Google's Chrome Declining In Popularity 489
holy_calamity writes "After launching in a blaze of publicity that even warmed Slashdot, Google's browser grabbed a 3% share of the market, but has been slipping ever since, and now accounts for 1.5%. Google has also stopped promoting the browser on its search page. Assuming they wanted it to grab a significant share of the browser market, have they dropped the ball, or is this part of the plan?" On Slashdot, Chrome is still the #4 browser (after FF, IE, and Safari) but it was ahead of Safari for a few days, hitting almost 10% of our traffic.
I know why... (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought it was in beta (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I know why... (Score:5, Insightful)
I booted up windows to see what all the fuss was about, then went right back to linux. Let me know when they have a package in the ubuntu repository.
Re:I know why... (Score:4, Insightful)
(1) Lack of NoScript and AdBlock plugins.
(2) No Linux version.
(3) Speaking of plugins, There's no clear Google-sponsored plugin site analagous to Mozilla's [mozilla.org](googling "Firefox plugins" vs. "Google Chrome plugins"), so it lacks credibility.
(4) Speaking of lacking in credibility, GOOG are heavily into advertising - Incognito is a neat feature but what will GOOG do with our web records and even keystrokes? [/tinfoil hat]
(5) More of a suggestion, but Google should have given Chrome a bit more fanfare(Slashvertisements nothwithstanding
If it satisfied (1) it'd be my primary browser on Windows and if it satisfied (2) then it'd be my primary browser, period. Damn shame.
Just don't need another browser (Score:5, Insightful)
With all the options available today, there's just not a need for another browser right now. For most that don't want to use whatever their default browser is, they use FireFox. Firefox also had a lot more grass-roots promotion in the earlier days, that does not appear to be prevalent with Chrome.
Re:I thought it was in beta (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I know why... (Score:4, Insightful)
Firebug holds the gold as a web developer
Linux port yet? (Score:4, Insightful)
Still waiting for their e-mail saying a native Linux port is available.
I gots no use for Windows apps.
It's not that it's a bad browser.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess I'm one of the 1.5 (Score:5, Insightful)
But honestly, this seems entirely standard. Of course it's going to start off with a surge of popularity and then lose a little momentum. This doesn't mean Google has "dropped the ball", it means that people are acting quite normally. It may have been a mistake for Google to release Chrome before all the kinks were worked out (mine has crashed a couple times); however, I don't think this decline in percentage was anything that wasn't expected -- 1.5% is still a hell of a lot of people.
Stability (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been giving Chrome a try myself, but my wife and my kids all still use FF or IE. I like that it takes up less screen realestate for tabs and so forth, and the history-homepage thingy is useful to me.
I'd be happier with Chrome if it weren't for it's habit of getting hung up on Flash sites and bringing the whole OS to a screeching halt - sites that work fine in Firefox.
Re:Just don't need another browser (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty much it. Firefox is as good or better than Chrome and has a lot more plugins.
Adblock is probably a big driver for Firefox. Also Firefox works on Windows, Mac, Linux, Solaris, and BSD.
So why move
I think Chrome will be big on mobile devices.
Re:I thought it was in beta (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's not that it's a bad browser.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I know why... (Score:4, Insightful)
Just had this conversation (Score:4, Insightful)
with a bunch of engineering students last night. A few had Chrome on their laptops (We were meeting at a coffee shop about a conference), but most of the people in the shop were using FireFox. FF works fine for them and most asked why should they try chrome when what they have works with few or no complaints. There was nothing revolutionary in Chrome from their perspective. Hell, I opened it up and the first thing I saw was the dial pad area and I thought, "what the hell, looks just like Opera with different looking tabs at the top." To me there was no reason to use Chrome over Opera or FF or Safari.
People are generally hesitant to change unless there is a good reason. Look at how long it to FF to make in roads. Finally when MSIE was having the hijack of the week, people moved to FF because of the perception it was somehow safer. A lot of Mac users, myself included, use Safari because it works. That was not always the case, but these days I don't have many problems with safari and webpages. I have FF and Opera but I rarely use either unless I'm testing.
Re:I know why... (Score:2, Insightful)
That might be a reason why people don't use it, but doesn't explain why Google isn't pushing it more.
My take is that theyre probably wary of pushing it too hard because of monopoly concerns, especially with the Yahoo deal under scrutiny by the government right now, the fewer pieces of the internet it appears they have control over, the better..
Re:I thought it was in beta (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, "beta" doesn't necessarily mean "not ready for day to day use", especially with Google products. GMail has millions of users, but is still officially "beta."
But jargon aside, I think you're correct. Google people have their blind spots, but all in all they're pretty smart, and I find it hard to believe that this release of Chrome was meant to to grab any significant market share. Too many functional limitations.
If you go by the emphasis of the comic book [google.com], this version of Chrome is mostly about contributing to the open source browser community, and getting that community to rethink some of its strategies. And that actually makes sense. My only question is whether there will ever be a more serious version that will actually compete with other browsers. I think, probably not, but I'd be very happy to be wrong.
