Google

Is Chrome about to swing the knockout punch at Firefox?

Jack Wallen ponders the fate of a Firefox browsing in a fight to the finish with Chrome.

Firefox and Chrome

There has been a lot of talk about the dirge sounding for the Firefox browser. With a marked nosedive in market share (roughly 15%), the one-time king of the browse war has now fallen into third place (behind Internet Explorer and Chrome). As most pundits are scratching their heads, I'm fairly certain that there's a clear reason for this change:

Google.

The 15% market share applies only to desktop browsers. Once you move to mobile... all bets are off. But why? What has shifted to cause Firefox to drop so sharply? Is it a bad product? Honestly, to the majority of users (I'm talking "average user" here), a browser is a browser is a browser. The biggest difference to the average user is the use of "Favorites" over "Bookmarks." Since most users wouldn't even know Firefox from Internet Explorer, how could this change have happened?

Again, I say... Google.

Actually, I should be more specific and say Chrome -- or even better, Chrome OS and Android.

From November 2013 to the end of the year, a reported 21% of all laptops sold were Chromebooks. Worldwide, Android takes nearly 81% of the mobile market share. That's a LOT of Google-based browsers out there. I don't think it's a huge leap of logic to assume a vast percentage of those users would have been, otherwise, using Firefox.

Let me present myself a case in point. For the longest time, I was a devout Firefox user. But then I discovered a few of the Chrome apps/extensions (such as Tweetdeck) and added Chrome to my Linux desktop. Then I adopted a Chromebook as a laptop. Since I really only do two things on a laptop (write and browse), it made perfect sense. Add to this the fact that my smartphone platform has been Android for what seems like forever, plus the mobile version of Firefox is dreadful, and you have the makings for a typical migration from Firefox to Chrome.

Let's be honest -- as long as the browser gets the job done, it doesn't matter which browser you use.

  • Unless you're on a Chromebook
  • Or on Android
  • Or you depend on Google Apps

You can see the pattern here, right? It's like third-party politics in the United States. Many people don't vote for third parties because it takes away votes from the party they once championed. In this case -- every person using Chrome is one less person using Firefox. Why?

Caution: generalization coming...

Most people who use Internet Explorer simply don't know that the product they're using is inferior to every other product of its kind (either that or they depend on a site that was written ONLY for IE). So, there's little to no chance they'll jump ship to either Firefox or Chrome.

So, what is Mozilla to do? Well, they're busy focusing on the Firefox OS, which is akin to Ubuntu focusing on the Ubuntu Phone -- it's detracting from what they've always done really well in exchange for jumping into a ring with two of the heaviest hitters in the history of the game -- Android and iOS.

And then there's that advertising deal with Google that's about to expire. The majority of Mozilla's income is from that deal, and Google has less reason to continue on with that search agreement. Google no longer needs the advertising real estate from a browser suffering from a possible slow death. Should Google pull this, Mozilla will have to pull off a miracle to stay in the fight.

However, there's good news. You can't forget that Firefox is an open-source browser. That means, even if Firefox were to die, another batch of forks would appear. So, even if Google Chrome were to knock Firefox out of the ring, more contenders will appear to take up the gloves. But even a horde of forks are not likely to pull Firefox from the slow Chrome burn. Google isn't going anywhere but up. As Chromebooks and Android continue to take over the mobile planet (and users become less tethered to their desks), Firefox will continue to suffer.

Firefox is still a quality product. But like Internet Explorer, it's facing a foe that's stronger, faster, and more agile. That new opponent is poised to take over nearly everything it touches. Fortunately (for users, not the competition), that new foe offers a stellar product on every platform (Linux, Windows, Mac, Chrome OS, Android, and iOS). Chrome is the only browser on the planet that can make that claim (as Chrome is the only browser that will run on Chrome OS) -- a claim that's becoming ever more important in a world gone mad for mobile.

I don't have a prediction for Firefox. Will it die? Will it become an "arm" of Google? Will it get a second wind and, thus, a second life? No one really knows at this point. If I had to make a guess, I'd say both Firefox and IE will fall to Chrome. The difference is that IE is embedded into the psyche of many users, so it won't suffer as much as Firefox.

The gloves are off and Chrome is set to rumble. How do you think this fight will end? Share your opinion in the discussion thread below.

About

Jack Wallen is an award-winning writer for TechRepublic and Linux.com. He’s an avid promoter of open source and the voice of The Android Expert. For more news about Jack Wallen, visit his website getjackd.net.

