Lots of things change really fast on the Web. The phrase "Internet time" has often been used to describe the way things actually do move faster on the Internet.
I remember how quickly Google displaced MetaCrawler as my go-to search service. I remember MySpace just blowing Friendster out of the water. TechCrunch obsoleted c|net almost overnight.
On the Internet, we'd like to believe, if a better product comes out, people move to it quickly.
But some things we associate with the Internet don't change fast. One of those things is browsers. Why is that? What's making it so difficult for superior products to leap frog each other the way so many other Internet products do.
Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser accounted for ~95% of the global browser usage in 2004 when Firefox first burst onto the scene. In the five years that Firefox has been taking share from IE, it's only managed to siphon off about 22 points of share from IE. For the first two of those years, without any effort at all from Microsoft. That's 4-5 points of share per year.
That's not the rate of change that I think people think of when they talk about Internet time.
Another example is Apple's Safari browser on Macintosh. Apple's bundling of Safari caused it to very quickly become the dominant Mac browser. In the four and a half years since we shipped Firefox 1.0 for Mac, we've managed to siphon off about 27 points of share from Safari, but Safari still sits with a comfortable 72% of Mac browser usage.
On both Windows and Mac, the OS vendor bundles a browser and taking browser usage share from those is very difficult. No one, other than Mozilla, has been able to put a substantial dent in the share of those two bundled browsers.
(What's also really interesting to me is that Firefox has done better on Mac where it has had a much more capable competitor in Safari.)
One of the reasons that no one is able to seriously dent Microsoft and Apple's browser share is that those two OS vendors ship their OS and their bundled browser on about 300 million new PCs every year.
By my estimates, about 100 million of those are new computer users (and new browser users) and the other 200 million of those are upgrades.
For the 100 million or so people getting PCs and going on line for the first time each year, the OS vendors have first crack. They are the default and the initial experience. If it's "good enough" then inertia wins and the OS vendor gets that browser growth essentially for free, piggybacking on the overall growth of PCs.
That's how I explain, because I can't think of any better explanation, Microsoft adding ~300 million IE users to its roster between the release of IE 6 in August of 2001 when development on IE was ended and the release of IE 7 in October of 2006.
(How many other products that we think of as Internet products can go 5 years without significant improvement and still add 300 million new users.)
Sure, there wasn't a lot of competition from 2002 to 2004, but even if you just look at the years 2004 through 2007, when there was substantial competition and nothing at all new from Microsoft, they still gained more than 100 million new IE users.
And I think it's actually worse than that. If you look at the 200 million new PCs sold each year that are upgrades, they all come with the the OS vendor's Web browser as the default browser regardless of what browser the user had on her previous machine.
That gives the OS vendor the opportunity to re-convert any Firefox (or other not-the-vendor browsers) users at zero cost.
So, even if Mozilla or Google or Opera managed to get a PC user to switch there's a very good chance that in the not too distant future Microsoft or Apple will at least temporarily regain that user's default browser status and another shot at being just "good enough" for inertia to work for them again -- all this without having to do anything to actually make their browser better.
(I'm not saying they don't improve their browsers, though there was that long IE dry spell there...)
This is a huge advantage for OS bundled browsers and something that is very different from most of the rest of the Internet. It's also something that I don't think many people think about when they think about browsers and competition between browsers.
I'm asserting that OS vendors can and do highly leverage the OEM channel for their browsers, both for new users coming online and for seasoned users upgrading, is the single biggest reason that Web browsers aren't evolving and replacing each other on "Internet time".
What do you think?
Posted by: ADAXL | June 15, 2009 7:28 PM
I guess my view is that the "general public" that I run across.. just see IE as "the internet" they don't really realize that IE affects how they experience "the internet".. and that other browsers may improve their experience.
On top of that.. I have found lots of people have frustrations with "the internet" because of things that they would have problems with in firefox or any other browser.. Lots of people don't bother to download Java or Flash.. and don't even realize that they are NEEDED to get the cool stuff on their pages to work or even show up.
