Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Chrome The Internet Safari

New Data Shows Only Two Browsers With More Than 1 Billion Users (arstechnica.com) 111

Posted by BeauHD from the two-browsers-to-rule-them-all dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Apple's Safari web browser has more than 1 billion users, according to an estimate by Atlas VPN. Only one other browser has more than a billion users, and that's Google's Chrome. But at nearly 3.4 billion, Chrome still leaves Safari in the dust. It's important to note that these numbers include mobile users, not just desktop users. Likely, Safari's status as the default browser for both the iPhone and iPad plays a much bigger role than its usage on the Mac. Still, it's impressive given that Safari is the only major web browser not available on Android, which is the world's most popular mobile operating system, or Windows, the most popular desktop OS. "The statistics are based on the GlobalStats browser market share percentage, which was then converted into numbers using the Internet World Stats internet user metric to retrieve the exact numbers," explains Atlas VPN in a blog post.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Data Shows Only Two Browsers With More Than 1 Billion Users More

New Data Shows Only Two Browsers With More Than 1 Billion Users

Comments Filter:

  • And I Still Use Firefox. (Score:5, Informative)

    by zenlessyank ( 748553 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2022 @10:55PM (#62582412)

    Some things are worth doing right.

    • I still use it even though it is outdated with its Gecko web engine. I have to use Firefox sometimes. :(

      • TFA says that Firefox had 179,084,244 users. Even if that's small percentage-wise compared to Chrome or Safari, it's still plenty of users to keep Firefox viable.

        Until Mozilla shoots itself in the foot again, at least...

        • Until Mozilla shoots itself in the foot again, at least...

          Mozilla ran out of feet to shoot a long time ago. They've moved onto shooting joints in the toes.

    • Same.

      And I was never a Firefox guy to begin with, I only ever used Netscape, then IE, and then Opera right until they killed it off. Vivaldi is pretty cool but one of the computers I got came with Firefox pre-installed for some reason and I was like, oh yeah, Firefox is still a thing. Been using it ever since.

      It is missing some nice details vs Vivaldi, but is basically indistinguishable from Chrome from a normal user perspective. Which is why I find it funny some people complain about how it was ruined. May

    • It's hard to believe how deep we have been screwed by Google. Chrome has even more market dominance than Internet Explorer back in the Microsoft-Was-Evil days. It has enough leverage to define what the web is and will be.

      I can understand how average Joes use Chrome because it's the default on Android, but somehow Google managed to convinced a lot of geeks that Chrome was the most powerful browser and to install it voluntarily on their PCs. Very different situation than IE who was acknowledged as being utter

      • Re:And I Still Use Firefox. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 ) <slashdot&worf,net> on Wednesday June 01, 2022 @05:07AM (#62582866)

        Yet Firefox did at no point fall behind in terms of performance, reliability, and functionality. So I really do not understand why most of us moved to Chrome. What happened really? Clever marketing?

        Easy - Mozilla just kept screwing users over. They had a solid browser and decided that they "could do no wrong" and do things like switch release models that suddenly have your extensions breaking on a monthly basis, or changing things around that break extensions, or change the UI completely (and I'm not talking when they went away from XUL - this happened in the XUL era). Then doing things like copying Chrome's look and feel - getting rid of the status bar (restorable by extension) then switching everything out and obsoleting every extension out there.

        Basically Mozilla kept breaking Firefox and user's extensions over and over again, and eventually it became a nightmare to support (Firefox was used by a lot of people who replaced Internet Explorer with Firefox for their friends and family) because things kept changing and breaking and needing fixing. At the same time, Chrome was looking more and more stable and people were having less issues with things so everyone went to Chrome and that's it.

        In the meantime, Mozilla didn't listen to users who wanted things the way they were, to quit breaking stuff, and quit making user hostile decisions that break stuff.

        In short, Mozilla got arrogant and shot itself in the foot - thinking that being the alternative means people will stick with it because "we're different, we're cool" while people fed up with all the hassle just gave up. At the same time users were clamoring to put stuff they broke back in, useless things like pocket were added.

