I've been shocked at the growth of Chrome, it's extremely steady, not seen any other kind of growth like this since Firefox. (Safari just rides on the back of Mac).

You may say 1 - 2% of the Internet in growth, but the Internet is a much bigger place than when Firefox hit the scene. Another way to look at it is that it's over doubled it's user base in just 1 year. I've been surprised it's not dwindling, I can't remember Phoenix's growth being anything like this. I think in 4 - 5 years we'll have a big contender in the browser scene!

Damian, Firefox more than doubled it's usage share in the first year after release and finished it's first year with about 10% of the global share.

If we're just looking at growth from the 1.0 releases, (net applications' numbers) Chrome has had gained 1.5 points in the 8 months since Chrome 1.0 launched. Firefox gained 5.5 points in the 8 months after Firefox 1.0 launched.

I think you're mis-remembering how quickly Firefox grew in its first year. Nothing else comes even close -- not Chrome, not Safari, not any browser.

And not just in the early days. No browser comes close to the growth rate of Firefox over the last couple of years either. Firefox has been adding 4 or 5 points a year. That's more than triple the rate of growth of its closest competitors.

- A

Congrats to Firefox and Chrome teams.

I have been following Firefox since its beginnings (Phoenix and Firebird). It has been tremendously successful. And I don't think anyone should forget in 2002 Internet Explorer had %94 market share. One would not be very wrong saying Firefox saved the free, open web.

But just to be precise, before the introduction of Firefox 1.0 in Nov. 2004, it already got ~%3 market share with its previous milestones.

So, I would say Chrome also has been quite successful, getting ~%3 share in about a year after its first introduction in a very competitive browser market.

Asa, your method of comparison between chrome and Firefox is wrong.

"If we're just looking at growth from the 1.0 releases, (net applications' numbers) Chrome has had gained 1.5 points in the 8 months since Chrome 1.0 launched. Firefox gained 5.5 points in the 8 months after Firefox 1.0 launched."

Or we could say, Chrome increased its share by around 150% in the 8 months since Chrome 1.0 launched, and Firefox also increased its share by around 150% in the 8 months since Firefox 1.0 launched.

Firefox got 10% after THREE years since its first public release, not one year. It took Firefox two whole years from its first public release to version 1.0, while it took Chrome three months from its first public release to version 1.0, so if we want to count, we should count from the time of first public release, not version 1.0, since every software has different standards regarding version numbers, for example IE doesn't even have a version 1.0 for public release, nor does Opera.

I don't think Damian is mis-remembering how quickly Firefox grew in its first year, I think you are mis-remembering what Firefox's first year actually is.

Chrome getting 2.8% share just one year after its first public release is actually faster than Firefox's (or Phoenix/Firebird as what it was called at that time) first year after its first public release.

If Chrome can keep this 150% increase per year speed, then by September 2011 (three years after its first public release) it will also be well over 10% in market share. Albeit I personally doubt it will be able to keep that kind of momentum.

On another note, IE6 actually has around 27.5% share by Net Applications, just with browser shells like Maxthon, Tencent Traveler and The World.

"It took Firefox two whole years from its first public release to version 1.0, while it took Chrome three months from its first public release to version 1.0,"

You fundamentally mis-understand how Firefox was developed (or Chrome, for that matter.)

Most of the code that would become Firefox was actually made publicly available in 1999 and 2000. By your logic we should say that it took Firefox 5 years to get to a 1.0 release. By your logic, we also have to do the same for Chrome which is dominated by Webkit code which was based on KHTML which was released at about the same time as Mozilla's early code -- 1998-2000.

A 1.0 release is a 1.0 release regardless of how long it's been in development and regardless of whether that development was in secret (like with Google) or as open source and in public (like Mozilla).

Any honest measurer would either compare apples to apples or oranges to oranges but not apples to oranges. Huge parts of both Firefox and Chrome (and Safari) go back nearly a decade. But the browsers Firefox 1.0, Chrome 1.0 and Safari 1.0 all have specific launch dates. Pick one or the other for all three browsers but don't pick one "release type" for one browser and a different "release type" for another browser. That's just dishonest.