To comment on ADAXL.. Wasn't AOL supposed to be cool in the early days because they had all sorts of exclusive content? (I think exclusive content is good, but it will not compensate for crappy marketing and management)
I actually think the grassroots and public education thing is whats helping people switch and stay switched. (though I think mozilla has not done that good of a job with that area either)
weeee
Posted by: larffy | June 15, 2009 8:19 PM
I think Firefox's better showing on Macs over Windows PCs, despite Macs having a much better default browser than Windows, can be attributed to the general computer-savviness of the two user groups. A much larger percentage of Windows users are scared off by such topics as installing a new browser, so the inertia of that platform is much greater.
Posted by: toby johnson | June 15, 2009 8:27 PM
So what do you think Asa about the Opera Unite services (http://unite.opera.com/services/)
When you compare it to projects like ubiquity (http://labs.mozilla.com/projects/ubiquity/) and aurora (http://adaptivepath.com/aurora/)
Is the desktop changing to an always active webbrowsers or the OS to an always interactive webbrowser, and in reference to you title:
When do think it will happen (either/or)
*curious*
Marco
Posted by: marco.casteleijn | June 16, 2009 12:28 AM
It's probably easier to get Mac people because many of the new Mac users are former Pc people.
You shouldn't at all be surprised about market share on Macs, what you hate about IE is working for you with Macs, it's what the people know. See, it goes both ways.
Many people hate jumping around to the next best thing
IE - Firefox - Safari - Chrome and all there levels (Average people don't care about versions, it's all the same thing to them.)
You think people (not tech people) are going to compare IE6 to IE7 to IE8 or Firefox 2.5 to 3 to Firefox 99.8 when it's around. They don't care about that anymore then you care about the difference between a 2 liter engine and a 2.5 liter engine. (unless you are a car guy) Just as long as it gets you there.
For most a computer is a tool to get the real job done. It's not the job itself.
I'm not saying not to try, I'm saying if you go in with the mind set that you are selling something to someone who already has what you are selling. Which makes it a harder sell. And given a choice most people go with what they know, for no other reason then it's easy. The price of not being first on the scene.
You just bought a house, there are thousands of items in that house that were used to build it, probably ranging in all different levels of quality. Are you going to go around and replace everything and anything because there is something better? NOPE, you might replace a few things that matter to you. You might care about the refrigerator but not the faucets, you might replace a ceiling fan but not the light switch, even if there is a really cool light switch that works 10 times better and lasts ten times longer. You get the point.
Yes IE has a huge advantage being that it comes with the OS, so build a better OS! I'm still better Google is planning this. A stripped down OS that relies on server apps to do more of the functionality.
Posted by: -dan | June 16, 2009 4:56 AM
In general, people don't really care. I work in an office where all but myself use IE as their browser. And of course, the entire corporation uses IE and wouldn't even consider making the switch to anything else. And as Dan points out, versions don't really matter to most folks. If the computer comes with IE 7, most are not going to bother installing IE 8. The browser doesn't really matter to most folks... the websites do. Personally, I find myself caring less and less how I get there anymore... just get me there without a lot of hassle. The moment I'm hassled at my favorite sites, that's the time I'll switch browsers. I've no loyalty to any browser (and I suspect most don't). I just want my favorite websites to open and display properly. I don't care that Microsoft and Apple have built-in advantages. I don't care about which browser is winning the silly browser war. I care solely about where I'm going on the web... getting there... and getting there safely and quickly. Currently IE 8 does a great job and while I continue to use FF, I can foresee a time when I'll probably switch back to IE just because it's more convenient (I use it all day at work). Convenience is what matters.
As for skins and extensions... for the most part I can't be bothered with all of that fluff. I want simple.
Do OS vendors have a big advantage? Sure. Do I care? No.
Posted by: Douglas | June 16, 2009 7:11 AM
"Inertia" is the keyword, no doubt
However Windows and Mac are not the only players in this game... Linux grow up day by day and, I think, we can't ignore that this system can have a role in it too
So also we've to consider that many of the Ubuntu (just to consider the "star of the moment") users that browse with FF may not use it for a their choise but only for that inertia we talk about
Question is a lot complex and, anyway, it's more difficoult find a real solution to it
The only (and most practical) is the Win7-EU (probably?) solution leaving to user the choise of the browser to install in the system ... hoping instead Microsoft doesn't choose to give OEMs this "power"
Posted by: Engelium | June 16, 2009 8:21 AM
I think it would be interesting to re-plot your graphs using a log scale for the y-axis. In addition to making it easier to see the lines for the smaller-share browsers, I think it would provide a better way of making assessment of the rate of change in share over time.
