Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Chrome The Internet

Chrome Increases Its Overwhelming Market Share, Now Over 70% (neowin.net) 81

Posted by BeauHD from the surprise-surprise dept.
Chrome has extended its dominance in the browser wars, surpassing 70% market share on desktops while Edge, Safari, Firefox, and Opera trail far behind. Neowin reports: According to [Statcounter], in August 2025, Chrome kept on increasing its overwhelming market share, which is now above the 70% mark (70.25%, to be precise) in the desktop browser market. The gap between Chrome and its closest competitor, Microsoft Edge, is immense, with Edge holding just 11.8% (+0.01 points over the previous month). Apple's Safari is third with 6.34% (+1.04 points); Firefox has 4.94% (-0.36 points); and Opera is fifth with a modest 2.06% market share (-0.13 points).

Things look similar on the mobile side of the market, with Google Chrome having 69.15% (+1.92 points) and Safari being second with 20.32% (-2.2 points). Samsung Internet is third with 3.33% (-0.17 points). As for Microsoft Edge, its mobile share is only 0.59% (+0.06 points). The findings can be found here.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Chrome Increases Its Overwhelming Market Share, Now Over 70% More

Chrome Increases Its Overwhelming Market Share, Now Over 70%

Comments Filter:

  • So, then (Score:4)

    by Sebby ( 238625 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2025 @07:28PM (#65634330) Journal

    it’s a confirmed monopoly. Check.

    • it’s a confirmed monopoly. Check.

      It's a confirmed winner. It literally dethroned a monopoly of Internet Explorer being preinstalled on approximately everybody's computer and pushed in their face by the operating system. (Heck, you still have to go download it.)

      I prefer Firefox myself, but I can't argue that Chrome hasn't got it's current position fair and square.

      • Re:So, then (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Coopjust ( 872796 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2025 @08:36PM (#65634450)
        Pretending that Chrome its position fair and square is so absolutely insane it borders on lunacy.

        Google used to pay freeware installers (Adobe Flash, Shockwave, Java, CCleaner, etc.) and the like up to $1 per install. If you didn't uncheck the box while installing these programs, then Chrome installed as the default browser importing all the important bits (passwords history etc). If you didn't install Chrome in that way, Google Search, YouTube, etc. all heavily promoted Chrome installations.

        You can argue on whether or not what Google did was for the overall benefit of the web (and certainly it was better than IE being where it was), but it was most definitely not "fair and square". Now we have the opposite, artificially slows down Firefox to drive Firefox users to Chrome [fosspost.org] solely based on the user agent (meaning it's an artificial distinction and not based on any actual browser performance difference.)

        • It might be more of a sign of how few people use desktop computers anymore. Most connected people are using smart phones now, and that affects the statistics. A lot of those phones are Android and people will use Chrome because of that. This might be the core reason why Edge isn't making a dent, even as Windows tries to fend of Chrome at every turn and recommend Edge for everything. Consumers have abandoned the "personal computer" for the "personal device".

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Z00L00K ( 682162 )

            Microsoft recommends Edge, then continues to annoy people trying to use it with a horribly long chain of totally stupid and unnecessary questions that nobody wants ending with a horrible MSN page instead of just opening a blank page right away.

            Things shall just work, don't be annoying to the users with unnecessary pop-ups trying to inform users about the next flashy feature and so on while they are trying to do real work.

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by eln ( 21727 )
            That just means Google is now operating in exactly the same manner that Microsoft used to be when they had dominance over consumer device operating systems. Google now has dominance in the mobile market with Android, and is using that to shove Chrome down people's throats. Personally, the first thing I do with any new phone is download Firefox, just like I did (and still do) with new computers. As the statistics show, though, the vast majority of people don't bother to do that so whatever is the default
          • I wouldn't call it "abandoned." It's more that most people are addicted to the instant dopamine hits from Social Media and therefore carry their fix around at all times. Considering that for most of these people consumption of that fix was all they really needed out of the personal computer, they no longer have a need for one, and therefore simply don't have them.

            To put it in a less charged wording: Sure, there's the outliers but most people who have a personal computer these days either fall into the "le
        • How could you miss the fact that Chrome is preinstalled on every Android device? Kind of a major omission when discussing it's rise vs. other browsers.

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by vivian ( 156520 )

            My phone came with samsung's browser installed. I installed chrome myself, because I wanted to use that browser.
            Same with my PC.
            I could have continues using edge, but I generally found using Chrome a better experience. You may have your own preferences.
            Neither of these situations makes chrome a monopoly.

