Mozilla Responds: Market Share? What Market Share?

"As stunning as the rise of Chrome is, it's critical to remember that it will take an independent browser like Firefox to keep the pace of innovation alive and limit corporate interest to an acceptable level."

an important consideration. it is kind of on par with a "mom-and-pop" store competing somewhat successfully against wal-mart, which needs to stay alive especially in today's corporate-centric environment.

My if FF didn't crash all the time from Flash......STILL....and didn't suck up half a gig of memory with 3 tabs open I might use it.

Google chrome is for your Wall Street banker types.
Firefox is preferred by the people protesting them.

Chrome's market share is being inflated because it's include with Adobe Flash downloads. Market share has never been an indication of anything other than strictly how many people use the browser. Internet Explorer being the top is proof of this, Chrome being second will be further proof.

"What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard."
Upvote for having never watched Fox News

"At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought."

Rambling assumes that it was long winded. It was actually short and there was nothing "incoherent" about it. The only rambling incoherence was your own post.

At least SPDY will become more commonplace.

Chrome's rise could be attributed to Google's advertising and seemingly non-stop wallet stuffing of software companies around the world to include Chrome during their software's installation process. Software programs used to typically include an optional Google or Yahoo toolbar. Now, Google's strongly pushing Chrome instead of just a toolbar and it's paying other companies (well) to include it with their software. Mozilla simply can't compete with Google's much deeper pockets when it comes to advertising. Mozilla's advertising for Firefox is miniscule...to the extent I'd be willing to wager many younger, uninformed, and new PC users don't even know Firefox exists.

As for octagon72's claims, I'm on a 2-year old Vista-64 Machine using Firefox 3.6.23. Presently, I have 10 tabs open and Task Manager reports Firefox is using 160MB of memory, with its plug-in containers (2) using another 140MB. (I'm watching Netflix and one site is flash-based.) Mind you, version 3.6.23 doesn't have anywhere NEAR the memory usage optimizations versions 7 and above have. So much for your 'half a gig with 3 tabs open' claim. The only memory issue Firefox still has is its very slow rate of releasing memory it uses.

How many people still don't know the difference between "its" and "it's"

oh and just prior to getting called an idiot by several posters, that was sarcasm.

Ill be sticking with firefox. I've never had a problem with it crashing, and with all the ram I have, I don't care about it using a gig. Gig is the new Meg.

I have tried chrome and was impressed with the speed but really didn't like the amount of caching that it does.

IMO the only thing that chrome has over FF is it's opening screen. everything else just feels like tricks and gimmicks.

The problem isn't just how much memory it uses, it's the fact it doesn't seem to do a good job of managing it even for its own purposes. FF has traditionally kept huge amounts of stuff cached in memory, and then still had to resort to the disc cache when it wanted to store more. This can result in huge pauses for disc swapping even when you only have a few tabs open, because everything you've done in your browsing session is still in memory. How much of this is design and how much is memory leaks, I don't know.

FF7 finally does seem to have made some improvement, but how much I don't know yet as I haven't really stressed it yet.

Flash crashes aren't straightforward crashes, they are some sort of race condition where FF takes up your whole CPU and becomes unresponsive because it is trying to process something Flash related, forcing you to kill the program. I know that in at least on case that I could reproduce repeatedly, the Flashblock addon was the cause of this, as it did not happen with it disabled, so that may account for the discrepancy in user experience with regard to flash - some people are blocking it, some aren't.

Only thing the statistics show is the number of people using noscript is going up. I use firefox since it came out, but with noscript, I doubt my browsing is counted by the watchers. If you do not run their script, are you actually counted?

there's nothing wrong with ff, i just like chrome better.

I use firefox, but it keeps on crashing...

Chrome is only getting bigger because google pays 99.9% of software companies to have chrome in their installers. Most people just click "next next next" so chrome is always installed but dont actually use it. They use a real browser, they use Firefox. Besides, who would want another way for google to steal your private information anyway, Google is enough, Google and Google+ is a bit much for some, why add more ways for google to make a profit off of you so they can monopolize the market?

chrome will never control me

Everybody here is aware this is USAGE statistics and not DOWNLOAD statistics, right? It doesn't matter if all are on your computer, you will be logged on a web page based on which browser you are using.

So after years of trying to get any market share it can through all possible means, it now pretends it was never important. Haha.