Have you considered this?
Posted by: Steve | June 16, 2009 9:38 AM
"What's also really interesting to me is that Firefox has done better on Mac where it has had a much more capable competitor in Safari."
My thoughts on this.
50% of Mac buyers are 'new to Mac'. Switchers. (According to Apple's previous keynotes)
I'd say someone buying a Mac who was previously a Windows user is someone who is more likely to try offerings from someone other that Microsoft.
Ergo, I reckon there's a high percentage of those people who were probably Firefox users on Windows, then, when they switched to Mac, carried on being Firefox users there.
Browsing with Firefox is a hard habit to shake off :-)
The above scenario certainly true of me, so perhaps my outlook on this is a bit skewed as a result.
But in any case, it might explain the high ratio of Mac Firefox users.
I dabbled with Safari when I switched to Mac. For all I know, it might be a better browser. I didn't stick with it long enough to find out.
But I'm more than happy with Firefox now. I remember how much better the web became when I started using it instead of IE on the PC, and I remember the grass roots marketing efforts, the spread Firefox campaigns, the crop circles, the NY times ads, and all the other stuff. For me, using Firefox 'feels' better ;-)
Posted by: Mr Lizard | June 16, 2009 9:55 AM
@Douglas
Thank you. You have successfully voiced the opinions of 80% of internet users running Windows. They simply don't care, unless something compels them to care. Something cool and interesting that can only be done in a "modern" browser engine (Gecko/Webkit/Presto) AND is a pop culture hit.
Otherwise, the big blue E is the Internet. That's why it is called Internet Explorer.
I think that Mozilla does a pretty good job considering all you are up against in the browser wars. I wonder how Thunderbird does against its competitors?
Posted by: J. McNair | June 16, 2009 10:26 AM
@dan, so you're saying that in order to compete in the Web browser space, vendors should have to all make operating systems?
@Douglas said "In general, people don't really care." Well, 300 million people, almost a quarter of the Web using population obviously do care. I'm guessing a lot more cared at least enough to get and use Firefox but it's just really hard to compete in a space where that choice is so easily and freely undone by your competitors that have operating systems designed to undo that choice.
@Douglas also said "I've no loyalty to any browser (and I suspect most don't)" How does that square with most users not caring and not being interested in changing?
Also, I wonder if you'd care more about OS vendors' advantage if you were still using IE 6 because that's all there was. Remember, it wasn't until Firefox came on the scene that Microsoft re-assembled the browser team that had been disbanded in 2001 after IE 6 shipped. You seem pretty happy with the state of things but things wouldn't be at all where they were today if Mozilla hadn't taken on that awful OS vendor advantage and managed to make at least some headway.
@Steve, I arranged the graphs the way I did explicitly to emphasize the slow change over time. Daily and monthly variations aren't really that exciting given the generally linear trend for the browser vendors.
@Mr Lizard, are you suggesting that the Firefox users on Windows are more likely to be switchers to Mac than the IE users on Windows? I can sort of see that being a possibility. Once you've decided that you're willing to "change" something small like an app, you might be more likely to change bigger things like an OS. Thanks for the observation.
- A
Posted by: Asa Dotzler | June 16, 2009 10:35 AM
Asa,
Yes that's pretty much what I was thinking. I can't back it up with any hard figures though, and I can't think of any non-obtrusive way of doing a study to find out if this is indeed the case.
Posted by: Mr Lizard | June 16, 2009 10:55 AM
Asa,
To me it is very clear why more Mac users have Firefox. The most important property of a browser is: "That it works". That means, no crashes and websites are displayed properly.
If you have Safari and you are a heavy surfer, then you will encounter many sites that won't work on Safari. Of course, the main sites work, but many others don't. Just an example:
http://www.norned-auction.org/
It works in Firefox, but it fails in Safari and Chrome.
Mozilla did put much effort to get every site working and it pays off. The only site that I know of that totally flips (an exception) in Firefox is:
http://www.plasticlabels.ca/index_files/compareEVbatteries.htm
Furthermore, due to Firebug, developers use Firefox to develop and then port the code to IE. This guarantees that site will work on Firefox.
This is a major reason in decisions for me, and probably other people. In the past I wouldn't buy a Mac, just for the reason that there was no good browser. With Firefox 3.0 and 3.5 that reason has gone.