        Hell, these days to customize the UI and do basic things requires editing text files in Firefox. What were once options in the options screen (tabs at top/tabs at bottom, for example) are still there, but you have to edit user.js to fix it.

        Eventually, Firefox is now pretty much a Chrome wannabe. It's not that we like Google, it's that Google had a decent browser that worked extremely well and was welcoming users, while it seemed every month Mozilla was figuring out what new way they can "fix" Firefox to irritate users.

        • Re:And I Still Use Firefox. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by ZiggyZiggyZig ( 5490070 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2022 @06:36AM (#62582984)

          I have read that narrative many times, but for most home users, the UI changes were not that important.

          The one that annoyed most my tech-reluctant dad was when they decided to hide the menu bar, but other than that, it's been OK for him to use firefox. He types words in the address bar, that opens google search or websites that he has set as favorites, and that's it really. He knows how to open and close tabs, and that functionality stayed the same pretty much since Firefox introduced tabs back in the day. He doesn't use Pocket or new shiny things mozilla has added over the years. He does basic browsing, and Firefox does that well without any major change in the way things work.

          That's why I think there is more to that story than just "mozilla kept screwing users over." Most users don't use the advanced features, and also, other browsers (Chrome, Safari) have also seen important changes in UI design over the years, yet nobody complained about them.

          But yes, it's true that the major blunder of changing extension format (this happened only once as far as I remember) alienated them part of their user base (and tech support). And XUL eol gave me some headaches as until recently due to specific vendor applications requiring it.

          • Re:And I Still Use Firefox. (Score:4, Informative)

            by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Wednesday June 01, 2022 @07:03AM (#62583024) Homepage Journal

            The biggest problem with the constant re-skinning is that they are doing everything but fix bugs which have persisted for years. They keep adding in bullshit which should be an extension. Web Developer used to be one, now it's core functionality most users don't need and only encounter by accident when fat-fingering. Pocket never should have been anything, they spent $20M of donations to buy that turd, now I have to disable it every version because they keep fucking my settings and turning it back on.

            I am seriously close to giving up and just going to Chrome and Chromium full time, and I've been using the Mozilla browsers since the very beginning.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by bjb ( 3050 )
              You say a big problem is the constant re-skinning. I've heard many people say this. But to be honest, don't we see this with Chrome and Safari on a somewhat regular basis? Remember the Safari 15.0->15.1 rollback?

          • That's why I think there is more to that story than just "mozilla kept screwing users over." Most users don't use the advanced features, and also, other browsers (Chrome, Safari) have also seen important changes in UI design over the years, yet nobody complained about them.

            You should realize that Firefox was a success ONLY because of technically savvy folks who showed others how awesome Firefox was. Once we could no longer show the technically illiterate the advantages, Firefox usage went straight downhill.

            I was part of the reason why the US Government decided to finally allow Firefox on their networks. Now I wonder why I helped. Firefox threw away ALL of its advantages. Why? I don't know. There are some reasonable sounding theories, such as the one you are responding to. Reg

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          I have to say I don't find my extensions breaking, ever. Mozilla standardized the API long ago. Maybe I'm using the right/wrong extensions.

          Mozilla does seem to be listening. They recently changed the download dialogue, and in the latest release put in an option to keep using the old one. An actual proper option, not an about:config flag.

          Overall I find Firefox to be fast, decent on memory usage and overall a great browser. It's literally just that it's broken on Android which keeps me from making it my main

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Osgeld ( 1900440 )

            It used to be a huge problem, but for me, lets say 13 years ago, it was nearly a weekly thing of having to go in and monkey with it or trying to figure out where the menu got re-hidden, where did that button go, on and on and on fuck it installed chrome and never installed firefox again.

            My wife tried it again a year or so ago, she runs a little webstore ... firefox apparently at that time (don't know about now) decided it was god and needed to control all aspects of our printers (like what the hell is this

          • Since I don't use any other browser on Android, what am I missing? Honest question...

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              Font size control is broken on Pixel devices and presumably some others.

              • I don't have problems with font size or readability, reflow usually works on wide pages, so it's not clear to me if my phone is affected by those shortcomings, but for me it's fine. Thanks for answering.