- A

"Firefox usage was split with about 12.5% on 3 and 8.9% on 3."

Typo here, your second "3" should be "3.5".

"Firefox usage was split with about 12.5% on 3 and 8.9% on 3. "

I think you're missing a ".5" somewhere there.

Asa, you fundamentally mis-understand what "release type" means.

"Any honest measurer would either compare apples to apples or oranges to oranges but not apples to oranges. Huge parts of both Firefox and Chrome (and Safari) go back nearly a decade. But the browsers Firefox 1.0, Chrome 1.0 and Safari 1.0 all have specific launch dates. Pick one or the other for all three browsers but don't pick one "release type" for one browser and a different "release type" for another browser. That's just dishonest."

Yes, so we should compare "initial public release" which has the same meaning for all browsers, not "version 1.0 release" which have completely different meanings for different browsers (and some don't even have a "version 1.0 release").

Comparing Chrome 1.0 to Firefox 1.0 is indeed comparing apples to oranges, comparing the initial public releases is the correct comparison.

"You fundamentally mis-understand how Firefox was developed (or Chrome, for that matter.)"

Wrong, I didn't even said anything about how the browsers are developed, I'm talking about their initial public release. So you completely missed the point here.

"A 1.0 release is a 1.0 release regardless of how long it's been in development and regardless of whether that development was in secret (like with Google) or as open source and in public (like Mozilla)."

A 1.0 release is a 1.0 release for a specific browser, which means differently for different browsers. The point is not about "browser engine development", the point is about how fast a browser gains market share from its "first public release", so you are misreading and misleading the point here.

Again I DID NOT say anything about "browser engine development". What I said is clearly "It took Firefox two whole years from its FIRST PUBLIC RELEASE to version 1.0, while it took Chrome three months from its FIRST PUBLIC RELEASE to version 1.0", which you also quoted, and I don't know where do you see anything about "browser engine development" in it.

Clearly it's the time of "public release" that matters here, because we are counting the market share, and a browser starts to get market share from its FIRST PUBLIC RELEASE, which holds the same meaning and is objective for all browsers, so that's the starting point we should count from, NOT a "version 1.0 release" which is completely arbitrary and subjective to different browsers.

"But the browsers Firefox 1.0, Chrome 1.0 and Safari 1.0 all have specific launch dates."

all browsers have specific initial public release dates, but how different browsers bumping up version numbers are completely arbitrary. You can't compare Chrome 1.0 to Firefox 1.0, just like you can't compare Chrome 3.0 to Firefox 3.0, and you can't compare Firefox 2.0 to Opera 2.0 (which is actually Opera's initial public release).

"Pick one or the other for all three browsers but don't pick one "release type" for one browser and a different "release type" for another browser. That's just dishonest."

indeed, the initial public release of all browsers are of the same "release type", while version 1.0 for different browsers can be very different "release type", so you are being dishonest here.

For his next trick kaxin001 will prove that black is white and white is black.

"Most of the code that would become Firefox was actually made publicly available in 1999 and 2000. By your logic we should say that it took Firefox 5 years to get to a 1.0 release. By your logic, we also have to do the same for Chrome which is dominated by Webkit code which was based on KHTML which was released at about the same time as Mozilla's early code -- 1998-2000."

How does this matter? Unless you're trying to argue that Chrome was already collecting market share since KHTML was released back in 1998, I don't see how your claims are relevant.

kaixin is right, and measuring growth from the point where the products were actually released to the public as a product - not just as code - is how you do it, if you want your numbers to be relevant.

This is pretty hilarious for people to be comparing "initial public release" dates. ANY pre 1.0 release for ANY software is NOT intended for production use. Those "releases" may be public in the sense that members of the general public are able to download and use the software, but it is still a technology preview and not software ready for mass use. 1.0 is when THAT happens. That's what 1.0 means for EVERYONE, for EVERY SOFTWARE. 1.0 is the first release intended for the consumption of the general public. That is the only date that can be reasonably compared.