94 comments
dkfreed
dkfreed

After a few years working with an android based tablet, I'm buying a laptop and switching back to a Windows OS. Why? Google is trying to control things more and more (ex. restricting copy/paste options with the latest OS, even making some tablet SD card slots not work), and allowing users' choices less and less; their chrome browser update is buggy and crashes on me all the time (earlier version didn't); they are so expansive (al la behind the scenes and supposedly 'friendly') with their personal data gathering, that I think I'd rather have the NSA looking over my shoulder; and tasks that are rather straightforward in windows--like printing and word processing--are complicated and/or pricey in android. 

SignUpsSuck
SignUpsSuck

You're an idiot.  They're the SAME company.  That's like saying "Will KFC knockout Pizza Hut?"  Thanks for wasting more of the world's time.  That was sarcasm.  And your pic doesn't make you look cool, it makes you look like a loser that's trying to hard.  The alt angle face shots are for high school girls.  You need a mental reboot, get out of the tech world and go fishing.

datadorklv
datadorklv

I use Chrome a lot, but still use Firefox a lot as well. Depends on what I'm doing. But as an IT admin person, I will never use Chrome as an enterprise default because of the lack of controls you can set at the domain level like you can with IE. If they get there stuff together and make it admin friendly and controllable via Group Policy, then it might get more traction. But I need to be able to keep my users from deleting history and things like that and you just don't have that type of control with Chrome. It may be a big boy on a smartphone, but it will never be used as a default on my domain at the enterprise level until they give me granular controls like I have with IE.

Knighthawk5193@Yahoo.com
Knighthawk5193@Yahoo.com

As far as I see it. With the vast amount of choice out there, it really doesn't matter WHICH browser is considered to be "on top"...for as long as they exist....I'll use Firefox...because it's what I CHOOSE! I have used other browsers on my different Linux machines.....from Epiphany...to Midori.....to Opera etc...I don;t like Chrome...(or Chromium)...so I don't use them.....does that make my browsers of choice less perfect? Not to me, and since I'M the one using them...then who cares which browser is the "Flavor of the Week"?

williamjacobs
williamjacobs

Anonymized Tor browser. (torproject.org) as I understand it is based on Firefox v17.


Perhaps it will gain a bit of strength as folks decide they didn't invite the NSA to read over their shoulder about their personal lives.

nleporacci
nleporacci

First, let me say that I'm not a firm supporter of any one browser over another. I use whichever one works on the site that I happen to be doing business on.


That being said,  I don't get what the big fuss is over Chrome. I grant that it's definitely faster than other browsers but after that, it's just awful. I've tried using it quite a few times and there's always an issue when I do. PDF's won't display correctly, printed pages are completely black, etc. 


I keep reading that FireFox is going the way of IE because it's "too heavy". Well...security is "heavy". To keep the masses safe while they attempt to do stupid things to themselves is a full time job and takes a lot of overhead. If Mozilla and Microsoft decided to eliminate security features for speed, they would be tagged as irresponsible. 

*bernie
*bernie

It may be Android of course, yes. But I don't browse with smartphones or tablets, and I don't use a Chromebook (not yet). I simply used Firefox, then Chrome and Firefox. After a year or so, I found myself using Chrome. It was simply a better browser, simple and beautiful because of its simplicity - besides being fast. Firefox compared to Chrome was like Bing compared to Google search: already in its very 'looks', Bing is "too heavy" - Google search has the advantage of its simplicity. In the case of Google search, a customer is also more likely to find what he's looking for - we are not a 'vertical market' after all. Chrome wasn't that much faster than Firefox - but simplicity is much like efficiency. We want things to be efficient. A browser shouldn't feel like it sits in the way of what we're looking for. So I was done with Firefox for rather simple reasons.

JeffinCT
JeffinCT

Google doesn't have to do a thing to beat Mozilla.  Firefox is imploding under it's own weight.  Every update drags it down further.  I'm done with Firefox.  They should be focusing on making a better browser instead of placating NAMBLA.


JonathanSeer
JonathanSeer

So it's ok for Chrome to come bundled in Chromebooks, but it was not ok for IExplorer to come bundled in Windows PC.


Google's tactics in that regard resemble the same tactics Microsoft used that resulted in the accusations of unfair tactics to gain control of the market in order to establish a monopoly. 

