Posted on 08/26/2005 6:31:03 PM PDT by Bush2000
Firefox's 'retreat' ensures Microsoft excels
Open source web browser Firefox has lost the momentum it has steadily gained since it was unleashed last year, according to Web analysts at Net Applications.
The online portal’s unique Hit List service reveals a slump in the Mozilla browser’s market share, falling from 8.7% to 8.1 % in July.
Coinciding with its demise, was the advance of Microsoft's IE that has gained some of the ground surrendered in June, climbing back from 86.6 % to 87.2% last month.
The revival for the dominant browser comes on the back of average monthly losses of between .5 to 1% for Redmond, as Firefox started to gain acceptance among a wider audience than just tech-savvy users.
When asked by Contractor UK whether Microsoft’s sudden gains were from the unveiling of a new IE, Net Applications said a re-launch tends revive industry interest, and could have bolstered Microsoft’s market share of the browser market.
When a company launches a new product, there is always renewed interest in what the company has produced and it would also be fair to say that this may have had an effect, said a member of the Hit List team.
Although, there have been browser issues with Windows 2000 in the news, so it is possible that again you may see a dip [in Microsoft’s market share]. Right now, people are looking for security and whenever there are issues with the security of one's system, they will use what they feel will be the most secure.”
Besides Net Applications, web developer site W3 Schools, confirms that adoption of Firefox is falling, just as IE is reaching its highest share of the market in 2005.
According to W3's data on specialist users, Microsoft IE (6) enjoyed a 67.9% share in July, improving to 68.1% in August matched against Firefox’s top share of 21% in May, which has now dropped to 19.8% for the last two months.
Observers noted that both sets of analysis concur that Microsoft’s loss, up until now, has been Firefox’s gain, but over the last month roles have reversed.
Security fears concerning Mozilla and its browser product have recently emerged, coinciding with Microsoft’s high-profile trumpeting of its new safer browser product (IE 7), complete with glossy logo.
Experts at Net Applications said they were surprised at Firefox’s sudden retreat, saying they expected a slow down before any decline.
Yet they told CUK: “Whenever there may be problems with security, there always is a decline with users changing browsers.”
Data from the Web analytics company is based on 40,000 users, gleaned from their global internet operations, prompting some commentators to question the so-called ‘global decline’ in the Firefox market share.
The Counter.com reportedly finds that between June and July, Firefox actually increased its share by two points, and overtook IE5 for the first time ever.
The Web Standard Project suggests webmasters should treat data from web analysis providers with caution, before rushing to make service changes.
So what can we conclude?” asks the WSP, a grass roots project fighting for open access to web technologies.
“Not much: Mozilla-based browsers are probably used by just under 10% of the web audience and their share is growing slowly. IE5.x is probably used by somewhat less than that and its share is declining slowly. IE6 is roughly holding steady.”
Meanwhile, Spread Firefox, which measures actual download rates of the browser, reports that it took just one month for the Mozilla Foundation’s showpiece to reach 80 million downloads in August – from its July total of 70 million.
At the time of writing, Firefox had been downloaded 80701444 times, meaning adoption rates of over 10m occurred one month after Net Applications says Firefox bolted in light of the dominant IE.
Ok, at what point do they no longer have a monopoly. I never said it was illegal. I'm just asking at what level do they stop being a monopoly?
To sell to a market that didn't exist. He was smart to want to keep it anyway, but he was lucky that IBM didn't want it. He was not negotiating from a position of power.
I'm questioning the benefit. There's a significant tradeoff with emulation: Performance.
It would be on the same processor, so not so bad. Think of the old Twunk16.
Apple didn't have a choice. It had to use emulation. It also knew that, despite anything that it does, Apple's users would slavishly suck down Stevie's Kool-Aid and upgrade.
It wasn't exactly emulation, and most applications ran faster under it due to the better memory handling offered by the parent OS. And after switching, and ending up with a world-class OS, they got a lot of converts from Windows.
Define "competition".
Define role first. Desktop OS, can't beat OS X. Server OS, Linux is ahead in many ways, and OS X is more easily managed. Network infrastructure, way behind IOS and any UNIX. Cluster? Forget it, Linux, OS X and other UNIX rules. Going beyond 2003, embedded, they're still trying to get it to work right, behind established embedded OSs including Linux (especially real-time ones). Palmtop, doing pretty well actually, although the interface needs more work (still looks like Windows shoehorned into a palm). Phone, behind Symbian and others.
My best wishes go out to Apple, but I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you.
Apple has historically had a problem in that they cannot fulfill many orders for new hardware when it's released due to processor shortages. They lose a lot of sales because of it. This time they won't.