        • Mozilla had good reason to change extensions (Score:5, Insightful)

          by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2022 @09:22AM (#62583274)
          I was an extension author for a while but work and kid got in the way of hobbies and I fell out.

          Firefox was forced to completely re-do the extension system to block bad actors. Yeah, you're clever enough to avoid those extensions, but what happens if your author sells their extension? You might not even realize it happened unless your watching out for it. And for less savvy users it was making extensions into a minefield.

          There were other issues too, where extensions would leak ram or lock up the browser. Again, less savvy users were constantly blaming the browser for that.

        • I think it's worth clarifying that it was Mozilla's attitude that drove people away more than the technology.

          Yes, they were really screwing around with things and driving people mad, but a combination of dismissive attitudes, failed PR campaigns, and questionable marketing tie-ins really hurt their reputation. Even when they genuinely have been improving the browser, nobody cares, due to a lack of trust. I particularly hate it when Mozilla changes things so that when you disable features you don't want,

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        > Yet Firefox did at no point fall behind in terms of performance, reliability, and functionality.

        You're confused as to how Chrome became dominant, but starting with this invalid premise. That's why you're confused.

        I, and many others, ditched Firefox because it came an absolute fucking shit show. Things like serious memory leaks that saw it eat up all the RAM on your PC if left running which the Firefox devs denied the existence of despite widespread reports, but quietly fixing it about 8 years after it

      • So I really do not understand why most of us moved to Chrome. What happened really?

        When you pointlessly change things for absolutely no reason, and the reason you give is inconsistent. People have enough.

        For me the final straw was recently, a keyboard shortcut: "copy link location" rightclick + a, now changed to rightclick + k. Why? Someone thought the word location was confusion and changed it to "copy link" which according to the developers doesn't have an a in it and thus couldn't retain an old shortcut burnt into muscle memory. Why the same rule doesn't apply to "Inspect Element" 's

        • They changed that because they changed the text from "Copy Link _A_ddress" to "Copy Lin_K_". I use an extension that restores that functionality: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-... [mozilla.org]

          I hear a lot of people complain about Firefox here, but I've stuck with it. Sure the transition from XUL to the new system was a little rough, but all my extensions eventually transitioned over and everything was fine. Sure Pocket was annoying, but I turned it off and it's stayed off.

          • I know why they've changed it. And there's no reason for it. Again The justification of "There's no 'A' in Copy Link" doesn't work, not when they don't care about the fact there's no 'Q' in "Inspect Element" and were happy to leave that the way it is for ... I don't even know how long ago they added that.

            I know about that plugin, but honestly I've given up. I shouldn't need to fight developers by installing some random plugin by some unknown Chinese author to keep doing something which has been the standard

    • "according to an estimate by Atlas VPN."
      Stopped reading right there.
      Data is extremely biased against one specific demographic and type of usage.
      Generalizing those statistics is just wrong.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Data is extremely biased against one specific demographic and type of usage.

        Yep. What do the Billion plus Chinese users use?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      I do too, but my primary browser is Chrome simply because Firefox for Android is still broken on Pixel phones. Sync between desktop and mobile is too useful to give up, and Firefox Android doesn't render half the sites I visit in a usable manner.

      I've submitted detailed bug reports, but they don't seem interested in fixing it on the reference Android phone from Google.

      • I use Firefox on 'droid devices. I haven't spotted many unusable websites so far, and the ability to install extensions such as adblock is a huge plus.

        Also the fact that Firefox manages its own certificate cache is great, meaning you can browse the web longer after your phone stops receiving updates (afaik Android still includes no possibility to update the root certs automatically, so internet browsing becomes basically unusable after 3 to 5 years of owning the phone).

    • If only Mozilla would come to the same conclusion about Firefox.

      I did finally solve my Firefox won't make new connections bug by disabling Firefox's DNS caching completely. Firefox works OK if you disable pieces of it. Sad.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by GoTeam ( 5042081 )

        I did finally solve my Firefox won't make new connections bug by disabling Firefox's DNS caching completely. Firefox works OK if you disable pieces of it. Sad.

        I hadn't had the time to look into that issue and had stopped using FireFox as much as I'd like. I'll give that a shot, Thanks!

