Internet Explorer web browser use drops below 60%
Microsoft's share of web browser use has dropped to an historic low below 60% for the first time since Internet Explorer 4 passed the beleaguered Netscape back in 1999.
According to statistics published by Net Applications, Internet Explorer dipped down to a 59.95% share of its observed traffic, falling from around 80% share in less than two and half years.
Of the 20 lost percentage points, nearly nine were earned by Firefox, which now has nearly 25% share. Another nine were taken by WebKit browsers: two and a half were eaten up by Apple's Safari (to reach 4.72% share), while Google's Chrome expanded to take 6.7% (from zero prior to 2009). Opera gained nearly a percentage point in the same period (to reach 2.3%).
Statistics published by StatCounter were even less flattering for Microsoft's Internet Explorer, which was ranked at a 56.57% share, with Firefox closing in with 31.29%, followed by 5.35% for Chrome, 3.63% for Safari and 2.25% for Opera.
Browser engines
Firefox's Gecko, Opera's Presto, and Safari/Chrome's WebKit engines are all powering the shift away from Internet Explorer and its Trident rendering system, which does not support the latest web standards nor push the envelope in JavaScript rendering speeds as Safari, Chrome, and Firefox have. The next release of Internet Explorer promises to add support for key features of HTML5, and hopes to slow the defection of its user base.
None of the web browser clients are commercial products, so the vendors involved all have alternative motivations for developing them. Microsoft created Internet Explorer to prevent Netscape from offering an open alternative to Windows in developing cross platform apps.
Once Netscape was crushed out of the market, its developers decided to form Mozilla, an open source project intended to continue its development in order to provide an alternative browser not controlled by Microsoft. Mozilla's Firefox rapidly outpaced the development of Internet Explorer, which Microsoft had slowed to a crawl once reaching a monopoly position in browsers around 2000.
In 2002, Apple created a fork of KHTML to deliver WebCore, a fast, clean alternative to Netscape's legacy of Firefox. WebCore served as the foundation for the new Safari browser Apple released in 2003, and was made available as open source. This served both the goal of Apple having its own top tier Mac browser (rather than relying upon Microsoft or an independent open source project to deliver one) as well as the introduction of a high quality, free rendering engine that could help promote the use of open web standards.
In 2005, Apple subsequently announced it would be releasing its entire WebKit browser engine as open source, in addition to the WebCore rendering foundation derived from KHTML. Nokia immediately released a WebKit browser for its S60 smartphone platform. In 2007, Apple released a version of Safari for Windows and a mobile version for iPhone and iPod touch.
In 2008, Google released its Chrome browser using WebKit. Google's Android, Palm's Pre and RIM's upcoming BlackBerry OS 6 all feature WebKit browsers, making Apple's browser strategy wildly effective in promoting open web standards among mobile devices, using open source.
According to statistics published by Net Applications, Internet Explorer dipped down to a 59.95% share of its observed traffic, falling from around 80% share in less than two and half years.
Of the 20 lost percentage points, nearly nine were earned by Firefox, which now has nearly 25% share. Another nine were taken by WebKit browsers: two and a half were eaten up by Apple's Safari (to reach 4.72% share), while Google's Chrome expanded to take 6.7% (from zero prior to 2009). Opera gained nearly a percentage point in the same period (to reach 2.3%).
Statistics published by StatCounter were even less flattering for Microsoft's Internet Explorer, which was ranked at a 56.57% share, with Firefox closing in with 31.29%, followed by 5.35% for Chrome, 3.63% for Safari and 2.25% for Opera.
Browser engines
Firefox's Gecko, Opera's Presto, and Safari/Chrome's WebKit engines are all powering the shift away from Internet Explorer and its Trident rendering system, which does not support the latest web standards nor push the envelope in JavaScript rendering speeds as Safari, Chrome, and Firefox have. The next release of Internet Explorer promises to add support for key features of HTML5, and hopes to slow the defection of its user base.