No, people buy Macs primarily because of an aesthetic and one-size-fits-all mentality that isn't present in the PC market.
People buy Macs for a variety of reasons, such as better OS, easier to use, easier for a newbie to maintain, no problems with malware, low power consumption, quiet operation, quality of construction, and, yes, they do look better on the desk.
Meaning, the only thing that Apple really gains is performance parity; which isn't enough to drive their sales.
PPC and x86 have been leapfrogging in performance for years. What Apple really gains is a reliable volume supplier of chips with a competitive long-term processor roadmap that will likely never leave Apple out on a limb again. They also gain the ability to switch to a second supplier (AMD) if their current one flakes out on them.
Who knows? Monopoly is vague.
Let me guess, if it wasn't for those pesky suits that run businesses Microsoft would be a big underdog.
It is? Well if one can claim they are a monopoly, surely they must have a threshold where they are no longer a monopoly. Not answering the question is BS, as it lets you play on the M$ is abusing tie-ins argument for as long as you need it.
Interesting but it doesn't fit the bill. It requires users to go to a malicious website.
Ahh. I didn't see that requirement. Just that the exploit be remote, and the system be physically secure.
I did, now are you gonna respond to the post #447 ?
Once again, I'd say all the details of the Mac bet apply. Except it must be a buffer overrun. It's an ongoing discussion.
I have never heard of anything that modifies the current Windows password hash algorithm. But I could also be wrong.
Also, IIRC, at one point Windows used MD4 (easily broken) and obfuscated it using a secret algorithm -- security through obscurity -- and people relied on it. It wasn't too secure once the obfuscation algorithm was leaked. Thus another advantage of open source, security through obscurity (which never works in the long run) is avoided.
Since you're so worried about windows security and like to customize Linux to be more secure, have you changed the crypto on Windows?
I was only talking about what could be done by any programmer (no license and NDA from Microsoft necessary) to enhance a system that is already unbreakable by Rainbow Crack.
It's only unbreakable if configured as such. Same as windows. Just replace the Crypto provider dll and you can have whatever you want. I do believe it has to be signed by M$; however, they will sign all as long as you agree to US export laws of encryption.
Whatever that threshold is, it won't be in percentage. It will be in influence and power, which is decided by the authorities on a case-by-case basis.
Not answering the question is BS, as it lets you play on the M$ is abusing tie-ins argument for as long as you need it.
Only if there's ulterior motive. I hated what IBM was doing as an abusive monopolist, and now I admit they are definitely no longer in a monopoly position. Same will happen with Microsoft eventually, but I don't think the market will relieve Microsoft of its monopoly status for at least a decade or more.
By that asinine standard we shouldn't even be discussing Microsoft because you can't legally run it without a license. I wish you'd say that up front so I wouldn't have to waste my day trying to educate you.
If that's the case, I was only talking about systems that require a windows license. When Linux requires it, then dialog with me again. Now isn't that a stupid comment?
We really know what happened. When I knocked your argument down by saying you could replace the crypto dll, you changed the context of what you're talking about. We know you didn't care about Windows licenses early on or you would just say, I don't deal with Windows licenses.
But even then you said you run win2k3. So obviously you do use windows licenses (or you're a thief). Why can't you just say, "I didn't know that about Windows. I'll research it and use it if applicable. Thank you for letting me now about this great feature to make Windows more secure."
Note to self: When talking to antiRepublicrat, remember his standard requires that no license be required from Microsoft; therefore, it's impossible to "win".
Is Sun a monopoly with it's Java standard?
Let me put it this way: As shipped today, a Windows system has easily-broken passwords. If what you say is true, then a theoretical product can enhance your security.
As shipped today, any Linux distro can have effectively unbreakable passwords, this feature either being enabled by default at install time (like Red Hat does) or as a suggested option (as Debian does).
Sorry, Windows is way behind on this one. It's just a fact.
So did you think M$ was a monopoly prior to the official court ruling saying they were? Or did you just say, "I haven't a clue if they are a monopoly, as that's up to the authorities on a case-by-case basis."
I find that hard to believe you'd say such a thing.
Now you're taking this way off to the side. I said that because anyone can do it to enhance Linux security beyond what already can't be easily broken. It was an extra comment, after proving the modern *NIX password mechanism is superior to Windows, showing how the flexibility of OSS would allow anyone to go even further.
It's just a simple advantage, and fact of life, that open source software gives you far more ease and flexibility to customize your system to your liking. You cannot intelligently dispute that.
We're getting into two different things: opinion and legality. For things like this, I tend to think in terms of legality. Prior to the ruling, Microsoft was an alleged monopolist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.