Firefox Appears Ready to Crack 20% Share Next Month

CWmike writes "Mozilla's Firefox browser is on pace to hit the 20% market-share mark next month. Net Applications marketing VP Vince Vizzaccaro didn't pin all of Firefox's increase on a change last month to its update dialog; he did note the new approach. 'Mozilla has implemented a change in Firefox 3.0 [Release Candidate 1] where the installation now has a checkbox that defaults to making Firefox your default browser,' he explained. He refused to ding Mozilla for the practice. 'The option is clearly displayed and labeled, unlike Safari, which misleadingly labeled the Safari install as an "update" [but has] since correctly changed to an 'install.' However, this practice is a break from the traditional practice browsers employed of defaulting this option to off.'"

Default Browser

[timeOday]

What does the "default browser" setting actually do? I always run the browser by clicking the "firefox" icon (or "internet explorer," if necessary). So I don't see when the "default browser" is invoked.

What's the RIGHT number?

[_bug_]

Firefox @ 16% [thecounter.com]
Firefox @ 18% [hitslink.com]
Firefox @ 40% [w3schools.com]

So which one is right?

defaults

[Anonymous Coward]

However, this practice is a break from the traditional practice browsers employed of defaulting this option to off.

Odd. Nearly every browser I've used warns me that it's not the default if I've set something else to be the default. I don't recall going into every single one of those and turning the "check if this browser is the default" option on.

ecommerce impact

[davejenkins]

I've seen specific cases where, unfortunately, a programming team ignored the firefox angle when testing their code, and wrote in .NET specific goodies that only worked in IE.

Sure enough, sales dipped almost 20% for a week. We ran the reports, and Firefox was accounting for 21% of site traffic (until that week, where it dropped off to almost nil). We quickly fixed the code, and firefox shot right back up to 21-22%.

The demographics for this website are a little bit younger than the general population, so it made sense that we had already broken through 20%

Doesn't seem entirely unreasonable..

[Xocet_00]

I mean, most people that go out of their way to download a browser installer probably intend to use that browser as their default, whether it's Safari, Opera or Firefox.

Picture this: Joe User downloads and installs Firefox, clicks right through the installer without reading and then starts clicking the little Firefox icon when he wants to surf the net. However, since the 'default' checkbox was blank by default, whenever his friend on MSN sends him a link, he clicks it and it opens in Internet Explorer. In my experience, a very large number of users will not notice that they're not in their usual browser for quite a while. They may navigate away from the linked site and do banking or other security sensitive stuff, but now they're in a browser that hasn't necessarily been keeping up with patches because it's rarely being run.

I don't know, but it seems to be that it's safer to default that box to be checked. Users that keep multiple browsers for testing purposes already know to look for it, will remember to uncheck it, and are in the minority anyway.

Well, isn't that ironic?

[wattrlz]

Why is it that web designers and developers - and I'm guilty of this too - almost always knowingly use a browser that most of their users won't? I guess it's not so much of a problem anymore, but back in the day developing in Firefox, Opera, or any browser that wasn't IE was a sure way to run into interesting and convoluted issues when your users views your page in IE and it renders all differently.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[Warll]

It's because of IE that most web devs use Firefox. I mean how can one wilingfuly swear and condem IE to the depths of hell while still using it as your primary browser?

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[Jellybob]

It takes a fraction of the time needed to make a site that was built in Firefox to work in IE compared to making a site built in IE work with any real web browser.

In most cases I can build the site using Firefox, knowing that'll it'll be 99% the same in Safari, Opera, and whatever other browsers you can think of. Then I just need an IE specific stylesheet (that'll be full of nasty hacks) to make everything look right in IE as well.

And that's not taking into account the extensions that make life so much more pleasant. Firebug alone must have saved me several days of tracing bugs this year.

Re:installation (and 'since correctly changed'?)

[heffrey]

There's actually quite a lot to be said for asking certain questions when an app starts rather than at installation time.

The questions you ask at installation time should be the ones that sysadmins can answer, like where do you want me to put the app and which components do you want to install.