      • Getting there fair and square, doesn't make it not a monopoly. Every company that grows into a monopoly with a slogan "Don't be evil" eventually becomes...evil.

        • Getting there fair and square

          Oh my sweet summer child. Google have just been banned from paying Apple and browser companies to make Google the default search engine.

          • When you're small and growing, there's nothing illegal or unethical about paying for placement of your product. It doesn't become illegal or unethical, *until* you are a monopoly, or at least, big enough to control a market.

            • What was small about googles ad platforms and search share when Chrome was launched. You all are really trying to sell this snake oil??

              • When Google's search and ad platforms were (already) monopolies, and they were launching Chrome, it was Chrome that was small and growing. At the time, Internet Explorer was the monopoly. There was nothing illegal or unethical about launching a new rival to IE. But when Chrome *became* a monopoly in its own right, then the rules of ethics and legality change. That's precisely why the judge limited Google's ability to pay device makers to make Chrome the default browser, and why they didn't force this to hap

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by Sebby ( 238625 )

                  Google had already dominated the search market, which they then (ab)used to push Chrome aggressively. So they used their existing monopoly in search to create their own in the browser market.

                  • This is true. What's the problem?

                    Are you suggesting that a company that has a monopoly, shouldn't be allowed to go into any other markets? (In this case, the browser market.) There is NO guarantee that a monopoly in search, will be successful creating a second monopoly in the browser market. Google's history is littered with failed products. https://killedbygoogle.com/ [killedbygoogle.com]

          • Shrug ... I was there when it all happened. And I'm a web programmer, so knowing the browsers and those who use them is my business.

            I didn't say that Google is holy and noble; just that Chrome won the browser wars by being a better browser.

            As for shady tactics, they are pikers compared to Microsoft. (And Firefox is no stranger to shady tactics; they are just laughably bad at it.)

          • 2 September 2025:

            Google and Apple’s $20 billion search deal survives

            Google can keep making payments to be the default search engine in other products, a judge ruled.

            https://www.theverge.com/news/... [theverge.com]

    • it’s a confirmed monopoly. Check.

      Yes and? Monopolies aren't inherently illegal. What has this revelation provide you?
      Certain actions are regulated against companies with market power (and you don't need a monopoly for that, Chrome has fallen under this category for well over a decade). You need to identify the actions before we can even begin discussing anything we can do about it, and at that point I ask you why not a decade ago.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by shanen ( 462549 )

      Your [Sebby's of the FP] "then" should be a solution approach. Too bad "We can't get there from here" where "there" is any better state from the sick "here" of the status quo.

      My favorite solution approach would still involve pro-freedom anti-greedom taxation. Basically a progressive tax on profits linked to market share. Delayed a bit to encourage innovation, but abuse detected by asking such questions as (1) Do customers have meaningful alternative choices? (2) Can competitors enter the market niche? And e

  • I knew that Firefox was in the just-below 5% mark but I have it as my default with no complaints. Unlike Chrome, it works with uBlock Origin (the non-lite version). Any insight as to why they are so low in the standings?

    • Re:Surprised Firefox is not higher (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Tony Isaac ( 1301187 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2025 @09:30PM (#65634540) Homepage

      For me, it's pulled punches. If Brave can build such a good ad blocker, so could FireFox. Even with uBlock Origin, FireFox consistently shows me those pesky "log in with Google" popups all over the web. And their "no auto play video" setting doesn't fully work. If they fixed those two things, I'd use FireFox *all* the time. And I like their New Tab page (used to be Pocket).

    • As you point out, one of the previous best reasons to use Firefox was good ad blocking support. But with the EULA change, shameless simping for Google and even ads being thrust onto the start page, Mozilla has made it clear this is not the best choice for ad haters or privacy conscious people. At the point you have to start digging through settings to find all the ad check boxes to turn off, it's just easier to use something else. That crowd has gone to Librewolf or Brave or whatever, and rightly so -- F

    • Give it Time (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Roger W Moore ( 538166 ) on Wednesday September 03, 2025 @03:37AM (#65635102) Journal
      I just switched back to Firefox after a decade or more with Chrome due to the removal of Manifest V2. Google only turned it off last month and I suspect it may take a while for that to have an effect on numbers of users.

  • Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hcs_$reboot ( 1536101 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2025 @07:40PM (#65634346)
    Why would people install Chrome while Brave blocks ads natively?
    • Comes by default on their phone?
      • No, they were specifically measuring desktop usage.
        It's a legitimate question- what in the fuck marketing is so successful that I must be blanking out of my mind whenever I encounter it?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) *

      Brave's e2ee sync chains are even more of a killer feature than adblocking, IMO.

      I know so many Brave users that I suspect it's not being reported separately in their headline number.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Chrome and Firefox have E2E encrypted sync too.

        Firefox published their server code as well, but it looks like a bugger to get running locally.

    • Because some people don't care, and for others ublock lite does the job. Honestly that's where I am right now. I was force switched from ublock origin to ublock lite the other day. But... I ... I can't tell the difference. I thought this would drive me back to Firefox, but turns out it didn't.

    • Why would people install Chrome while Brave blocks ads natively?

      Do you know how few people outside of techies know that Brave exists? It's not like Brave has TV commercials between episodes of reality TV and Sportsball programs. And while Chrome proper may not, Google certainly does. Google is a name people know. And unfortunately, outside the tech circles, "name you know" tends to default to "name you trust." Plus, even among those daring enough to not want to just stick with whatever the default browser is, they simply type "web browser" into the search bar, which lea

  • 4% of whats left is 40% which kinda were it was before chrome. 4% of 5.4 billion is not bad

  • Your analytics wouldn't tell you this, but I am using Vivaldi. Some vears ago, they gave up trying to get websites to recognize that they were yet another Chromium based browser and just set the user agent to identify as Chrome. So you have no idea what their market share is - though I would guess somewhere below 5%. I mean, honestly, they don't even know. Not going to make a huge change in Chrome's numbers that some of those aren't actually Chrome, but worth mention anyway.

    • We know what the market share is. Your incredibly rare example doesn't move the percentages even by a fraction. And if you think what you did was normal behaviour then I have some bad news for you about Slashdotters vs the rest of the world.

  • Mozilla have plenty of money but insult the FOSS community by failure to use that money solely to improve Firefox and Thunderbird.

    Nothing else Mozilla do is other than the usual "profitable non-profit grift", for Mozilla need not exist except for Firefox and T-bird.

    The old FOSS community remains quiet since Chrome is "good enough" while the decreasing Firefox browser share is generally ignored. Firefox is just good enough to divert resources from competing browsers, which is obviously by design.

  • Not a better alternative by any means.
    • Chrome is not WebKit.

      • Re:Plus Edge is Chrome controlled by MS (Score:5, Informative)

        by sodul ( 833177 ) on Wednesday September 03, 2025 @12:08AM (#65634860) Homepage

        The HTML engine under Chrome and Chromium is a fork of WebKit. AFAIK Edge is a fork of Chromium and is not using modern WebKit.

        From what I heard from Chrome team members is that the Chrome team was failing many WebKit test suites. So they just decided to fork instead of maintaining compatibility. WebKit is a fork of KHTML, the HTML engine from the KDE project. It was selected as the cleanest and easiest to maintain open source HTML engine at the time. The codebase used in Firefox was too much of a mess.

        Source: I released the very first version of Chrome when I worked at Google.

        Personally I mostly use Safari on macOS and use Brave for ad heavy sites, or the rare sites that are badly implemented (and tested on Chrome only).

        • The HTML engine under Chrome and Chromium is a fork of WebKit.

          Yup.

          However,
          Chrome is not WebKit.

          Other than that, +1 informative for anyone who didn't know that.

  • the year of the Edge browser!

  • Performance tested Jan 2024. Any of the alternatives are fast enough and so is DDG search. Most users don't know or don't care, that is why you get the numbers you see - by predestination of preinstalled software.

  • Privacy Badger blocks tracking but allows (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    non-tracking ads on Chrome and other browsers. A win-win-win.

  • Does anyone even read the headline anymore? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by magamiako1 ( 1026318 ) on Tuesday September 02, 2025 @10:36PM (#65634720)
    Lots of comments mentioning that "Chrome is open source and on mobile phones" when even the little blurb shared on the Slashdot article mentions explicitly that they measured desktop browser usage AND not even mentioning that the "open source" part of Chrome is the Chromium project, which is *NOT* Chrome, and doesn't count here.

    Brave, Vivaldi, Edge, and Opera are all Chromium-based browsers. Safari and Firefox are not. So the stats aren't skewed to Chrome because of the pervasiveness of Chromium usage. They're explicit stats to Google's Chrome browser.

