce the feature in Chrome, dump a library to the other browsers and expect them to just integrate it. And since they control the biggest websites, there's immediately an unfair pressure; "Oh, you don't want to use SPDY? Well, then your browser will be slower on Google sites than Chrome" (they don't say - or probably even think - that, of course, but it's true)
Mozilla talks a lot about their development and seems to be more interested in a better web, and not just a better browser.
SPDY is not a good example. Google published the SPDY protocol before they rolled it out across all their properties, and Firefox has implemented it:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=528288
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=528288
I kind of agree but I think in another respect they have looked at an ageing protocol and made it better. They may not have consulted with everyone but it also doesn't mean that everyone will implement or agree with what they are doing.
They are not forcing SPDY on people but I am looking forward to an integration into IIS when it does happen.
They have created something in a hope that it does standardise the way we make web requests.
Microsoft actually did this without telling anyone years ago, at least google is open about it.
http://osdir.com/ml/mozilla.devel.netlib/2003-01/msg00018.ht...
They are not forcing SPDY on people but I am looking forward to an integration into IIS when it does happen.
They have created something in a hope that it does standardise the way we make web requests.
Microsoft actually did this without telling anyone years ago, at least google is open about it.
http://osdir.com/ml/mozilla.devel.netlib/2003-01/msg00018.ht...
Sure, but being better than a convicted monopoly abuser isn't a badge of honor ;)
[deleted]
"I too would have liked Firefox to win"
"They may have redeemed themselves recently but I wouldn't care to look"
These two sentences feel contradictory to me. If you want Firefox to win, at least give it a try once every few versions.
"They may have redeemed themselves recently but I wouldn't care to look"
These two sentences feel contradictory to me. If you want Firefox to win, at least give it a try once every few versions.
Although they seem a contradiction my argument is that they took on a development life cycle that was far above their means.
I would have loved Firefox to come out on top as for me they changed the web when they introduced tabs but they have been slow on innovation since. I feel Chrome gave them a kick and they responded, companies shouldn't operate like that, innovation should continue regardless.
I say I wouldn't care to look because I have moved on, Chrome goes above and beyond what I want from a browser, speed and stability. If Chrome starts to go in the direction of how Firefox went I would have no issue in trying another browser. I don't have time for allegiance to a browser, I just need it to work.
I would have loved Firefox to come out on top as for me they changed the web when they introduced tabs but they have been slow on innovation since. I feel Chrome gave them a kick and they responded, companies shouldn't operate like that, innovation should continue regardless.
I say I wouldn't care to look because I have moved on, Chrome goes above and beyond what I want from a browser, speed and stability. If Chrome starts to go in the direction of how Firefox went I would have no issue in trying another browser. I don't have time for allegiance to a browser, I just need it to work.
If any individual browser wins, we've lost the browser wars. As long as chrome and firefox are roughly even and together over 50% I'm content. Honestly I'm not sure I would want it any other way.
So we're trading a browser from a company with a desktop monopoly for one with a web search monopoly. I'm trying to get excited here.
Despite your sentiment, this is still moving the web forward. We all benefit from browsers built by vendors that have a genuine passion for the web. I'd argue that most believe Chrome is built from such passion more so than IE.
Since you brought up Firefox - I've always been on their side, up until I started living w/pain due to their decision to drop support for WebSQLDatabase. I'm now rooting for Chrome!
Despite your sentiment, this is still moving the web forward. We all benefit from browsers built by vendors that have a genuine passion for the web. I'd argue that most believe Chrome is built from such passion more so than IE.
Since you brought up Firefox - I've always been on their side, up until I started living w/pain due to their decision to drop support for WebSQLDatabase. I'm now rooting for Chrome!
Should be 15+ as this morning, my Ubuntu's update manager got chrome 16 for me (and many others, Linux, Mac and Win users).
All that these stats really show is that version distribution is the least fragmented on Chrome, which was the first to implement silent updates and supported it since the beginning.
It's interesting the different trends among browser versions. For Chrome when a new version comes out the previous one die almost immediately but IE users tend to keep their version for a long time. As a web developer I hate that :(
Since Chrome quietly updates, how do you think they'll handle updates that have significant UI changes? I guess you can have new versions have some features opt-in? That's what they've done with the GMail transition.