None of the web browser clients are commercial products, so the vendors involved all have alternative motivations for developing them. Microsoft created Internet Explorer to prevent Netscape from offering an open alternative to Windows in developing cross platform apps.
Once Netscape was crushed out of the market, its developers decided to form Mozilla, an open source project intended to continue its development in order to provide an alternative browser not controlled by Microsoft. Mozilla's Firefox rapidly outpaced the development of Internet Explorer, which Microsoft had slowed to a crawl once reaching a monopoly position in browsers around 2000.
In 2002, Apple created a fork of KHTML to deliver WebCore, a fast, clean alternative to Netscape's legacy of Firefox. WebCore served as the foundation for the new Safari browser Apple released in 2003, and was made available as open source. This served both the goal of Apple having its own top tier Mac browser (rather than relying upon Microsoft or an independent open source project to deliver one) as well as the introduction of a high quality, free rendering engine that could help promote the use of open web standards.
In 2005, Apple subsequently announced it would be releasing its entire WebKit browser engine as open source, in addition to the WebCore rendering foundation derived from KHTML. Nokia immediately released a WebKit browser for its S60 smartphone platform. In 2007, Apple released a version of Safari for Windows and a mobile version for iPhone and iPod touch.
In 2008, Google released its Chrome browser using WebKit. Google's Android, Palm's Pre and RIM's upcoming BlackBerry OS 6 all feature WebKit browsers, making Apple's browser strategy wildly effective in promoting open web standards among mobile devices, using open source.
Comments
I'm glad competition has come back into the browser market. I'm currently enjoying using Chrome, but think it's neat someone else will probably come up with something better soon.
The one thing that is abundantly clear is that the MS monopoly is coming to an end. The future is Apple vs Google vs Facebook.
The next decade should be very interesting. Considering the iPad has such a head start in the marketplace and since it could conceivably become a full blown computer, one could see Safari/ mobile Safari becoming the dominant browser. It would also in turn get the EU or FTC on Apple to allow other browsers and potentially force open the iPhone OS.
The one thing that is abundantly clear is that the MS monopoly is coming to an end. The future is Apple vs Google vs Facebook.
it's a pity that the evil that's represented by ie will only be replaced with an even bigger evil which is chrome
those weasels on steroids will be hard to kill
hm
it's a pity that the evil that's represented by ie will only be replaced with an even bigger evil which is chrome
those weasels on steroids will be hard to kill
Chrome is pretty similar to what Safari is... they come from the same codebase
Usability-wise, Safari is better. Chrome is a bit buggy in that regard. Can't even bookmark links by right (option) clicking on them... Can't delete individual history items without typing in the address in the address bar, then pressing Shift + Delete while pointing at that option with the mouse. Can't move text around a text box by selecting it and dragging to a new spot (glaring bug!)... It's definitely half-baked. But rendering bugs, which are few, are the same in both.
WebKit on desktop is pretty unified. Webkit on mobile though, is riddled with different issues and dissimilarities...
Dan
P.S. Good to see that people are finally getting a taste of the decent browsers!
I prefer Firefox and sometimes Safari (on Windows), good news for all the non-IE browsers.
Plan to buy my mom an iPad this summer, get her off her old Windows/IE computer... so that will be one less person using IE.
I prefer Firefox and sometimes Safari (on Windows), good news for all the non-IE browsers.
Same here... I like Firefox, but it's a tad slow at times...
I use Chrome instead of Safari, but only, only because Safari blurs text to the point of it being unreadable
I wish they'd give people a way to disable that in favor of ClearType....
Dan
While it looks like Firefox as a significant lead over WebKit-based browsers, that is only on the desktop. Id like to see the percentages for all devices with browsers. WebKit has a significant advantage here and despite some of the pejorative comments toward Chrome it's been good for WebKit market-share and support on the whole.
On the one hand I love it for its implicity and speed. It just works and works fast. On the otherhand it is made by a company I am growing to dislike.
But, any choice other than IE is great!
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
With a totally different set of numbers from w3schools. Are either correct?
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
Why can't both be correct?
