IE10 falls below IE9 in market share, Firefox hits 60-month low, and Chrome again gains the most

[colonel_mortis]

Those stats aren't agreed with by other sites: http://gs.statcounter.com/ and http://clicky.com/marketshare/global/web-browsers/ say that chrome is way ahead of IE, and Firefox is nearly, and http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp tells an even more negative story for IE, although that is to be expected because it's a developer-centric site, and most sane people developers don't use IE.

[werto165]

I use both firefox and chrome, but use chrome more due to the integration with my google account, without google the internet is useless...

[Aho]

No they don't, just enable developer mode on the extensions page and you can install what ever extension you want. 

Either you're not on the latest version of Chrome or...I don't know.

There's even an entire thread about it on Google's Chrome forum - https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/chrome/2yTVWdfC4Gg%5B101-125-false%5D

 

[flibberdipper]

I only use Chrome over Firefox for 2 reasons. 1. School. 2. It's faster.

[linusforsell]

Either you're not on the latest version of Chrome or...I don't know.

There's even an entire thread about it on Google's Chrome forum - https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/chrome/2yTVWdfC4Gg%5B101-125-false%5D

 

As you can see in your image; It has been disabled due to security reasons, you should be able to re-activate it. How would developers be able to develop plugins if they had to first submit them to the chrome store?

 

Here's a plugin I'm currently working on, running from a compiled file directly from my pc without any issues.

 

 

You might want to try re-installing the plugin that isn't working, 'cause it should. The move by Google is purely from a security perspective – to make it harder for people to inject code into users' chrome without them knowing of it – it's not there to limit usability.

 

Cheers

[Rassilon]

Fuck IE Chrome safari. Firefox adblock plus plus vpn proxy and do not trace plugin priceless plus master password browser key sweet!

"Adblock"

I hope you like killing the internet.

[gunsman]

i have to use IE 8 at work. every time i open it a little piece of me dies on the inside

[Ashley]

Fuck IE Chrome safari. Firefox adblock plus plus vpn proxy and do not trace plugin priceless plus master password browser key sweet! 

My firefox config breaks so many websites I have to reload about 3 times to get things to work.

 

BUT.

 

I'm pretty damn secure.

[Ryan Leech]

For me: Firefox>IE11>Chrome

[Ashley]

The adblock is cancer

I use adblock. Now before you grab your pitchforks and burn me at the stake... If I trust a site, I turn it off. For example: Twitch.

 

To me adblock is a security tool because ads are an attack vector. However I understand that most people use it to just avoid any and all ads.

[DoubleY]

I use adblock. Now before you grab your pitchforks and burn me at the stake... If I trust a site, I turn it off. For example: Twitch.

 

To me adblock is a security tool because ads are an attack vector. However I understand that most people use it to just avoid any and all ads.

That I'm ok with. I used to use Adblock only on sites I haven't visited before. If I feel they are worthy of my money, I turned it off. Now I don't use adblock at all, however I kind of want to again...

[Inkz]

I use Firefox because I know that it is secure, not to mention it is for a nonprofit organization unlike Google Chrome. Also I am never forced to install Firefox, for chrome I see it trying to sneak on with every little program that they pay to have it for. 

[ToxicFire]

"Adblock"

I hope you like killing the internet.

Examine this statement with logic, "Those who install adblock are never likely to click or pay attention to ad's generating no revenue", ad based revenue generation was never designed for the online model it was simply inherited from traditional media. If the model is broken we need a new model. People are flawed in thinking the internet is or ever was free you pay for your broadband access not the content (like paying for a netflicks subscription then been expected to pay individually for every single movie in addition to a sub to the service). But people are also flawed in thinking the internet should be basically free cash instantly from ad's, artisans often do unpaid work to get their name out there before they can demand a value for their work. If people want to be a sites patron to use the old fashioned term, they should be prepared to chip in, but i think alot of ppl are squeemish about asking people to do that because it would require quality of content, so if ad based model was not around I think we'ed probably see a more concise quality internet rather than 90% spam 10% cream as it simply wouldn't be profitable for those with poor quality content and it wouldn't require internet artisans to do more than follow the classical artisan model thats existed for centuries and is proven.

 

 

I would like to see some stats that compare page views to ad's clicked on a global scale, but i doubt we ever will as that would likely drive numbers away from paying for advertising.

[Rassilon]

Examine this statement with logic, "Those who install adblock are never likely to click or pay attention to ad's generating no revenue", ad based revenue generation was never designed for the online model it was simply inherited from traditional media. If the model is broken we need a new model. People are flawed in thinking the internet is or ever was free you pay for your broadband access not the content (like paying for a netflicks subscription then been expected to pay individually for every single movie in addition to a sub to the service). But people are also flawed in thinking the internet should be basically free cash instantly from ad's, artisans often do unpaid work to get their name out there before they can demand a value for their work. I would like to see some stats that compare page views to ad's clicked on a global scale, but i doubt we ever will as that would likely drive numbers away from paying for advertising.

Ads generating no revenue don't exist. Maybe the creator isn't getting the money, but someone is.

Ad based revenue is the only model that works for the internet. Ad based revenue was designed to be modular. And it certainly isn't broken. It's like paying for a car and then paying for gas. Except you're paying in space on the screen and not actual money.