> Since Chrome quietly updates, how do you think they'll handle updates that have significant UI changes?
They'll do it, and if people disagree, well, too bad.
> That's what they've done with the GMail transition.
On the other hand, that's not what they did with the Reader transition, or when they broke the "+" operator in search.
They'll do it, and if people disagree, well, too bad.
> That's what they've done with the GMail transition.
On the other hand, that's not what they did with the Reader transition, or when they broke the "+" operator in search.
The main idea around Chrome is no significant changes from version to version. If you look at Chrome 9 and Chrome 15 you'll see there are significant changes but they were made in small iterations with each release.
The benefit of this is if they make a small change that causes a large pushback, they can easily stop that path of development and try another.
The benefit of this is if they make a small change that causes a large pushback, they can easily stop that path of development and try another.
For comparison have a look at the getclicky stats:
http://getclicky.com/marketshare/global/web-browsers/
They seem to be pretty close.
They seem to be pretty close.
I use the Firefox AwesomeBar to navigate the web. Is there an equivalent for Chrome? Chrome always seems to find searches I don't care about ahead of bookmarks or history.
A bold title, followed by the caveat at the end "These stats are based on the calculation of StatCounter.com, and the actual browser market share may differ from these."
Since Chrome doesn't have real AdBlocker, it is logical that stat counter will show its number accurate, while Firefox share will be underestimated due to a large amount of users blocking StatCounter and similar tracking services.
I'd love to see statistics on how many people use AdBlockers and/or Ghostery vs the wider audience that would be picked up by StatCounter and friends. I would be surprised if they made a large dent in the statistics though.
We can only speculate on that number. But point is whatever percent that is, they are likely Firefox users, since Chrome doesn't do real blocking of those sites.
If the number of privacy concerned people is only 5% (a guess as good as any other guess), add that number to Firefox percentage, and the picture looks quire different.
If the number of privacy concerned people is only 5% (a guess as good as any other guess), add that number to Firefox percentage, and the picture looks quire different.
Chrome has had the most popular unique user agent string for a while. The latest version of Chrome with Windows XP is always first, followed by Chrome on Windows 7.
and it still doesn't support rss like other browsers
So what you're saying is that a new Chrome user, in order to get functionality that other browsers have out of the box (I'm thinking of Opera, I'm biased like that), have to start digging after extensions.
That's fine and dandy for experienced PC users like you and me but what about regular people? Housewives, pensioners, working people who want to use a browser but don't have much time to invest in learning its intricacies.
History has shown that people can live with screwed up technology for a long time without looking for improvements because they think it's normal or they're used to it (floppy disks for file transfer in the 21st century, for instance) and sometimes new technology or features have to be forced upon the user for them to take it up. In the case of Chrome, regular people get a truncated version of what a browser can do (no significant difference in features from Internet Explorer except speed). This creates a large entry barrier for regular people.
Do you think your average grandpa using Chrome (or Firefox, for that matter) will have a revelation at some point, thinking "gee, I'd really like to have mouse gestures, they would make my life so much easier for my poor hands"? Or "wow, I'd sure like a speed dial whenever I open my browser so that I can go with one click to the pages I most often use" (no, I don't want "most visited" as chosen by Chrome, I want speed dial). No, of course it's not going to happen; grandpa has never heard of RSS, mouse gestures, speed dial, and so on; someone (or something) has to explicitly tell/show him these features so that he becomes aware that they are possible.
I also have a personal beef with the people who thought that on startup Chrome should have "open the home page" as default option instead of "reopen the pages that were open last". This is the most retarded default option I could think of in our day and age - if someone wants to get rid of their tabs then they will CLOSE THEM. It's that simple. Just because I have to close the browser does not mean that I finished what I was doing and that I want my tabs closed. Opera got this right more than 10 years ago but some people still have the Internet Explorer 6 mindset. It's as if all your Gmail messages were marked unread when you logged in to your inbox because hey, it's a new session.
TL/DR - extensions are a poor substitute for built-in functionality in a world where the majority of users still are regular users (non-tech savvy). Grandpa Joe will not go digging for extensions.