About crashes. IE7 was for me really the reason to switch to FF and not IE6. IE7 is really a terrible browser. It does support W3C better, but everything else is worse than IE6. The buttons are positioned on random places and after a few days of browsing I already discovered about 10 very visible bugs in user interaction. Furthermore, it crashes.
If you rank the browser just on stability then:
- IE6 is still king. It is very very very stable.
- Firefox, very stable.
- IE7, unstable.
I can't judge other browser, because you have to surf for a few week to give a good judgment.
So, don't forget the basic property. It must work. Most people don't care about tear apart tabs. After email, me and my brother just learned our mom what a link is.
A suggestion for getting it more stable. There are a lot of non-top crashes that don't get any attention. Why not give people 1000 dollar if they can find the cause of a non-top-20 crash (the top 20 is for Mozilla)? It would cost Mozilla more to diagnose by themselves.
Also, if IE8 regains some share, the achievement of Firefox and the true winners of the browser war are:
- Web standards
- Speed.
Without Firefox, we wouldn't have IE8 and we would programming Silverlight. The push for standards and disloyality of MS kills Silverlight.
I think the next month is the first month were the browser share of browsers that pass Acid2, will be over 50%. Can you make a plot about that?
Lucas
Posted by: Lucas | June 16, 2009 11:50 AM
I heard recently Microsoft has decided to release a version of Windows without IE pre-installed.
The only question remains now is that how do one download Firefox with a Windows without IE pre-installed.
Can Mozilla provide some ways to solve that problem?
Posted by: soshimi | June 16, 2009 5:59 PM
soshimi, it's really quite easy.
Step 1. Open Windows Explorer
Step 2. Type in ftp://getfirefox.com
Step 3. Accept download dialog
Step 4. Run Firefox installer.
- A
Posted by: Asa Dotzler | June 16, 2009 6:10 PM
Err... that doesn't work, Asa. At least not now...
Posted by: soshimi | June 16, 2009 7:20 PM
Soshimi, right. But it could work if we put up the server. It's really not that hard to do and I'm sure we could have it working in about 20 minutes if there was a reason to do it.
- A
Posted by: Asa Dotzler | June 16, 2009 8:07 PM
I had thought that with windows vista and after.. that FTP was stripped out of explorer and forced into IE.. also Explorer dosn't convert to IE.... so if you type stuff in the top.. it will just open up an IE window.
If you get windows 7 without IE.. I'm wondering if it will have FTP enabled either... as I had thought that was part of what was moved away from the OS and into IE...
I could be wrong though :P
Posted by: larffy | June 17, 2009 12:26 AM
I'm not sure I see the point in crying "foul" over Microsoft and Apple bundling their browser as the default in their OS. They wrote the OS, (whatever your opinion of that my be....) why shouldn't they have the right to put one of their products, a free product at that, in and set it as the default?
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge FF fan, and I completely agree that MS had no interest in making IE any better until FF started eating into their market share.
Firefox has a great product, and a great community. Arguments against IE and Safari, IMO, should be based on Firefox advantages, not against whether OS vendor has some "unfair" advantage by bundling their browser with the OS.
Mozilla makes a browser, not an OS. Fight the browser war by continuing to make a better browser. Linux has been fighting the OS war for years, and they've taken much less market share than Firefox, even with Firefox being the main browser in most Linux desktops.
Posted by: Mark | June 17, 2009 5:34 AM
On first run when buying a new Mac, the Migration Assistant offers to grab the files and settings from an old Mac. Lo and behold, default browser is preserved! Kudos to Apple for this.
(Now when are they finally going to let people use an alternative iPhone browser?)
Posted by: Vasi | June 20, 2009 4:14 PM
The key is content. People flock to new sites and services because these offer new, interesting content. Browsers are just the vehicles that carry people there. Here's an analogy: You will change shops if you like the offerings of a new business better, but would you buy a new car to drive there?
I think browsers need to follow a similar model. As soon as web apps that require Firefox or Safari come out in greater numbers, users will switch. The problem is that content providers don't want to lock out almighty IE, no matter how badly it renders. So, we need modern web apps first, then sites that offer stuff inaccessible to IE users, and content providers bold enough to tell visitors to get a proper browser.