Re:On the plus side... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Just don't need another browser (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, one reason is the process independence of the tabs. Just yesterday I had a bunch of tabs open in Firefox to all sorts of stuff - the Globe and Mail, YouTube, Slashdot, various bits of documentation, etc. One tab went nuts and brought the whole thing down. I hate that, and it should never happen. Each tab is like a separate app - having one tab crash everything harkens back to the days of cooperative multitasking (hello again, AmigoOS/Win 3.1/OS 7/8/9).
Once Chrome is fully up to speed with plugins and various refinements, I'll switch for sure.
They open sourced it for a reason (Score:3, Insightful)
If your goal is to get other browsers to improve, then market share is nice but not a necessity. Google wants the world full of browsers that are good platforms for web-based applications.
Re:Just had this conversation (Score:4, Insightful)
And it's great if Firefox users keep on using Firefox. The people we want to switch to Chrome are current IE users. What can Google do to attract them, where Mozilla/Apple/Opera have failed?
Re:I know why... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I guess I'm one of the 1.5 (Score:5, Insightful)
1.5% is still a hell of a lot of people.
Weird. No one ever modded me insightful for saying that about Ron Paul. :)
I know why to (Score:4, Insightful)
People wanted to tested it.
Ohnoz, some people thought their old browser was better than the first public version of the other one, who could have guessed!?!
Re:I know why... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I know why... (Score:5, Insightful)
No add-ons. I want my ad block plus please.
According to one source [internetworldstats.com], there are about 1.5 billion Internet users in the world. Another source [hitslink.com] estimates that maybe 20%, or 300 million of them, are using Firefox.
Now, Mozilla.org says that most popular add-on [mozilla.org] right now is Video DownloadHelper with about 340K downloads each week. However, its developers have released 32 versions in the last 22 months [mozilla.org], so a big chunk of downloads will be for upgraders. Let's assume that a full one-half of all downloads are first-time users and not people upgrading from last week's version, and that 100% of downloaders actually use it. That means that Video DownloadHelper has about 16,000,000 users, or about 5% of Firefox's user base.
You like add-ons. I like add-ons. Objectively, though, we're a very small minority of users. The numbers look even worse for your position when you consider that the majority of Internet users are browsing with Internet Explorer, and therefore wouldn't miss add-ons were they to switch to Chrome.
There are a lot of reasons why people might not be using Chrome. The lack of add-ons is almost certainly not an important one, statistically speaking.
It's a beta... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a beta browser guys... Should they really be *that* worried if interest drops off after the initial peak and very first release? Between FF, Safari, and dare I say it Opera, there's plenty of non-IE choices out there in the world to satisfy everyone.
Let Google do their thing, and if they're on the right track they'll pick up users as they inch closer to a non-beta status. Though this being Google...
Re:I know why... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but you're still starting IE :-)
Re:I thought it was in beta (Score:2, Insightful)
Hmmm...
A vanilla browser....with basic functionality...with some innovative caveats.
Nope, sounds *exactly* like something Google would produce (and anyone with realistic expectations might expect).
Remember: Gmail wasn't exactly "feature rich" when it was launched...neither was their search engine.
Too many people see these services as they are *now* and expect any new release by Google to have *at least* that amount of functionality. ...that's just not the way Google works. Basics first, trial and testing, add a feature here, tweak a feature there, trial and testing ad infinatum.
Re:I know why... (Score:5, Insightful)
I respect your math, but disagree with your conclusion. New technologies do not go straight to users. They get picked up by early adopters, who then tell everyone about them. Half of the students at my university were using Firefox after we left. Mostly because nerds like me installed it on their computers. When people like us start installing Chrome on everyone's computers, everyone will move to Chrome.
So without plugins and without Linux and Mac support, I won't support it. And if I don't, my parents, girlfriend, colleagues, and friends won't, because they don't really care, and why should they?
Get a Linux / Mac Version (Score:4, Insightful)
Get a Linux / Mac version of the browser going and see what happens. I know there aren't nearly as many Linux / Mac users out there, but these are vocal communities who will extol virtues of anything that takes up less processor capacity or makes their day have one less click in it. There's an opportunity to make all these windows guys feel like they are missing out unless they use Chrome.
M
Re:I know why... (Score:3, Insightful)
You like add-ons. I like add-ons. Objectively, though, we're a very small minority of users.
But it is also only a small minority of users who will download new web browsers instead of just using what's already installed on their computer. And their is going to be a large overlap between the two groups of users.
Google isn't looking for browser market share (Score:4, Insightful)
Google wants to be able to drive the future of the web and how it is used. To do that, they need some say in how browsers are built. Even if only 1.5% of people use Chrome, they still get this. For example, Google needs users to have browsers with fast Javascript so their apps work well. By releasing Chrome, they put pressure on Firefox and IE to meet their performance benchmarks. As they add other features, other browsers must take notice.
Re:I know why... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, it's important to understand that all users of addons are not using any particular addon. VideoDownload helper? I've never even heard of it honestly, but I DO use Adblock Plus and NoScript. Other users use other addons. Now certainly many, many of these addons have overlapping user bases, but the percentage of users who use ANY addon is going to be a very different figure from the percentage of users that use any specific addon.