That's fine and dandy for experienced PC users like you and me but what about regular people? Housewives, pensioners, working people who want to use a browser but don't have much time to invest in learning its intricacies.
History has shown that people can live with screwed up technology for a long time without looking for improvements because they think it's normal or they're used to it (floppy disks for file transfer in the 21st century, for instance) and sometimes new technology or features have to be forced upon the user for them to take it up. In the case of Chrome, regular people get a truncated version of what a browser can do (no significant difference in features from Internet Explorer except speed). This creates a large entry barrier for regular people.
Do you think your average grandpa using Chrome (or Firefox, for that matter) will have a revelation at some point, thinking "gee, I'd really like to have mouse gestures, they would make my life so much easier for my poor hands"? Or "wow, I'd sure like a speed dial whenever I open my browser so that I can go with one click to the pages I most often use" (no, I don't want "most visited" as chosen by Chrome, I want speed dial). No, of course it's not going to happen; grandpa has never heard of RSS, mouse gestures, speed dial, and so on; someone (or something) has to explicitly tell/show him these features so that he becomes aware that they are possible.
I also have a personal beef with the people who thought that on startup Chrome should have "open the home page" as default option instead of "reopen the pages that were open last". This is the most retarded default option I could think of in our day and age - if someone wants to get rid of their tabs then they will CLOSE THEM. It's that simple. Just because I have to close the browser does not mean that I finished what I was doing and that I want my tabs closed. Opera got this right more than 10 years ago but some people still have the Internet Explorer 6 mindset. It's as if all your Gmail messages were marked unread when you logged in to your inbox because hey, it's a new session.
TL/DR - extensions are a poor substitute for built-in functionality in a world where the majority of users still are regular users (non-tech savvy). Grandpa Joe will not go digging for extensions.
That's fine and dandy for experienced PC users like you and me but what about regular people? Housewives, pensioners, working people who want to use a browser but don't have much time to invest in learning its intricacies.
I think you are vastly over-stating the cross-section of the population that both has no idea what a browser extension is, yet knows about RSS and cares about using it.
I think you are vastly over-stating the cross-section of the population that both has no idea what a browser extension is, yet knows about RSS and cares about using it.
That was my point. If they don't have that functionality in the browser they certainly won't go looking for it. If it's built-in there are ways to make the user aware of it (startup tips, random info pop-ups or even suggestions from more advanced users - "did you know you could do X very easily?").
I agree with you. I am very careful about which extensions I install because I dislike clutter (one of the many beauties of Chrome is it's simplicity). Also, I do not want to end up having extensions that might disappear. If the extension functionality were part of the browser, that would not be a problem.
I am sure those who used Firefox with all addons/plugins would love extensions. For me, extensions are to 'extend' the browser functionality, not to fill-in for the lack of functionality the browser should have.
I am sure those who used Firefox with all addons/plugins would love extensions. For me, extensions are to 'extend' the browser functionality, not to fill-in for the lack of functionality the browser should have.
Just out of curiosity, what observations concerning the way regular people use computers are you basing all this on? Most of the people I'd describe as regular people don't even know what RSS feeds are, and I don't know a single person who uses them.
Then again, a good number of the people I do know don't even understand the concept of a web address or even how to use bookmarks -- nevermind speed dial. Usually when I watch someone try to find a site, they just search for it in Google, and if Google isn't the default search provider, they search for Google in whatever search engine is the default. They also rarely use any browser "feature" except the back button, and they're afraid to try out new features. Even tabs and multiple windows are often underutilized or avoided by simply using one window at a time and closing it if they want to start over or visit a new site.
In fact, whenever they accidentally activate a feature they don't use (history, right-click context menu, rss feed view, gestures, etc.), it often just leads to confusion because they weren't paying attention to what they did to set off the unfamiliar feature's action. As a result, they just close the window and start over, and if it happens again they get frustrated and do something else.
Also, learning new features isn't free. There's a cognitive cost involved and it takes a certain amount of training and repetition to solidify the ability to use new features. For some people, it's higher than for others, and eventually it gets to a point where people like my Dad have to basically relearn the same features over and over again every time they use a computer. Listening to older relatives talk about their computer experiences, it also sounds like most of the time they're too deeply afraid of accidentally breaking their computer by clicking or doing the wrong thing to learn features by experimenting, further reducing the ability for them to solidify their learning through repetition and practice.
