Macworld Forums: Chrome again beats Firefox in browser gain race - Macworld Forums

Post your comments for Chrome again beats Firefox in browser gain race here

Chrome accounted for 6.7 percent of the browsers that surfed to the sites that California-based NetApplications monitors for its clients.
Mozilla’s Firefox accounted for 24.6 percent.
I hope my competitors beat me like this.

Having your competition gain market share while you hold steady isn't a good thing. While Chrome my level out before it takes more market share than Firefox, the current trend is the opposite and certainly worth the Mozilla folks taking seriously.

Why does Facebook look funky on Chrome more often than not? Almost like the CSS goes haywire or something and everything displays in bold...

So a bunch of people making free things are competing for our business. I like both browser though.

djmidway, on 03 May 2010 - 06:48 AM, said:

While both browsers are free to users, there is big money involved. Mozilla makes a lot of money off Google (and other search engine) referrals. Every user that Google gets using Chrome instead ends up saving them money.

d00d, on 03 May 2010 - 07:35 AM, said:

Yeah you are right not totally free, I know google is huge off the little ads. Didn't know that is where Mozilla makes income from, I thought most of it came through donations.

This post has been edited by djmidway: 03 May 2010 - 09:01 AM

Let me know when Chrome has half the great ad-ons of Firefox; then I might give it try. For now Chrome's only advantage is it's speed, but certainly not enough to win me over.

This is why they say "there are lies, damn lies and statistics." The company with the smallest market share always has the highest growth rate given the same amount of new customers for each. Ever notice how the companies that you've never heard of like to say that they're the "fastest growing company" in their market space? Of course they are...if you have 10 customers and you get 1 more, you're growing at a 10% rate! You still have basically no customers, but it sounds impressive.

In the case of Chrome and Firefox, the same logic applies. One has 6% of the market, the other has 25%. Firefox would have to gain about 5 times the number of new users to equal the same growth rate as Chrome. But growth rate is a meaningless statistic, what's important is how many users there are.

Chazzzer seems to make a logical point with "if you have 10 customers and you get 1 more, you're growing at a 10% rate! You still have basically no customers, but it sounds impressive", but the argument is flawed.

The usage that is shown on these charts is A PERCENTAGE OF ALL CUSTOMERS, where 100% is the highest possible value. As such, a 1% gain by the 4% share is the equivalent of a 1% loss by the 65% share.

100 users:
65% market share (Microsoft)
4% market share (Whoever)

If Microsoft loses one customer, and Whoever gains one customer, the loss and gains are both 1%. Math.

amgpac, on 03 May 2010 - 11:21 AM, said:

Dear sir, most of the great and most popular firefox add-ons has its equivalent or close alternatives in Google Chrome extensions. =)

ctown200, on 04 May 2010 - 05:36 AM, said:

You are correct if there is no growth in internet users as a whole. Since that statistic isn't listed, I can't say if the number of internet users increased or decreased statistically. While I'm sure the growth of internet users is not at the level of 1999, 2002, 2004, etc. I highly doubt the growth has stopped. So IF the market is increasing a 1% loss or gain is not the same for Microsoft vs Firefox vs Chrome. Otherwise, you are correct.

macnews, on 04 May 2010 - 07:26 AM, said:

I agree, and I realized that. The right answer is somewhere in the middle, but it seems likely, as you pointed out, that internet-user growth isn't as high as it once was. And frankly, my guess is that first-time internet users would probably just use IE, assuming that's the default and the user isn't in Europe. (A choice of TWELVE browsers for new Europe users? Whoa.)

Anyway, thanks for pointing out a clarification.