Re:I know why... (Score:4, Insightful)
citation needed [xkcd.com].
Have you ever heard of innovators and early adopters? Do you recognize the influence they have in markets? There is a recognized "product diffucion curve" where innovators and early adopters have significant influence over the larger (mass) market.
I would assert that early adopters are more likely to use add-ons. I would therefore assert that the lack of add-ons may be important, and may be statistically significant. I would also assert that Firefox, IE and Safari meet the criteria of "good enough" and therefore replacement products have a much higher hurdle to achieve market penetration.
I would also assert the market share numbers show a problem for Google. A spike in usage followed by a decline as they are seeing indicates a problem in "crossing the chasm" (search for the book of that name if you don't follow).
However, all of this is simply "assertions" and not "proof" - same as your assertion that add-ons are not an issue. My primary point is that meeting the needs of the innovator vs. the mass market is often underestimated (and is a very tough balancing act)
Re:I know why... (Score:4, Insightful)
Keep in mind that other addons, such as noscript, don't use Mozilla's download page.
For instance, my install of adblock plus - happened to come from my distro's package repository. Mozilla has no idea that I've downloaded it.
The best way to determine penetration is with phone-home ability, which naturally will not happen in these cases. We won't stand for it.
Re:I know why... (Score:5, Insightful)
So Chrome is largely going to attract current IE users that are attracted to the Google brand. But these IE users have stayed with IE even when other options are available. Many of them stay because they do not have the ability to move to another broswer. Many because of the learning curve. I question whether there is a significant number of MS Windows users that care enough to use chrome, or if MS will let them go without a fight.
Re:I know why... (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.google.com/chrome [google.com]
Re:I know why... (Score:0, Insightful)
Sigh. Moron.
Re:I thought it was in beta (Score:5, Insightful)
Apart from Outlook Web Access, nobody else had ajax when GMail launched. And nobody else had 1GB of email space.
What are Chrome's unique selling points?
It A'in't The PLAFORM... (Score:2, Insightful)
It's the Plugins, Mofo.
All 12 of us running Linux on the desk don't make or break a browser success story.
Crappy embedded media experiences, and no support for enhanced validation certs, phishing filters, malware screening, etc.?
Bad shot. Plus it was built on a version of WebKit that is so vulnerable, it should be redacted from CVS.
Re:I guess I'm one of the 1.5 (Score:5, Insightful)
Chrome's not on a deadline to turn that 1.5 to 50.1
Re:I know why... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, its not that. Its just that its Google's own fault for releasing quality software and labeling it "beta" as well. For example, GMail is still officially in "beta", but the quality of GMail is far above the quality of Google Chrome.
Why didn't they just contribute to Firefox? (Score:5, Insightful)
...stop the presses...
This just in... Google should have contributed to Firefox, instead of reinventing the wheel. Following a wave of hype, market share is now declining... News at 11, 10 Central.
Speaking of FreeBSD/Linux/Solaris/AIX/BeOS/whatever OS you can name, chances are there is a Firefox to suit you.
Unlike any other browser in the history of the planet, there are also approximately 1.2 gazillion plugins for Firefox. The vast majority are cross platform, due to Firefox's Gecko/XUL/Chrome (note the name).
Firefox has momentum. I.e., it's growing on IE (pardon the pun) as well as Safari/Opera. (Was that an estimated 300 million FF users, out of 1.5 billion on the Internet?)
In addition to this, the future Firefox 3.1 is supposed to have a really, really fast JavaScript engine that rival's JS in Google's Chrome browser.
But wait, there's more. Wasn't it Google Gears that was supposed to create disconnected (on- or off-line) desktop apps on Firefox. Why throw in the towel?
There's even more! Google could have wrapped this all up neatly in a "plugin framework," and written it with less effort, and made themselves a defacto-must-have-it part of Firefox, and have impacted more users in less time.
People could have even written themes and other plugins that bolt on to their "plugin framework," the same way Firebug has its own add-ons (like YSlow).
So, why, why, why did they move away from Firefox and reinvent the wheel, instead? I saw no features that couldn't have been done as a Firefox Add-On.
Maybe I'm wrong, here, so feel free to flame away and moderate me out of my miserable existence!
Re:I know why... (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you ever tried to offer suggestions and development time to Mozilla? It's easier said than done.
Re:I know why... (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is where Google might have dropped the ball (if they cared). If Google really wanted acceptance of Chrome by the geek community, they needed to release Linux and Mac versions at the same time, rather than leave it as an afterthought. They don't have the excuse of a lack of resources, so one can only assume we're not a priority.
It's their call, but they won't get geeks promoting it the way Mozilla did with Firefox.
They do! (Score:4, Insightful)
Google is the main contributor to Firefox [techcrunch.com].
Moneywise, that is. Not so much for the code.
Anyway, Chrome is such a radically different design than Firefox that no amount of code contributions could turn one into another. This is how it has to play out.