Chrome OS and Google Docs may threaten MS, but Microsoft has many products coming out this year that may change the landscape once more as with Netscape. We'll see.
The next decade should be very interesting. Considering the iPad has such a head start in the marketplace and since it could conceivably become a full blown computer, one could see Safari/ mobile Safari becoming the dominant browser. It would also in turn get the EU or FTC on Apple to allow other browsers and potentially force open the iPhone OS.
The one thing that is abundantly clear is that the MS monopoly is coming to an end. The future is Apple vs Google vs Facebook.
As for the future being a war between Google, Apple and facebook (which has announced its "platform" intentions), an interesting conjecture.
Anyone want to suggest any other candidates for future hegemony and rank them?
Apple's premium strategy and limited number of SKU's may ensure they remain highly profitable and influential, but I'm not ready to write off Google or others in terms of user share (as opposed to market share and profit share - all of which have different dynamics), and facebook is certainly a phenomenon.
But then Google does seem to be expanding in too many different directions with too many partners to truly achieve excellence in all of them and with the danger of losing focus on core competencies. And facebook is hotter than hot, but then so was, uhhh, what was it called? Oh yeah, MySpace. And AOL was going to rule the world once upon a time.
And MS is a young enough company to make a comeback once the Ballmer era ends if they bring in the right team. Finding the balance between their business market and their desire to connect with the folk is the key, but like Apple with iTunes, they have enormous consumer assets to leverage and are in 85% of computer-using homes already.
It's hard to spot anyone else. HP has the potential on paper, but their first committment is also tied to business (like IBM a big chunk is devoted to services to corporations), and outside of printers and mostly commodity PC's they've tried, but never demonstrated real retail flair. Not a primary hardware maker. Not Sony - since the Walkman era, their proprietary tendencies have isolated them rather than created huge markets, e.g., BetaMax, Memory sticks, their own music codec (ATRAC), MiniDiscs, etc.
Not a cellco. IBM gave up on retailing to consumers long ago. Samsung? Innovative company, vast resources, but doubtful, no? Intel has thought about the idea a few times on a few levels (hardware and OS's), but they'd have to learn a lot of new competencies in a hurry. So MS is the only addition I have to your list.
But then in tech history, there's always some rising unknown ready to come out of left field.
Same here... I like Firefox, but it's a tad slow at times...
I use Chrome instead of Safari, but only, only because Safari blurs text to the point of it being unreadable
Dan
I find Firefox considerably slower than Safari on a 2009 MBP. Also, blur texxt in what what way? I did a side by side comparison of this exact page between the two browsers, and apart from multi-quote and quick reply, I saw NO difference whatsoever.
However it does surprise me more than a little that Chrome surpassed Safari in market share so quickly. Also that more Apple users don't defer to Safari rather Firefox (whose ONLY positive in my mind is the plug-in search capabilities).
Since I haven't experience blurry text with Safari, it seems like a no brainer.
I find Firefox considerably slower than Safari on a 2009 MBP. Also, blur texxt in what what way? I did a side by side comparison of this exact page between the two browsers, and apart from multi-quote and quick reply, I saw NO difference whatsoever.
However it does surprise me more than a little that Chrome surpassed Safari in market share so quickly. Also that more Apple users don't defer to Safari rather Firefox (whose ONLY positive in my mind is the plug-in search capabilities).
Since I haven't experience blurry text with Safari, it seems like a no brainer.
I'm on Windows.
Most Chrome switchers are on Windows. Because Chrome brings WebKit to Windows in a better way than Safari. Chrome uses the default Windows anti-aliasing algorithm, while Safari brings over the Apple way, which is much too blurry in comparison, even though it preserves the typographically correct text shapes.
When using Safari on Windows, you feel like you suddenly need new glasses...esp on a 13" screen...while on a 27" Mac at its native resolution, it's perfectly readable....
Dan
I think the war is basically won now. With IE only have 60% share, companies have no choice but to make standards compliant sites. So even though MS still has the bulk of the clients, they can no longer control the markup.