By comparison, those individuals I see who are willing to learn new features or who can notice what they did to set off a feature are usually pretty tech-savvy (or soon will be) and would be able to figure out how to use and install extensions anyway.
So personally, I think it's a good idea to aim for a default, minimalist interface and avoid gestures and interactive UI elements that users can accidentally click or activate. But that's just based on my casual observations of people using computers, which is why I'd love to hear yours, since apparently you disagree.
Then again, a good number of the people I do know don't even understand the concept of a web address or even how to use bookmarks -- nevermind speed dial. Usually when I watch someone try to find a site, they just search for it in Google, and if Google isn't the default search provider, they search for Google in whatever search engine is the default. They also rarely use any browser "feature" except the back button, and they're afraid to try out new features. Even tabs and multiple windows are often underutilized or avoided by simply using one window at a time and closing it if they want to start over or visit a new site.
In fact, whenever they accidentally activate a feature they don't use (history, right-click context menu, rss feed view, gestures, etc.), it often just leads to confusion because they weren't paying attention to what they did to set off the unfamiliar feature's action. As a result, they just close the window and start over, and if it happens again they get frustrated and do something else.
Also, learning new features isn't free. There's a cognitive cost involved and it takes a certain amount of training and repetition to solidify the ability to use new features. For some people, it's higher than for others, and eventually it gets to a point where people like my Dad have to basically relearn the same features over and over again every time they use a computer. Listening to older relatives talk about their computer experiences, it also sounds like most of the time they're too deeply afraid of accidentally breaking their computer by clicking or doing the wrong thing to learn features by experimenting, further reducing the ability for them to solidify their learning through repetition and practice.
By comparison, those individuals I see who are willing to learn new features or who can notice what they did to set off a feature are usually pretty tech-savvy (or soon will be) and would be able to figure out how to use and install extensions anyway.
So personally, I think it's a good idea to aim for a default, minimalist interface and avoid gestures and interactive UI elements that users can accidentally click or activate. But that's just based on my casual observations of people using computers, which is why I'd love to hear yours, since apparently you disagree.
There are various levels of "regular" people, you could almost classify them by ADD rules such as "regular curious",
"regular neutral", "regular adverse to learning" and so on.
> By comparison, those individuals I see who are willing to learn new features or who can notice what they did to set off a feature are usually pretty tech-savvy (or soon will be) and would be able to figure out how to use and install extensions anyway.
Those would be the "regular curious". Sure they could figure out by themselves how to install extensions but why would they? Before speed dial nobody felt the need to have such a feature (so why search for an extension?), but now a lot of people can't live without it (same for multiple tabs, sessions, mouse gestures, integrated search, closed tabs bin, and so on). Until you have a feature at your finger tips you will almost always not feel the need to have it, thinking "meh, I can live without it". Once you start using it your perspective changes.
Basically, a regular user who always had a minimalistic browser will hardly feel the need to go looking for extra functionality except for dire cases (ad-block or something). So the fact that he is technically capable of installing extensions is a moot point. He first needs to become aware of that functionality and the process of testing it out should be easy enough for the curiosity to surpass the "don't need it" feeling. Sure, you could live with just a unique tab and an address bar. it's nice and minimalistic. How many regular users would bother installing extensions?
> Then again, a good number of the people I do know don't even understand the concept of a web address or even how to use bookmarks -- nevermind speed dial.
These would be "regular adverse to learning". But seriously, have you ever used speed dial? It's much easier to use than bookmarks. I explained it to a lot of regulars in 50 words or less "click the 'plus' button, enter the address of a website you want to visit later". It's difficult to explain this to people who can't quite hold a mouse in their hands but for regulars like my mother, girlfriend, whoever, it's very easy to explain.
Let's take the case of my mom. First I showed her how to open Opera instead of IE. Then, after she got used to it, I showed multiple tabs. Then, after a while, speed dial. Then I moved the tabs on the left side so that she had more space. In the case of my girlfriend I also showed her RSS so that she wouldn't check every day for new blog posts.