  • But at nearly 3.4 billion, Chrome still leaves Safari in the dust...

    ... and Toyota leaves BMW in the dust which is not surprising. Kind of comparing apples and oranges here. It's actually a bit surprising that Safari got to second place, I'd have expected Firefox or Edge to occupy that slot but when you think about it kind of makes sense. Mobile browsers far outnumber PCs, mobile phone users will generally use what's installed on their phone and the global market share of iOS is about 30% and the remaining 70% is mostly the Android monoculture. Firefox and Edge use come mos

    • As always, the bias is to make chrome seem like the outsider, the heavy hitter that is competing against unfair competition. Yes, Apple is raking in most of the revenue, but Apple is in fact the underdog. Almost every quarter Samsung sells more phones than Apple, in some quarters twice as many. In many quarters, for every phone Apple sells, there are three android phone sold. So as chrome is the default browser on android, if Apple has 1 billion user, the chrome should have at least 3 billion.

    • "according to an estimate by Atlas VPN."
      Stopped reading right there.
      This VPN probably exists only on some OS and platforms.
      Results are the definition of bias.

    • Toyota leaves BMW in the dust which is not surprising

      Except when it comes to the new Supra, which Toyota had to have BMW design and build for them. At least they realized it, although oddly, the only sports car Toyota ever made that was truly great was a Supra (the last one before this one.)

  • The more interesting story... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Yaztromo ( 655250 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2022 @11:43PM (#62582488) Homepage Journal

    Edge was forked from Blink. Chrome is (conceptually) forked from Blink. Opera is forked from Blink. Blink for forked from Chromium. Chromium was forked from WebKit (as are a bunch of other minor browsers). WebKit was forked from KHTML.

    I think the more interesting story here is that KHTML/WebKit forked browsers have effectively taken over almost completely, controlling somewhere around 95% of the market.

    Yaz

    • Re:The more interesting story... (Score:5, Informative)

      by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2022 @05:39AM (#62582908) Homepage

      There's a reason for that, and it's called CSS.

      The CSS specification has become insanely complex. More: there isn't even a specification any more - it is a "living standard", meaning that it is constantly changing. The bet you get are occasional "snapshots". Investing the effort to implement CSS became prohibitive, and that's the reason that everyone has worked by forking existing implementations. You can forget about anyone trying to create a _new_ implementation.

      The CSS/2 has (in PDF format) something over 400 pages. The CSS/3 "specification" includes CSS/2 plus dozens of additional modules, each developing independently of the others. I'm not going to calculate the total length, but it is certainly far more than 10000 pages. Worse, many of the modules are listed under the heading "Fairly Stable Modules", meaning that you actually have no fscking clue what you are supposed to implement, because they are currently changing.

      • No need for a CSS "Standard". The Standard is whatever Chromium etc. actually happen to do.

        The good news is that it is so complex that no hacker could ever understand it all (I doubt if anyone does). So it must be secure! :(

      • There's a reason for that, and it's called CSS.

        This gets dangerously close to activating my rant about how much I hate the web as an application development platform, so I’ll just smile and nod politely in agreement with this assessment.

        Yaz

    • Re:The more interesting story... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anubis IV ( 1279820 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2022 @02:22PM (#62584208)

      Edge was forked from Blink. Chrome is (conceptually) forked from Blink. Opera is forked from Blink. Blink for forked from Chromium. Chromium was forked from WebKit (as are a bunch of other minor browsers).

      None of these statements are true. Edge, Chrome, and Opera are no more forked from Blink than a Toyota Camry is derived from a diesel engine. Blink is no more forked from Chromium than an electric motor is derived from a golf cart. You're failing to distinguish between browsers and their engines.

      A browser/rendering engine, like a car engine, is at the core of a browser, but it has no UI (a.k.a. "chrome") of its own. A browser wraps around an engine to make it of practical use to end users. Of the names you listed, KHTML, WebKit, and Blink are engines (WebKit2 as well, which you didn't mention). None of those are browsers. Of the other names you listed, Edge, Chrome, Opera, and Chromium are browsers (Safari too, of course). None of those are engines.

