[hosay123]

Just to add, users rarely choose their software at all. If we're talking about the unwashed masses here, then the primary reason Chrome, Internet Explorer, or Safari are popular at all is almost entirely due to placement.

Joe consumer, comprising an ever increasing majority of the Internet population, simply doesn't care about which browser she is using. More often it is a result of what randomly got installed as the default through their last foray of random clicking and purchases. As a result, Chrome's regular placement on the Google homepage (and IE's default-installation) give it obvious "competitive" edges.

Of course when discussing browser market share this is rarely mentioned, instead popularity is usually attributed to fractional nanosecond differences in rendering time and so on that 99% of users never notice, and simply won't care about even if you told them.

(Edit: there is another reason to appreciate Mozilla in here, in that their efforts seem less focused on branding and positioning than they are much more so on function and vision. Mozilla's endgame shares a certain utilitarian theme compatible with what the masses seem to expect from technology (it's a "computer" with the "Internet" on it, not a "Chromebook" with "Google" on it), than does just about every other company in this space who are using their platforms to sell people more shit they don't need)

[Justsignedup]

Well said. in 2008 i was a big advocate for firefox. Yet my clients knew about chrome and wanted to use it. But nobody aside from technies stuck with it. My wife still uses FF exclusively.

However chrome became stable. And then it built on it -- multi processing made one site not crash the browser. Startup speeds were fast, etc. Eventually I switched. It was a minimalistic interface that I could teach to my grandparents. And performance was ALWAYS great.

So the question remains: Switch back to FF? I vote no, until they finally implement what IE has done since IE9 -- multi processing, or solve the damn problem in other ways. Also chrome's sandbox is pretty much unbypassed except for a couple of times in pwn2own (all the exploits are already patched)

Mozilla focusing on the user while google on profit is a point, but it is not a selling point. Show me features. So far chrome's porn mode has been an innovator in the space, and firefox had to hack that mode on to their browser. So from an objective perspective... idk.

[bimr]

Pretty sure IE has always had a single process per browser window. At least since IE6

[jiggy2011]

Or people often have their decisions made for them by slightly more tech savvy friends. "Oh, you're using IE? Don't you know that it gives you viruses? Here let me fix that for you.."

[tripzilch]

I try not to tell less tech-savvy people any more that IE opens their computer to viruses, because afaik it's not really true any more. Back in the day many exploits targeted IE/ActiveX specifically, but nowadays it's Flash and Java that make holes in any browser. (Somebody correct me if I'm wrong and IE is still significantly more vulnerable)

But you can't convince people to drop Java if they as much have one site/app depending on it. I'd love to install an alternative non-Oracle Java (not because they're significantly more secure, but to diversify the ecosystem a bit, and to stick it to Oracle for bundling that Ask toolbar), but I haven't figured out how to install them in Win7 yet. (that's not for other people btw, but for the computers at the kids centre I teach)

Still, what I wanted to say, the reason I do give them Chrome (or Firefox, or Opera), is because I'm absolutely unfamiliar with IE, no idea how to enable the proper security settings (or if there are any) and I do want to help many people with an AdBlocker (which also can do wonders for one's Internet security, btw).

[robocat]

Chrome is far safer than IE: 1. built in flash (sandboxed and up-to-date) 2. built in PDF reader 3. security updates are not delayed 4. the filtering is very good 5. friends & family on XP or Vista get the latest version

There are other good reasons why the security is better, with the only downside being the invasion of privacy, where Google are no worse than others, so pick your poison.

[foxylad]

Any doubts about Google's intentions are easily negated by using Chromium.

[mehrzad]

Which is unstable and does not auto update without writing a script. Google wants you to use Chrome and not Chromium.

[brokenparser]

Go to settings, advanced, privacy, untick all boxes, don't sign in to a Google account. Or Facebook, for that matter. Heck, there's even a version of Gostery for Chrome iirc.

[dgesang]

How about Comodo Dragon[1], a free and stable Chromium based browser, with 'auto updates' ;)

[1] http://bit.ly/cjbh1z

[Retric]

The real issue with IE is people running old versions of it. So, Chrome's auto update is significantly safer than IE if your going to install once and possibly never touch the computer again.