The questions you ask when a user starts the app (for the first time) are questions that the user's answer. An easy way to work out which category a particular choice falls in is whether or not the setting is per user or one setting for the entire machine.

The default browser is a per user setting and the choice should be offered when a user starts the app for the first time.

Presumably what Mozilla have done is to set the default browser for the user performing the installation. This seems somewhat perverse.

Of course Mozilla has little penetration in corporations where these issues are more relevant. And it won't ever get any such penetration until there are good tools for packaging Firefox + add-ons in an MSI. Before anyone flames about MSI being Windows only, corporations overwhelmingly use Windows on the desktop. And even for non-corp users I'll bet Firefox gets more use in Windows than the other OSs combined.

Have they made it multi process yet on unix?

[Viol8]

I'm really getting tired of firefox crapping out on me (usually because of flash it has to be said) and because its running one big multi threaded app no matter how many windows you open or seperate instances you attempt to start, the whole lot disappear taking all my sessions with them. The current multi process option doesn't work. Have they added one yet that does because it really needs it if they can't sort out the reliability?

Presumably they make it multi threaded so it fits into Windows limited process model but surely a multi process version can't be hard to achieve!

OT Mod comment

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

That comment isn't informative, its inquisitive, which should be a mod option.

Maybe

[assertation]

Maybe with 20% market share I will start meeting web site designers who know that Microsoft is not "the internet", that there are other browsers and that the W3 sets the standards.

The most successful FOSS product?

[assertation]

Would having 20% of the share of the browser market make Firefox the most successful *end user* FOSS?

If so, I think it provides a loud message to old school free(dom) software developers who see crappy interfaces as only a small inconvenience that users SHOULD suck up and stop "whining" about.

IMHO one of the reasons for the success of Firefox among Jane User is the easy of use and simple interface.

Re:Default Browser

[DCstewieG]

One would think that WL Messenger, being written by Microsoft, would be more aware of system settings and their intended effects..

A cynic might imagine they understand this quite well.

1. Casual Firefox user clicks link from friend
2. IE opens asking if it should be set as the default
3. An IE user is reborn

I suppose this list replaces the ??? between "ignore system setting" and "Profit!"

Slashdot browser usage distribution??

[BlackCreek]

Yo,Taco!

Where, and when are we getting to see the browser usage distribution of Slashdot?

I bet you could have one of those stories with more than 1000 posts by publishing it in the "Taco Blog", and linking to it.

It would probably be very interesting to see how (if?) the distribution varies depending on section (games, linux, mac etc).

Already there.

[iplayfast]

I run a fairly busy site [stockchase.com] that has the following stats:
1. Internet Explorer 97,589 75.07%
2. Firefox 26,383 20.30%
3. Safari 4,844 3.73%
4. Opera 500 0.38%
5. Netscape 329 0.25%
6. Mozilla 270 0.21%
7. Konqueror 37 0.03%
8. Camino 21 0.02%
9. Mozilla Compatible Agent 6 > 0.00%
10.
Playstation 3 5 > 0.00%

What is interesting to note is that this site is for stock investors so think middle aged, none-technical crowd.
(Com-on Konqueror!)

Re:Default Browser

[digitrev]

Which is exactly why I use Thunderbird. Actually, that's more of a side benefit of using Thunderbird (well, at least after you install and configure the add-on to let you do that). I really use Thunderbird because I have 6 different e-mail addresses, all active for various reasons: one for school (HAVE to check that one, so I just forward it to another e-mail), one hotmail for signing up for various crap on the internet, one gmail for e-mailing other people, one gmail for slightly professional looking service (at least until I move out and get an ISP linked address), and one gmail for anonymity. Oh, and another collective e-mail for the podcast I'm part of. Between that, Firefox, and SharpReader (an rss feed), I rarely have to use IE.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[rubberglove]

I haven't actually tried this yet, but I got all excited when I saw it: firebug lite [getfirebug.com]

Re:Default Browser

[digitrev]

Thank god I'm not the only person who still uses the run box. Nine times out of ten, it's faster than using my mouse. I just Win Key , R, firefox, and go. Or, if I really need to access iexplore, it's Win Key, R, iexplore , and go. My typing is much faster than my mousing, so anything that prevents me from using that damned mouse is perfect for me.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[Pugwash69]

I use Firefox because it's usually a better indicator of errors in the HTML, especially with a w3c validator add on enabled. At least any sites I built to work in Firefox and IE6 didn't break when IE7 came out.