Google needs Firefox if only to forstall the same sort of regulatory attention that caused MS so much grief in regard to IExplorer being a tool used in efforts to control the market.

By the same token, MS in efforts to forestall Google's growing share of the market could try to use Firefox as a proxy, because the restrictions on MS could open it up to the same old charges it already dealt with were it try to use IExplorer to head to head with the chrome browser.


Either way Firefox/Mozilla's future could be safe in spite of itself thanks to how it fits into the needs of the two big players.

m.l.peake
m.l.peake

AS far as I can tell Chrome only comes in a 32 Bit version, since I run a 64 Bit version of Windows 7 I choose to use a 64 Bit browser - Cyberfox which is of course a development of Mozilla's Firefox. I also keep other browsers on my system for website checking as I run several websites.  My Android Tablet has both Firefox and Dolphin installed.

CFWhitman
CFWhitman

Another thing that I would like to point out is that most sources of web traffic analysis list Firefox as second to Chrome with IE as third.  It might be nice to point out your source for the statistics you give, though I'm pretty sure I know what it is.


As for me, as long as Mozilla based browsers are the only ones with proper color management and profiling, they will most likely continue to be the ones that I use the most on my desktop.  I visit art and photography forums regularly, and color management is important to me.


Of course, I'm not that likely to go to Chrome at any rate, but I do make some use of Chromium, Midori, Qupzilla, and other Webkit based browsers.


On Android I tend to use Tint the most.

CFWhitman
CFWhitman

"And then there's that advertising deal with Google that's about to expire. The majority of Mozilla's income is from that deal, and Google has less reason to continue on with that search agreement. Google no longer needs the advertising real estate from a browser suffering from a possible slow death. Should Google pull this, Mozilla will have to pull off a miracle to stay in the fight."

I have to entirely disagree with this paragraph.  This is the same thing that some said the last time the deal was expiring, and I will say the same thing I said then.  Google will renew the deal with Mozilla.  There is no downside for Google to renewing the deal, while there is a definite downside to not renewing the deal.


Why there's no downside to renewing the deal for Google is that Google only has to pay for the amount of traffic sent its way by Firefox.  That's always going to be worth it for them (well, until it's just not worth bothering with, which would mean Firefox was finished anyway).  If Firefox usage were to go completely down the toilet, then Google wouldn't have to pay much of anything to Mozilla.  If Firefox usage were to go up, then they might have to pay more, but it would be definitely worth it to them.


The downside to not renewing the deal is that it leaves Mozilla open to signing with a new sponsor.  Microsoft would most likely be perfectly willing to sponsor Mozilla for Bing traffic, and Google knows this.


The point is, Google doesn't really care about 'knocking out' Mozilla.  They care about generating traffic to their sites.  As long as Firefox does this, they'll support Firefox.  There is no point at which it's worth it for Google to terminate the deal in order to defeat Firefox.  There is only a point at which Firefox is already defeated, so it's not worth it to renew the deal.  We haven't reached that point yet.

allan.rockett
allan.rockett

I used Firefox happily up til around version 15,  but from then on it was constantly crashing on my Win 7 laptop. So, I changed over to Chrome, but soon discovered that everything either slowed to a crawl, or stopped when Chrome was running. As soon as it opens the first web page, processor usage shoots up to 100% and stays there, until Chrome is closed. I'm now using Torch, which is based on Chrome, but is vastly superior in terms of speed and resource usage. It also does not collect information, the way Chrome does.

georgeb5466
georgeb5466

I use them both on my laptop..it depends on which WI-FI I am hooked up to. At one hot spot Chrome is the way to go as Firefox..say untrusted connection all the time

nickdodd
nickdodd

Technically speaking Firefox is just Netscape with a new name, so I'd say 20 years in the market is quite the accomplishment... it's lived much longer than Google Chrome has so far!

kpdriver
kpdriver

I use Firefox for my PC browser. The only one that is fast, uses few resources, and virtually never crashes. Vive` Firefox!