      In terms of the actual line of forks and updates, we need to draw a distinction between engines and browsers. For engines, the forks are fairly simple:
      KHTML -> WebKit -> Blink (and WebKit2)

      For browsers, the forks and updates are a bit more complicated, but I'll give a simplified version of them here. Chromium is an open source browser that was initially built using WebKit as its engine, then later Blink. Chrome has always been a fork of Chromium, first the WebKit version, then later the Blink version. The modern version of Edge has always been a fork of Chromium, but just the Blink version. The modern version of Opera has always been a fork of Chromium, initially announced while Chromium was still using WebKit, but not actually released until Chromium had switched to Blink, so it's always had Blink as its engine. And though you didn't mention it, Safari was initially built using WebKit as its engine, then later WebKit2.

      Clear as mud?

      • None of these statements are true.

        You are being overly pedantic. Yes, the entirety of Edge isn't a fork of Blink -- Edge uses a fork of Blink as its background rendering engine. That should have been completely obvious from the context of the discussion.

        Yes, it would have been more accurate if I had typed "Edge is built atop a fork of Blink", but I assumed that was obvious to even a casual reader here. That detail doesn't matter to the overall point, which was that browsers that are based on forks of KHTML/Webkit now account for ~95% of

        • Yes, the entirety of Edge isn't a fork of Blink -- Edge uses a fork of Blink as its background rendering engine. That should have been completely obvious from the context of the discussion.

          Except it doesn’t use a fork of Blink. Edge is a fork of Chromium, both of which simply use Blink, and Blink is a fork from WebKit, but Edge neither forks Blink nor uses a fork of Blink, both of which you’ve inaccurately claimed.

          Yes, it would have been more accurate if I had typed "Edge is built atop a fork of Blink", but I assumed that was obvious to even a casual reader here.

          Except that statement isn’t accurate, so you’d be misleading the reader if that was the “more accurate” understanding you were intending to convey.

          Look, I’m not trying to rain on your parade or disagree with your overarching point, but it is

  • Not surprised (Score:3)

    by Camembert ( 2891457 ) on Tuesday May 31, 2022 @11:50PM (#62582494)
    Chrome dominance, of course. And IOS devices are used for many years, with the Mac adding a rounding-up.
    I mainly use Safari myself on my Mac. It works quickly and reliably, thatâ(TM)s ok for a user. I have Chrome to help with very occasional sites that have an issue with Safari.

    • Chrome dominance, of course. And IOS devices are used for many years, with the Mac adding a rounding-up.

      I mainly use Safari myself on my Mac. It works quickly and reliably, thatâ(TM)s ok for a user. I have Chrome to help with very occasional sites that have an issue with Safari.

      Same with me. Generally about zero to two sites a year that use some fringe Chrome feature.

      • Unless I'm misunderstanding your post, you characterize anything supported in Firefox and Chrome and not supported in WebKit-based browsers, such as GNOME Web (codename Epiphany) and Safari, as "some fringe Chrome feature." One example is the Push API [caniuse.com] supported in Firefox and Chrome since 2016, which I consider vital to a web-based messaging application so that a user can know when to visit the website to read new messages. See "Progress Delayed Is Progress Denied" by Alex Russell [infrequently.org].

        • Unless I'm misunderstanding your post, you characterize anything supported in Firefox and Chrome and not supported in WebKit-based browsers, such as GNOME Web (codename Epiphany) and Safari, as "some fringe Chrome feature." One example is the Push API [caniuse.com] supported in Firefox and Chrome since 2016, which I consider vital to a web-based messaging application so that a user can know when to visit the website to read new messages. See "Progress Delayed Is Progress Denied" by Alex Russell [infrequently.org].

          Web Push is a valid example. In fact, it is the only one Devs. actually ever really whine about when discussing Safari.

          Apple worried about Security and Phishing (I think) possibilities with Web Push. However, they seem to have worked through their concerns, and Web Push Notifications are either fully released in iOS 15.4 (and I assume macOS 12.5?), or are in beta, about to be made official.

          So, Good News Everyone!