Re:That would be an odd setup

[Inner_Child]

You could also check out Emesene [emesene.org]. It's fairly new to the scene, but looks promising.

Firebug

[MisterSquirrel]

I use primarily Firefox during web development, because it seems more efficient and sensible to target a reasonably compliant browser first, and then adjust to IE afterward. I use Firefox mostly because having Firebug available is so useful during development and debugging.

Re:LOOK! LISTEN! HEED!

[CastrTroy]

Personally I prefer using command line FTP to download Firefox on windows machines. That way I never have to use Internet Explorer. On Linux I just urpmi (or whatever your distro uses) to get firefox.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[AI0867]

Whereas firefox is even compatible with IE's bugs. (<blockquote> overflows and more)

Re:ecommerce impact

[moore.dustin]

Making quite a few reaches to defend him are we not? A defense like that almost proves that he was fibbing.

Re:ecommerce impact

[quacking duck]

No programming team would ignore FF unless directed to do so. You are telling me you got a group of programmers together and they all loved IE so much they were completely oblivious to FF?

I *wish* this were true. A .NET vendor for my work did just that, and when we asked why Firefox didn't work they said they'd fix the issues for a very tidy sum, or they'd have to re-allocate time/money from more urgent tasks (we're a small org, the vendor was delivering customizations for a huge .NET product, I had no say in our requirements, and my supervisor has an irrational hate on for Firefox). Of course, they're now proceeding further developing against IE only, so it'll be that much more effort if/when there's a push for standards compliance.

The flip side are a few vendors who *didn't* test on IE before delivery, only Firefox. That caused just as many headaches for me, with the secondary effect that it entrenches my supervisor's opinion against Firefox even more.

Re:Well, isn't that ironic?

[bsDaemon]

I'm saying that a lot of people -- especially these days -- to whom Linux was billed as an "alternative" to Windows expect it to look like Windows, work like Windows, and do the same sort of things Windows does.

Let us ignore commodity hardware for a second and think back a few years.

One would not buy a "PC" to run scientific applications or do any serious 3D modeling -- that is what Sun and SGI were for. Likewise, while one COULD generate documents on a an O2, just using Office or WordPerfect on a "PC" is a lot easier.

f/oss operating systems, but running on commodity hardware confuse the issue for people who have for so long connected "PC" with DOS/Windows. A lot of people in their 40s/50s still call it "IBM," even if its a Dell.

Then along come people, most of whom have a political agenda or just hate Microsoft, and try and "convert" people to Linux. "Its like Windows, only better," they say -- just like how people will describe GIMP as "like photoshop, only better" or "free photoshop."

Then the 'convert' comes with their preconceived notions of what the system is supposed to do -- and they EXPECT it to be "like Windows" or "free photoshop."

Then those people bitch and complain because they feel let down.

Linux is fine, if its not trying to be Windows. GIMP is fine, if its not trying to be Photoshop.

But then those same people with the political agenda, but this time just the ones with coding skills, they come out and try and make the system MORE like Windows, MORE like Photoshop, etc.

So, in the process of trying to cater to people who switched from Windows because they hated it, they make the system more like Windows -- and start to whittle away the stuff that made the system different and good in the first place, at least from a technological standpoint.

However, I suppose it makes sense to them that a half-assed rip-off of windows that is at least "free" is somehow better than "the real thing." It just confuses the issue and really to no avail.

This is why I use BSD -- because I don't really give a crap about "free software," converting people, etc. I care that the system works and does what I want, and if I don't have code for nvidia drivers, then tough noogies. When I was in high school I used to shell out for XiG Accelerated X server instead of using XFree86, too. If I had been able to afford BSD/OS back then, I would have bought it, too.