MuppetGrinder
MuppetGrinder

Issues are what issues have been, the problem here is that our reasons for browser choice don't normally stack with the common reason (I don't think that the average Joe on the street picks his browser based on the political alignment of the people who coded it, but that's probably a normal person Vs a bigot and nothing to do with tech ability)  What is and has been happening is that most people get said mobile device and one of the first three things they do with it is jump online to announce it on their favorite social network, or to see what their favorite place looks like on their new toy (anyone else remember when a favorite place was somewhere you could actually stand in?).  Now to do this, they don't commonly take the time to explore the AppStore or PlayStore or whatever-other-store-applies for the best tool for the job, why would they when they only need push their excited forefingers strait into the icon marked "Internet"? Thus a browser choice it made and a statistic is created.  Whether any one of us here prefers one browser or another isn't really of any significance in the internet sized scheme of things.  The article here is worded to incite controversy, it's one of the oldest tools in the utility belt of the public media.  As long as there is a grounding of truth, if you want people to talk about it - you need to throw something in there to make them want to.  Each of the big browsers - Google, IE, Safari, Firefox has it's own mobile device operating shipping with it's icon bearing the covetous label of "Internet".  Except Firefox - yet.  It seems like a massive swerve in the wrong direction, and it may fail miserably - but by the same token, it's not a Sherlock-ien jump in deduction to get why they have chosen to do this.  However, assuming they break through with the OS, they then have to catch up on products.  Having something that can be rooted onto a tablet or smartphone isn't going to do them anything like the benefit needed to offset the effort - they are going to need to get native devices onto the market as well, and as the big tree in there just now have settled will into their positions, that's going to be by far the hardest challenge to them (In my opinion).  Now, I am by no stretch a Microsoft sympathizer, but I'd love to know why, when Microsoft bundled IE with windows, they got dragged over the coals and sent in front of a judge - yet when apple and Google do it - it's just business as usual....

M Wagner
M Wagner

I take exception to your "generalization" about IE.  IE is the most widely-used browser in the world.  Mainly because most consumers just don't care.  A browser is a browser is a browser - until it won't work with your favorite web page.  (Safari is usually the biggest culprit here.) 


I am not surprised that Chrome is beginning to surpass Firefox (for which I have never care).  IE's biggest "weakness" is Microsoft's dedication to security over performance.  Firefox suffers from insisting on building its own "files associations" process instead of relying on Microsoft's file associations (this causes havoc when a software vendor changes its file suffix). 


Frankly, I don't care.  No matter how much we want vendors to adopt standards, no two browsers will be fully compatible so, the de facto standards on any given day will prevail.  Once it was Mosaic, then Netscape, then Internet Explorer, then Firefox (and Opera, and dozens of others), then Chrome.  Today, three dominate.  IE, Chrome, and Firefox.  Everyone else is an ALSO RAN. 

Mastercraft209
Mastercraft209

Or, perhaps, like myself, people dropped FireFox after they fired their CEO because he was one of the majority of the people who supported Prop 8 in California years before.


I am even in favor of gay marriage (well, probably more in favor of Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships, but that is a different discussion).  However, I think it absurd to fire someone because he was against it years ago, especially when the majority of Californians agreed with him at the time.


I switched to Chrome at that point and haven't gone back to FireFox since.    


I loved the FF community and their large number of add-ins to do almost anything I needed, but refuse to support them any longer.

mcglaughlin
mcglaughlin

I am a heavy google apps (email, drive, calendar) user.  I stopped using Chrome as my browser based on its memory and cpu utilization.  I switched to using Firefox by default so I could run other software in my old 3GB Ram system and have kept it that way since I upgraded.  Plus I don't think I like all the broswer history accumulating inside google.

inet32
inet32

I used to use Firefox exclusively; now I divide 50/50 with Chrome on PC's.


One reason I've moved away from Firefox is that on the desktop they're buggy. Firefox hangs, crashes, and leaks memory terribly on all 4 of my computers (3 Windows 7 and one XP).   Also they seem to release a new version every month or two and nag you to install it.


On (Android) mobile devices I use mostly Dolphin and some Chrome.


One feature I'd like to see on Chrome is a setting so it will _automatically_ clear all history and cookies (including Flash "cookies") when I exit. 

BitHammer
BitHammer

I used Firefox for many years, then switched to Chrome because st the time it was faster. That's no longer true. My biggest reason for going back to Firefox and also avoiding the Google search engine is that I really don't want Google to know everything about me.

elimarcus
elimarcus

Although I am a Mozilla diehard from way back (the Netscape years - starting in 1997) I use both Chrome and Firefox today due to various website support and convenience issues. 

My biggest concern about Google and Chrome is that anyone in the computing world that has a monopoly tends to forget what the individual may want. Microsoft is the prime example, Apple in recent years, and now Google.
I don't want to always be identified by my browser or to be logged in to Chrome or to have a single universal Google identity! 