And why shouldn't the internet be free cash generated from ad views?

And there are global stats for that, I think. Everybody with a blog or a YouTube partnership knows what they're personal ones are, so there might be a mass collection over at Google.

[ToxicFire]

Ads generating no revenue don't exist. Maybe the creator isn't getting the money, but someone is.

Ad based revenue is the only model that works for the internet. Ad based revenue was designed to be modular. And it certainly isn't broken. It's like paying for a car and then paying for gas. Except you're paying in space on the screen and not actual money.

And why shouldn't the internet be free cash generated from ad views?

And there are global stats for that, I think. Everybody with a blog or a YouTube partnership knows what they're personal ones are, so there might be a mass collection over at Google.

 Tweaked my original post before u replied, ok perhaps there aren't zero revenue ad's or there might be that ones up for debate without stats, but you can make a safe assuming that the majority of ad's on the net generate trivial amounts of revenue by simple fact of traffic distribution if you go back to the traditional example of a newspaper 5 or 6 papers generate good ad revenue but if there were hundreds and thousands the revenue would be spread so thin in all but the well known papers it would be inconsequential. But that also provides a solution to the issue for the small time content creators that still want to make some cash, group themselves together with similar content, like a newspaper.

 

If people are trying to avoid the model it can in some circumstances be considered broken, and there are other models, subscription base, pay per view, community funding, ad base systems also force content creators into undervaluing their content aswell its endemic problem in modern society people want everything quick, cheap and easy. starting to wonder into psychology and philosophy here.

 

Free cash from interwebz it basically is like poison, people will just see it as a get rich quick method (even if it doesn't actually get them rich) and in the end that does the end users experience down because the net becomes full of utter rubbish and the cream gets lost in the white noise, so we've probably lost a lot of really good content without realising it because someone’s not necessarily known how to market themselves and has got lost amongst the flotsam.

 

There are probably global stats internally and the big ad companies, whether those would ever be public *shrugs*.

[MatheusSanzo]

Firefox master race.

[Rassilon]

Tweaked my original post before u replied, ok perhaps there aren't zero revenue ad's or there might be that ones up for debate without stats, but you can make a safe assuming that the majority of ad's on the net generate trivial amounts of revenue by simple fact of traffic distribution if you go back to the traditional example of a newspaper 5 or 6 papers generate good ad revenue but if there were hundreds and thousands the revenue would be spread so thin in all but the well known papers it would be inconsequential. But that also provides a solution to the issue for the small time content creators that still want to make some cash, group themselves together with similar content, like a newspaper.

If people are trying to avoid the model it can in some circumstances be considered broken, and there are other models, subscription base, pay per view, community funding, ad base systems also force content creators into undervaluing their content aswell its endemic problem in modern society people want everything quick, cheap and easy. starting to wonder into psychology and philosophy here.

Free cash from interwebz it basically is like poison, people will just see it as a get rich quick method (even if it doesn't actually get them rich) and in the end that does the end users experience down because the net becomes full of utter rubbish and the cream gets lost in the white noise, so we've probably lost a lot of really good content without realising it because someone’s not necessarily known how to market themselves and has got lost amongst the flotsam.

There are probably global stats internally and the big ad companies, whether those would ever be public *shrugs*.

Traffic usually decides how much money each ad makes. There are deals sometimes where you get a set amount regardless of views, but it's usually not that.

Ad revenue doesn't come out of nowhere. A company is going to put them in places where they know there are a lot of viewers. A hundred thousand newspapers will inherently get more money than 5 or 6. I genuinely don't follow your train of thought there.

Ad based revenue also doesn't lower the value of content ever. People want to avoid paying for cars too. But Grand Theft Auto doesn't mean the system is broken. I know you said sometimes, but when is it ever?

Being watered down with garbage doesn't make a difference. More content is always better, and the fact that some people try to block ads won't make less content.

[LinusTech]

The adblock is cancer

 

That particular user is a silver contributor though, so no cares were given by me if they want to use adblock... They won't see any ads on this site anyway

[DoubleY]

That particular user is a silver contributor though, so no cares were given by me if they want to use adblock... They won't see any ads on this site anyway

That doesn't change the fact that he blocks ads on your youtube videos

[mr moose]

It is really simple, if you want free content on the net then the creators of that content are going to have to have a way to cash in.  If people use adblock, then the one of the only options content creators have to provide free content is taken away.  I don't get why this is such a hard concept for people.

 

EDIT: and as for OP, this doesn't surprise me much, most of these figures are based on consumer activities (like the increase in chrome book sales would effect these stats. What I'd like to see the stats if they polled mainly tech enthusiasts.

[Scionyde]

I've stuck with Firefox, but only started using Chrome pretty recently since Firefox seems to freeze up every now and then, making me close it from the Task Manager.

 

Still, I think Firefox does the address bar way better than Chrome, since it makes it quicker to access websites you've already visited but didn't want to bookmark. If I read an article titled "GeForce GTX 750 Ti Review" I can just start typing the title, and Firefox will recall it in the drop down box. Unless there's some way to do something similar in Chrome that I haven't figured out yet?