The trick is to introduce these features/changes gradually, depending on one's level of comfort with technology. At one point I actually managed to get a person with a rather ossified brain to use speed dials and multiple tabs.
Obviously, if a person were using a browser without a certain feature then I wouldn't go about installing extensions for them. For one, I would have to search for a decent extension since their quality is most of the times inferior to the out-of-the-box feature, the user would most likely receive strange notifications about them and wouldn't know what to do, they could pose a security risk, and so on. I'd just say "oh, you're using browser X? I could try installing an extension... ah, screw it. Carry on with business as usual, searching on google the website that you visit 10 times a day".
> So personally, I think it's a good idea to aim for a default, minimalist interface and avoid gestures and interactive UI elements that users can accidentally click or activate.
Well it's not a mutually exclusive affair. Opera has a truckload of features and a minimalist interface. The speed and resource consumption are as good as Chrome's (and much better when large amounts of tabs are involved, because of the one-process-per-tab slowness). So what is the reason for choosing Chrome over Opera then? Just curious.
> By comparison, those individuals I see who are willing to learn new features or who can notice what they did to set off a feature are usually pretty tech-savvy (or soon will be) and would be able to figure out how to use and install extensions anyway.
Those would be the "regular curious". Sure they could figure out by themselves how to install extensions but why would they? Before speed dial nobody felt the need to have such a feature (so why search for an extension?), but now a lot of people can't live without it (same for multiple tabs, sessions, mouse gestures, integrated search, closed tabs bin, and so on). Until you have a feature at your finger tips you will almost always not feel the need to have it, thinking "meh, I can live without it". Once you start using it your perspective changes.
Basically, a regular user who always had a minimalistic browser will hardly feel the need to go looking for extra functionality except for dire cases (ad-block or something). So the fact that he is technically capable of installing extensions is a moot point. He first needs to become aware of that functionality and the process of testing it out should be easy enough for the curiosity to surpass the "don't need it" feeling. Sure, you could live with just a unique tab and an address bar. it's nice and minimalistic. How many regular users would bother installing extensions?
> Then again, a good number of the people I do know don't even understand the concept of a web address or even how to use bookmarks -- nevermind speed dial.
These would be "regular adverse to learning". But seriously, have you ever used speed dial? It's much easier to use than bookmarks. I explained it to a lot of regulars in 50 words or less "click the 'plus' button, enter the address of a website you want to visit later". It's difficult to explain this to people who can't quite hold a mouse in their hands but for regulars like my mother, girlfriend, whoever, it's very easy to explain.
Let's take the case of my mom. First I showed her how to open Opera instead of IE. Then, after she got used to it, I showed multiple tabs. Then, after a while, speed dial. Then I moved the tabs on the left side so that she had more space. In the case of my girlfriend I also showed her RSS so that she wouldn't check every day for new blog posts.
The trick is to introduce these features/changes gradually, depending on one's level of comfort with technology. At one point I actually managed to get a person with a rather ossified brain to use speed dials and multiple tabs.
Obviously, if a person were using a browser without a certain feature then I wouldn't go about installing extensions for them. For one, I would have to search for a decent extension since their quality is most of the times inferior to the out-of-the-box feature, the user would most likely receive strange notifications about them and wouldn't know what to do, they could pose a security risk, and so on. I'd just say "oh, you're using browser X? I could try installing an extension... ah, screw it. Carry on with business as usual, searching on google the website that you visit 10 times a day".
> So personally, I think it's a good idea to aim for a default, minimalist interface and avoid gestures and interactive UI elements that users can accidentally click or activate.
Well it's not a mutually exclusive affair. Opera has a truckload of features and a minimalist interface. The speed and resource consumption are as good as Chrome's (and much better when large amounts of tabs are involved, because of the one-process-per-tab slowness). So what is the reason for choosing Chrome over Opera then? Just curious.
No Safari?
You can see Browser-share as opposed to Browser-version share if you go to the statcounter page linked above. Webkit is around 6% and Chrome is 27% making WebKit ~33% and rising. All versions of IE are ~38.5 and falling. Firefox is ~25% and falling really slowly. Opera is <2% and rising really, really slowly.
Plenty of browsers missing of that chart. I assume they have just selected the top 3 to keep it simple.