I feel that it is an invasion of my privacy, and it makes me feel much less secure on the net!

WilECyOT
WilECyOT

I have to admit, I was a loyal FireFox user for years. Then I got my Galaxy S5. I do everything on it using Chrome. It just made sense to try out Chrome on the desktops (Mac and Win7). Been using it for two months. I'm liking the unified experience over . Yes, Firefox on the desktop is superior, but there is something to be said for the seamless experience. I think the average consumer is going to choose ease of use over performance. And...money talks. Firefox will always have a loyal base, but they are going to lose share.

jimbritttn
jimbritttn

Maxthon is the BEST browser, hands down

HABAR
HABAR

"Most people who use Internet Explorer simply don't know that the product they're using is inferior to every other product of its kind..."

Crazy comment. Any evidence that IE is worse than everything else?

I could find lots of evidence that it's better.

rocket ride
rocket ride

So, why was Microsoft's inclusion of IE as the default (but not the only usable) browser in Windows such a horror that made the US government devote more energy into going after Bill Gates than it did pursuing Osama bin Laden while Chrome browser being the only one that will even run in Chrome OS is NOT causing similar ire?  Could it be because the principals of GOOG have been major Obama supporters all along?

BillGates_z
BillGates_z

No, it isn't. I think I won't join GoogleWorld just yet.

artag
artag

I disliked Chrome's UI and stayed with Firefox. And it's bad enough using Google's services without trusting their browser too. But an increasing number of applications work only (or 'best') with Chrome, so I have both. And now Firefox have made their interface look like Chrome, which is a disaster. Have you never heard of a style guide ? Why should the browser work differently from all other applications. It's like that ridiculous media player from Microsoft. Less and less reasons to stay with firefox, sadly. 

salmanbashir
salmanbashir

Firefox is open source and community driven, so it can never die. Chrome sucks at syncing my bookmarks and history. Tried firefox, it works like a charm. The best internet browser out there is Firefox. Period.

heyhurryup
heyhurryup

@SignUpsSuck


So when did Google buy the mozilla Foundation exactly einstein? Having to point out you used sarcasm shows the mental agility of a rabbit...


You nasty piece of filth. I'm all up for heated debate but attacking someone personally makes you look like one of those high school girls that you cannot get enough of.

Vallum Halo
Vallum Halo

@nleporacci . If Mozilla and Microsoft decided to eliminate security features for speed, they would be tagged as irresponsible.


No disagreement there, and hopefully that won't happen (on purpose anyway.)  But if they would quit adding arcane features that are not necessary, security would probably be improved.


Chrome has a log of bad behavior. For example, when I cut and paste on this Chrome browser here, it closes my reply window. Why is that? All these browser development teams are out-of-control IMO -- I am sympathetic to the developers, but this causes a lot of frustration for end-users.

CFWhitman
CFWhitman

@MuppetGrinder "Now, I am by no stretch a Microsoft sympathizer, but I'd love to know why, when Microsoft bundled IE with windows, they got dragged over the coals and sent in front of a judge - yet when apple and Google do it - it's just business as usual...."

Well, a lot of the reason for this difference is the climate they are functioning in and the state of the market before they did it.  Before Microsoft started throwing Internet Explorer into Windows for free, browsers were something that people actually paid money for (unless they used Mosaic, but most weren't really familiar with that).  There were boxes at the store containing Netscape Navigator and Internet Explorer, and Netscape was leading.  Then Microsoft started putting Internet Explorer in with Windows, which already dominated the home computer market, and people had no reason to buy Netscape anymore (well, less reason anyway).  This was a pretty clear violation of anti-monopoly laws.


You see, the odd thing about anti-monopoly laws is that they are circumstantial; they change with conditions.  The exact same action can be taken by a company in different circumstances and be illegal in one case and legal in the other.


By the time the current operating systems on computers and tablets came into being, browsers were something that were given away for free from any number of sources.  That makes throwing one in for free with the operating system much more acceptable than when Microsoft started doing it.  In other words, by the time current systems came out, giving away browsers for free was "business as usual," and that means a lot in relation to anti-monopoly legislation.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

"...Microsoft's dedication to security over performance."