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by tepples ( 727027 )

            That and I'm told things like the Web Audio API work very differently in WebKit compared to Blink and Gecko. And lack of fullscreen on things other than a video, such as a web-based game. The ands pile up.

            • That and I'm told things like the Web Audio API work very differently in WebKit compared to Blink and Gecko. And lack of fullscreen on things other than a video, such as a web-based game. The ands pile up.

              Yawn.

              Wake we when every website renders exactly the same in every browser.

    • Mostly the same on my Mac, except I have to use Brave browser for a few sites because Safari simply chokes on them. Something about the secure logins on one site causes Safari to immediately abort so I can't login. Brave doesn't have the same problem. Shrug.

  • Data collected via statcounter (Score:4)

    by El_Muerte_TDS ( 592157 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2022 @12:52AM (#62582558) Homepage

    Which tracker is in common block lists used by for example uBlock Origin.

    The average user users the browser that is shoved into their face, using a standard setup. The quest is, do the more technical people, who pick and configure their browser to include tracker blockers, have a similar usage distribution.

    • This aligns with the standard distribution curve: the majority of the users fall within a single standard deviation. But the more interesting question is: what are these "expert" setups? And should they be "back ported" to the standard setup? Obviously not, in all cases, since experts may need features that would befuddle most users; or at least not provide any benefit.

    • Which tracker is in common block lists used by for example uBlock Origin.

      Implying that uBlock Origin doesn't run on multiple browsers?

  • Scary (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2022 @02:09AM (#62582646)

    Those two browsers are two gigantic targets for hackers, with impossibly lucrative potential payoffs if they manage to exploit them.

    But more importantly, they're also two pieces of corporate surveillance software, hell-bent on collecting as much monetizable data on you every time you use it. That those two gigantic monopolies get to put billions of people under surveillance the world over legally - and worse, that those billions of people either don't realize it or don't give a shit - is totally alarming.

    I really hate the tech world we have today. This is not the future we were promised when I was a kid in the 70s.

    • Those two browsers are two gigantic targets for hackers, with impossibly lucrative potential payoffs if they manage to exploit them.

      But more importantly, they're also two pieces of corporate surveillance software, hell-bent on collecting as much monetizable data on you every time you use it. That those two gigantic monopolies get to put billions of people under surveillance the world over legally - and worse, that those billions of people either don't realize it or don't give a shit - is totally alarming.

      I really hate the tech world we have today. This is not the future we were promised when I was a kid in the 70s.

      That's actually one gigantic monopoly, putting billions of people under surveillance the world over, legally; and one gigantic non-monopoly, who's business model is based on the sales of its Products, rather than its Users, the world over, legally.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Over the years I've asked you many times for a single shred of proof that Chrome secretly collects data.

      Google are clear about what it collects. A random installation ID that is sent when checking for updates. Beyond that, if you use the default search engine (Google) then they get some data that way, but if you change it to something else they don't.

      Do you have any evidence at all? Packet captures, API calls, literally anything that even hints at them having lied about that? If you do and it's genuine, I'l

      • more importantly, they're also two pieces of corporate surveillance software, hell-bent on collecting as much monetizable data on you every time you use it.

        Over the years I've asked you many times for a single shred of proof that Chrome secretly collects data.

        Nobody said it was secret

        Beyond that, if you use the default search engine (Google) then they get some data that way, but if you change it to something else they don't.

        Right, most people will not change the defaults. And by "some data" you mean "every character ever typed into the URL bar".

    • It's not the "tech": it's the people behind it; or the people who want to exploit it for less-than-wholesome ends. Just like "social media" isn't the problem: it's just a reflection of the people using it.

    • Those two browsers are two gigantic targets for hackers, with impossibly lucrative potential payoffs if they manage to exploit them.

      They are minor targets. You want a real target for hackers, look at the person holding the phone or sitting at the keyboard. The overwhelming majority of malware exploits the idiot, not the software. They are a far easier target with very large payoffs.

      Why should I bother hacking anything when I can just send a phishing email pretending to be the tax department and get the user to voluntarily send me money, or voluntarily execute software that encrypts their data?

      Hacking is a waste of time.