[pionar]

Except that this doesn't really happen anymore unless the person's running an old version of Windows. IE updates with Windows Update, so it's just as "automatic" as Windows Updates.

[acdha]

Which is still slower: making the assumption that automatic updates are actually enabled (which is often not the case), Microsoft's update cycle is slower (monthly) whereas Chrome & Firefox have both deployed patches within a day of learning about a new zero-day. Microsoft also does not update Flash (prior to Windows 8) or blacklist known-insecure plugins as quickly – better than in the past, to be sure, but still concerning as the reaction loop speeds up.

[zanny]

And the important part is that Microsoft rapidly depreciates updates on old versions of Windows all the time. The adoption of Windows 7 in the poweruser space is probably significantly higher than the adoption in the grandparents category of people still running 2003 - 2004 Dells with XP. Most of them, if unassisted by more tech savvy relatives, would still be running IE 6 - 8, and 9+ won't be backported. Throw Firefox or Chrome on those old PCs and they will stay auto-updated forever.

[jimktrains2]

But couldn't IE be updated via Windows Update? The problem is the people who depends on older version for intranets and the such.

[Retric]

IE's updates are always limited to what version of windows your running. In theory windows update should be good enough, but I know plenty of people who can't upgrade to the latest version of IE and see no need to upgrade there computer.

[ferongr]

When it comes to Chrome, in many cases it's not even conscious or explicit user choice. Chrome is aggressively pushed as opt-out shovelware with installers of unrelated software (e.g. CCleaner) and is set up as the default browser if the user doesn't deselect the options.

[rythie]

If you try to install Flash on Windows, by default Chrome gets installed too (and probably prompts you to make it default). It doesn't even ask you at install time, it's a default checked checkbox on the webpage you download from - very easy to miss.

[caw]

Is this a particular geo thing? In the US, I'm getting a McAfee add-on to de-select prior to download.

[lambda_cube]

I don't think it's regional. I'm in Sweden and if I visit the Flash install page with IE I get Chrome as pre-selected and if I visit with Firefox I get the McAfee add-on. (And when I'm using Linux, as usual, there are no extra applications installed.)

[caw]

That's a good catch. The browser thing seems logical. I tried all the permutations I could:

Chrome - McAfee

IE9 - Chrome & Google Toolbar

Firefox - McAfee

[kattuviriyan]

Probably the stub found that you already have Chrome installed.

[Achshar]

A webpage finding out what software I have installed is all kinds of bad, esp if there is no flash involved since its the page to download flash.

[Filligree]

Well, it can certainly find out what browser you're using.

[rythie]

I'm in the UK and it did this - fresh install of Windows 7 (in a VM)

[walid]

It's the same in Lebanon.

[cooldeal]

I think both Flash and Java updates(99% of PCs have them) install Chrome by default.

[cpeterso]

How many billions of dollars (in opportunity costs) has Google spent advertising Chrome on their google.com home page? How can Mozilla compete on that playing field?

[michaelwww]

This is a very elitist and snobbish piece of writing and almost entirely inaccurate. Just for fun, I rewrote it a bit:

Just to add, users rarely choose their car at all. If we're talking about the unwashed masses here, then the primary reason Ford, Toyota, GM, or Volkswagon are popular at all is almost entirely due to happenstance. Joe consumer, comprising an ever increasing majority of the car buying population, simply doesn't care about which car she is driving. More often it is a result of what randomly went up for sale at the corner car lot. As a result, Ford's regular placement on the edge of the car lot give it "competitive" edges.

[_dark_matter_]

I'm having trouble understanding what point you're trying to make. What, exactly, is "entirely inaccurate" about the comment? How is your rendition with physical cars similar? How is it snobbish in the least?

[michaelwww]

Using terms like "unwashed masses" and "Joe sixpack" to describe the computer users of working class background where I come from is insulting. Why not just go all the way and them call them "white trash"? The inaccuracy I was trying to highlight with my rewrite was your idea that people of lower means and education don't care about what browser they use, presumably in your view because they are too ignorant to know the difference. Obviously, this is not the case with automobiles and is also not the case in choice of computers, browsers, mobile phones, etc... You don't have to have a college degree and a six figure income to be discerning about technology.