Boy, I didn't think I'd ever see those words arrange in that sequence; especially not the first four.

digilante
digilante

@HABAR Speaking as a web developer, Trident (the engine that powers IE) is the single worst engine to code for - practically 30-45% of the CSS code I have to write is to compensate for the stupidities in that one engine alone. WebKit (Safari/Chrome) is only marginally better than Trident, whilst Gecko (Firefox) and Presto (Opera) are the least hasslesome - width 100% means width 100% to those two, unlike IE's translation of 100% = 120%

BitHammer
BitHammer

@HABAR IE drives me nuts! Every time I go to a user's desk and have to look something up using IE because they don't have anything else installed, I wait for a LONG time for the user's portal to come up (which I can NOT stop), type in the URL I want to go to in the address line, only to have it sucked into Bing and searched for. If I wanted to search, I'd have entered it into a search window, not the address line! I swear at it and install Firefox!

Vallum Halo
Vallum Halo

@HABAR I triggered on this controversial comment as well. Sounds like someone wants to start a fight!


More complexity and more archane features -- these don't necessarily translate to superiority. What about general ergonomics? Robustness? Ease of installation? Or are we just arguing aesthetics here? 


I just want data -- get it to me as fast, as clearly, and as reliably as possible,.



CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

If you're going to ask that question, I'd like to also ask why so many regard Chrome as superior.  I haven't tried it for a while, but the lack of plug-ins, RSS, bookmark managability, etc, sent me running back to FF as fast as my stubby little legs would carry me.  FF's later decision to change its traditional interface to something more 'Chromesque' drove me to search for something else.  I settled on Pale Moon (FF optimized for Windows and with the 'old school' interface).

eye4bear
eye4bear

@rocket ride I don't care that only the Chrome browser works in Chrome OS because if your stupid enough to buy a machine running the Chrome OS then you get what you pay for.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

I have no problem with IE being the default browser in Windows.  Whatever browser MS chose, homegrown or third-party, it was going to face monopoly charges.


The real problem isn't including a default browser.  It's integrating a browser, ANY browser, with all the accompanying performance and security issues, so deeply into the operating system that it can't be uninstalled.

TanteWaileka
TanteWaileka

@artag I was appalled when Firefox decided that they didn't know how to dress but that Madonna, err, Chrome did. Stupidest thing FF ever did, emulating ANYTHING chrome.

As for IE, hate it don't use it ...ever.

BitHammer
BitHammer

@salmanbashir Wander through Sourceforge and you will find many OS projects that are basically dead.

MuppetGrinder
MuppetGrinder

@CFWhitman I appreciate your point, but the core case against Microsoft happened because they were selling their software and their browser bundled together with the representation that that they were integrated with each other.  It was not that they made there browser free of charge, or - as they claimed initially - merged the cost of it into the OS it's self.

The case went to court at a time when there were a significant number of free browsers out there, which is why - over and above the fines they were charged - they were ordered to include end user choice in browser program.  Of course they did this by still packaging only IE with windows and then throwing a pop up with "Important - Choose your browser" and links to download the other big names.  

I just don't get why the same people don't turn round to the mobile OS developers and tell them to strip the browser off the device and make users download what they want from the relevant store (Especially Amazon with its Silk - no one would use that by choice I don't think)

I suppose I'm just too much of an idealist to be a businessman.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

BitHammer, I was seeing the 'slow portal' at work until we updated Java.  Debating the value of Java is a whole nudder issue, but you might try upgrading it.

TanteWaileka
TanteWaileka

@CharlieSpencer I'm with you, Charlie! I am particularly fond of 'no squint' add-on for Firefox, because I have a 45-inch monitor and I love being able to control the size of both the text and the webpage (design elements) using that little app. Chrome does not impress me, even if I use it on my samsung galaxy note 3 smartphone. Overall I definitely prefer firefox and btw I no longer give a flying patootey about MSIE, even though I was also the 88th hire at Microsoft 'back in the day'. Their products, particularly IE, bite and not in a pleasant way either. I never use IE nor do I even check my 49 websites in it for 'compatibility'. My followers are TECHIES and not a one of them uses IE not even the current-day Microsoft slaves (90% of whom se habla hindi).

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

What's up with you and the India / Hindi obsession?


"...Safari emulates IE without the stink of hindi)."

"...Microsoft can go move completely to India and then die the death it deserves to die."

"(90% of whom se habla hindi)."


?


info
info

@CharlieSpencer He was "the 88th hire at Microsoft 'back in the day'," and was probably the 88th pink slip when they outsourced his job to their India division... ;)

Editor's Picks