  • Antitrust (Score:3, Informative)

    by sosume ( 680416 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2022 @02:37AM (#62582688) Journal

    I still don't understand how Microsoft got massive fines for bundling IE with Windows, but Apple and Google are allowed to do the same with iOS and Android. There must be a reason; they are probably better at serving the political agendas.

    • Re: Antitrust (Score:3, Informative)

      by hunter44102 ( 890157 )
      Because back in the day Microsoft had 98% of the market of all users! Today it's split between Win Pcs, Macs, Android phones, iPhone, Google Chrome books, Linux. So people have way more choice than in 1999

      • Who modded you down? What you wrote is factually true.

        Today we can choose our own monopoly. I guess from a legislator's perspective, it means everything is fine.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sosume ( 680416 )

        Apple has 49% of the mobile OS market and actively prevents users from using a different browser. Google has another 49% and actively discourages users from using a different browser. (statistics pulled out of thin air) On mobile, there is less consumer choice if you want a platform that runs the major apps.

    • Microsoft has over 90% market share worldwide so that opens it to antitrust. Apple is about 10% approx. worldwide, big difference.

      • Microsoft has over 90% market share worldwide so that opens it to antitrust. Apple is about 10% approx. worldwide, big difference.

        Microsoft had 90% of a market where they installed IE by default...but didn't do anything to prevent Netscape from running.

        Apple has 10% of the market, but on their platform, not only installs Safari by default, it actively prevents users from installing third party browsers (any available are forced to essentially re-skin Safari; even Chrome for iOS does this).

        Inquiry: At what percentage of market share does 'actively preventing third party browsers' go from "don't like it, don't buy it" to "government int

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Sloppy ( 14984 )

      At the time the MS thing happened, there was a widespread perception that MS was a monopoly. (I'm not addressing the validity of that assertion, just saying that's what it was based upon.)

      OTOH, this time, it's hard to say Apple or Google have a monopoly on browsers, because if you say one of them does, then you have to pretend that the other one doesn't exist. No matter which one the government picks to persecute, half the people will look at their phones and not spot whichever logo the prosecutor rants abo

      • OTOH, this time, it's hard to say Apple or Google have a monopoly on browsers, because if you say one of them does, then you have to pretend that the other one doesn't exist.

        Except on iOS, where Apple has a deliberate monopoly on browser engines.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Sloppy ( 14984 )

          While it's true that a movie theater has an absolute, complete monopoly on popcorn (and they exploit it by overcharging), it only holds for the point of view of people who are inside the theater. If you look at people shopping for popcorn outside the theater, you'll find many of them buying popcorn cheaply, utterly subverting the monopoly, possibly even clueless that the monopoly exists.

          Talk to someone who isn't running iOS, and might find they haven't even noticed that there is only one browser engine. (Fr

          • Talk to someone who isn't running iOS, and might find they haven't even noticed that there is only one browser engine.

            Irrelevant to the point made, and also false. I can install Bromite on Android and change the system web view, not just switch browsers.

    • as right wing, pro-corporate governments have wormed their way into the courts. Moderate and left wing voters don't really understand how important the courts are, so the right wing has made major gains their since the 90s.

  • Argument for a less popular browser (Score:3)

    by Tony Isaac ( 1301187 ) on Wednesday June 01, 2022 @07:40AM (#62583076) Homepage

    If a malware maker wants to get to a lot of people, they will choose a platform that is very popular. Who wants to spend a lot of time and effort attacking a platform with only a few thousand users? So if you're security conscious, choosing a less popular browser might be a good choice.

    • If a malware maker wants to get to a lot of people, they will choose a platform that is very popular.

      You know what the most popular platform is? Human. Why would I bother attacking a browser at all when I can simply send phishing emails pretending to be the IRS and get users to send me money voluntarily. Or just get a user to install software regardless of what browser they use.

      There's really no point exploiting software anymore. Right to your point, who wants to spend time and effort attacking any platform when it is being statistically used by an insanely large number of really dumb people?

  • Is still the best :p
  • Shout out to browsers that didn't give a fuck and kept on truckin!

Slashdot Top Deals

If you aren't rich you should always look useful. -- Louis-Ferdinand Celine

Close