[darkarmani]

> Using terms like "unwashed masses" and "Joe sixpack" to describe the computer users of working class background where I come from is insulting. Why not just go all the way and them call them "white trash"?

This highlights your confusion. The set of people that have average computer savvy contains all kinds of races and economic standing. It has nothing to do with "working class," wealth, or racial status and everything to do with computer skills.

> You don't have to have a college degree and a six figure income to be discerning about technology.

I'm not going to point any fingers, but I just want to say someone has some massive insecurities.

[michaelwww]

> someone has some massive insecurities. That's true. My father and mother were constantly on the verge of going broke, even though they both were employed and worked very hard to save. Medical bills were a real problem. Growing up insecure, it's not surprising I have insecurities. I did manage to get accepted to U.C. Berkeley, although I couldn't finish because my parents or I couldn't afford it and didn't have the skills needed to pursue all the financial aid options.

> The set of people that have average computer savvy contains all kinds of races and economic standing

How is that different from what I'm saying? Saying the "unwashed masses" don't care about what browser they use is inaccurate. That's all.

[icebraining]

You still haven't shown it to be inaccurate. It may simply be that the wealthy elite doesn't care either. That'd certainly be my guess.

To the users, browsers are mostly homogeneous, and choosing one over the other incurs in almost no cost (real or of opportunity). It stands to reason that most people (regardless of class) don't have any incentive to care, and therefore they don't.

[hosay123]

Speaking as someone of "lower means" and mostly with a lifelong dedication to computers, I don't particularly care what software I use, and if you forced me to try and rationalize my choices, most likely I would, like the majority of people on the planet, spout mostly meaningless bullshit.

The "tech savvy" only differ in one sense: they are incredibly more delusional about their choices than the rest of the planet. I certainly haven't taken the time to study Chrome's design in depth (or for that matter Firefox's), and probably never will. My reasoning for using Firefox is due to a vague-warm-fuzzy ideological alignment I seem to have with Mozilla and their approach to software. Nothing quantitative, and certainly nothing adequately logical that I could use it to command authority over anyone else on the planet. In fact exactly the kind of thought processes that "joe user" experiences ("I like the icon.. it bounces"). 23 years spent in front of a machine, and that's still pretty much me.

[icebraining]

No, the difference is that you actually know what a browser is. "Google" is still a common reply to "what browser do you use?".

[Oxxide]

how is that not a valid response? sure, it's not semantically accurate.

but, if someone says that, you know exactly what they mean. seems like a valid response to me any way you slice it.

p.s. this kind of attitude is part of the problem.

[thisisabore]

You used “Joe Sixpack”, the OP used “Joe Consumer” which sounds a lot less derogatory to me.

[michaelwww]

Right you are. That was unintentional on my part. My mind must have translated "unwashed masses" and "Joe" into "Joe sixpack." The overall tone of it still sounds derogatory to me.

[alan_cx]

Unintentional? I'd say Freudian.

[_dark_matter_]

Just so you know, I didn't write the original comment.

[cc11024]

You'd be astounded at how your "whatever's up for sale" comment mirrors reality. The vast, vast majority of sales are from local inventory, very few people place orders for specific options, colors, etc. Most people shop for deals rather than specific models or even brands. That's why you see so many multi brand dealers. Positioning is also key, that's why the largest dealers are right off highway exits and why so many dealers end up next to each other on the same road.

The Big 3 made it through the miserable 70's and 80's mostly because they had dealers on every corner while superior Japanese brands were fighting to get lots built anywhere.

[obstacle1]

I think that you're being reactive here. The terms "joe consumer" and "unwashed masses" don't have specific economic connotations, they are basically a synonym for "average".

[michaelwww]

Wikitionary: unwashed masses (plural only) (idiomatic) The collective group ("mass") of people who are considered by someone to be somehow uneducated, uninformed, or in some other way unqualified for inclusion in the speaker's elite circles.

[obstacle1]

Note that your own definition has nothing to do with economic status.

[michaelwww]

It's implied. I'm trying to think of a group of unwashed above average income people. Burning Man attendees are the only group that comes to mind. Maybe you live in a country where rich people don't wash up. Edit: then there's the filthy rich.