    Now, with that out of the way, there are many reasons that Chrome itself is the default, Part of that is Chrome drove much of the innovation in the browser space, not only on web standards, and driving everyone to Javascript instead of plugins; but also because of profiles, profile syncing, and deep integration into all things Google (SSO support for the browser and all Google apps, etc.)

    But none of this was because of "Don't be evil", but a rather pure financially-driven effort on Google's part. From a developer perspective, it wrestled web development back out of the hands of designers/artists and back into the hands of programmers with deep javascript integration. Simultaneously, having provided the highest javascript performance on the client side, with the ease-of-use of Javascript over most other programming languages, and the extreme security issues of earlier approaches to dynamic code execution on the client side (untethered Java Plugins, Flash plugins, etc.), it did make a lot of sense to leverage that tool versus the other approaches that existed before.

    One thing I do find funny from the earlier days is both Chrome and IE used a one-process-per-tab model and lots of early Firefox users (around the 3.6 era) constantly nitpicked over how many processes were spawned and Firefox was "cleaner" for having a single process in task manager. It turned out that the separate process model was significantly more secure and scalable.

    At any rate, though, none of this was out of the goodness of Google's heart, contributing back to the open web, or whatever nonsense people filled their heads with back in those days. It was all a purpose-built, financial-driven effort to "light-touch" lock you into Google's services. "Hey look at all these shiny toys we are giving you in a web browser, don't you want them? You do don't you? Yeah look at this 1GB mailbox over the 25MB you used to get. Yeah you like that don't you?"

    These days, the standardization part doesn't matter as much anymore. Javascript won the client side browser wars, even though we see as frequent if not more so Chrome security updates as we saw in Adobe Flash or Java back in the day (people hated monthly updates of both of these applications, and it was a massive driver to get off of them and into Chrome--only for Chrome to basically do the same thing but the only difference is it's generally [but not always, especially if you work in IT] more behind the scenes.) The security issues with Flash were so common that Microsoft ended up making Adobe Flash Player part of Windows Update just to get it out there more consistently.

    Google has now cemented their monopoly position, however, because of instead of an open web, they've created a Google web. When Microsoft was trying to get the Windows Phone off the ground, Google explicitly and extremely purposefully did not make any software for the Windows Phone, and when Microsoft invested effort into building an in-house Youtube application, Google went through great lengths to prevent it from working. To be fair, this wasn't the only thing that killed Windows Phone, but it was a massive contributor by not giving people access to common applications at the time (Youtube, G-Mail, etc.) This act was deeply anti-competitive behavior and should have resulted in Chrome being split off from Google proper and into a separate entity (and to be honest, splitting up of all of these projects).

    Google is effectively more evil today than Microsoft had ever been in the early Windows days, and if viewed under the same lens that gave us the Microsoft monopoly lawsuit efforts, would immediately result in Google being poofed into like 5 different companies at least. Microsoft's "We will only bundle our browser with Windows" effort seems childish in comparison to the platform and vendor wars that exist today between Google, Apple, and the rest of the industry.
  • I know we are not representative of the average browsers user, but how many different browsers do you use? I’d wager most tech savvy people segregate their use to two or more different browsers for similar reasons people have more than one email address.
    I use Chrome for work and the primary on my VR headset.
    Safari for most personal use; and on my phone and tablet.
    Firefox for work when I need a separately cached browser.
    Dia occasionally to play around with its AI forward nature.
    Wolvin on my VR he
    • Firefox by default.
      And Chromium for stuff I do not want to have messed up/deblocked by my main browser.

    • I use Firefox pretty exclusively. I have Vivaldi installed on my personal machine for those rare sites that don't work right in a non-chromium browser. At work it's similar. Firefox is the default, and since it's Windows, I just use Edge for things that don't place nice with Firefox, which is usually stuff like Confluence.

  • In my years of reading comments on /. it's been clear that the percentage of folks here use Chrome much less than the global averages. I point this out only as comparison. Commenters on this site are quite atypical relative to the whole of society when it comes to technology for sure, and I would suggest in other areas of life too.

  • The latest edge... rocks.

    Project Jupiter - vertical tab grouops are amazing.

    And so is fucking most-recently-used tab switching.

    Fuck you, google!

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it's not loud, it doesn't work!" -- Blank Reg, from "Max Headroom"

Close