Developers › A Journal from Behind the Trenches
WSJ says Chrome is growing, Firefox stalling, but fails to connect the dots
According to the WSJ, Chrome is growing quickly, and could threaten Firefox for the #2 spot. In fact, they are claiming that Firefox is stalling. And why?
I'm surprised that a business publication like the WSJ can't see perhaps one of the most obvious reasons for what's happening: Google's monopoly in online advertising.
A major part of Firefox's success was that it was promoted aggressively through Google's online advertising channels. Google even paid you up to $1 for every Firefox installation you could generate from your website. Now Google has turned its attention from Firefox to Chrome, and lo and behold, Chrome is the one speeding up the charts.
Is it wrong of Google to do this, then? Of course not. And you can't ban Google from advertising its own products just because the company has an online advertising monopoly. It also helps that both Firefox and Chrome are good browsers, so they aren't relying on Google's monopoly alone for their growth.
And if you are wondering where Opera is in all of this, I'm happy to report that the user base keeps growing. We recently announced that there are more than 120 million Opera users, up from 100+ million a couple of months ago.
So it is possible to grow without relying on a monopoly. It's just that having a monopoly behind you helps greatly
The stall has prompted suggestions that Chrome and other browsers are outpacing Firefox in innovation.
I'm surprised that a business publication like the WSJ can't see perhaps one of the most obvious reasons for what's happening: Google's monopoly in online advertising.
A major part of Firefox's success was that it was promoted aggressively through Google's online advertising channels. Google even paid you up to $1 for every Firefox installation you could generate from your website. Now Google has turned its attention from Firefox to Chrome, and lo and behold, Chrome is the one speeding up the charts.
Is it wrong of Google to do this, then? Of course not. And you can't ban Google from advertising its own products just because the company has an online advertising monopoly. It also helps that both Firefox and Chrome are good browsers, so they aren't relying on Google's monopoly alone for their growth.
And if you are wondering where Opera is in all of this, I'm happy to report that the user base keeps growing. We recently announced that there are more than 120 million Opera users, up from 100+ million a couple of months ago.
So it is possible to grow without relying on a monopoly. It's just that having a monopoly behind you helps greatly
Readers' comments 30
Left under the original article, as archived.
About this article
| Published in | A Journal from Behind the Trenches |
|---|---|
| Date | July 9, 2010 |
| Author | Haavard |
| Tags | advertising, opera, google, firefox, chrome, monopoly, browsers, market share |
| Original | Internet Archive |
NicoFriday, July 9, 2010 11:01:22 AM
porneLFriday, July 9, 2010 12:36:09 PM
Sn3ipenFriday, July 9, 2010 12:38:57 PM
thobiFriday, July 9, 2010 12:55:45 PM
Abhishek ThakurFriday, July 9, 2010 1:31:25 PM
Originally posted by porneL:
Charles SchlossFriday, July 9, 2010 2:14:08 PM
ofspinetsFriday, July 9, 2010 2:42:30 PM
In order for Google to actually have a monopoly over the advertising market, they would have to be the only entity you could go through in order to advertise on the internet. And of course this is far from the truth.
By the way, I'd take Opera over Chrome any day.
Cutting SpoonFriday, July 9, 2010 5:22:40 PM
Originally posted by porneL:
You give them something good, and they have to go mess it up again
Originally posted by ofspinets:
This varies by nation, but in countries where monopolies are seen as a threat you generally need only 60%+ to be the dominant force in a given market. Also, even online, you can have monopolies in specific markets. Opera's SMW often has a bit of data on that topic.
Semirelated, will we be seeing another MAMA report this year? The first one was startlingly useful.
prd3Friday, July 9, 2010 6:09:41 PM
Originally posted by ofspinets:
Wrong. You are using the wrong definition of the word.
According to law, a monopoly does not need to be the only provider at all. In fact, your market share can be as low as 40-50%, and you can still be a monopoly according to the law.
Lorenz Cuno KlopfensteinFriday, July 9, 2010 6:51:52 PM
Originally posted by porneL:
Indeed.
ofspinetsFriday, July 9, 2010 10:21:57 PM
Originally posted by hellspork:
Originally posted by prd3:
Point taken. I was using the literal definition of the word -- which is really the only way it should be used, if you ask me, but whatever -- which is Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service.
Google does indeed have a large market share -- for good reason. But they are not a monopoly in the true sense of the word.
Cutting SpoonFriday, July 9, 2010 11:13:11 PM
1) Trying to buy everything. Papa regulatory commission doesn't want anybody to own all the oil/uranium/internets/hotnewsoftware.
2) Paying people not to use someone else's product. (the degree to which this is illegal depends on many things however) It is possible that Google could get in trouble for paying ad partners to generate Chrome downloads.
3) Using market dominance to control prices, either by subsidizing a market and undervaluing a product, or by abusing control of the supply to raise prices excessively.
4) Attempting to totally control the method of distribution. (This one is a bit murkier, but let's say that amazon.com should not be allowed to buy UPS)
Ice ArdorSaturday, July 10, 2010 6:10:50 AM
Mad Scientist (عادل)Sunday, July 11, 2010 7:44:12 AM
Originally posted by ofspinets:
Perhaps not literally, yet they do have a virtual monopoly. The very fact that using a search engine is refered to as 'googling' shows that Google has an ideological 'monopoly'. You are right though, that technically, there is no such thing as a monopoly as long as there is even one alternative.
Rafael LuikSunday, July 11, 2010 9:22:07 AM
Originally posted by qlue:
I'm definitely right you and ofspinets are definitely wrong on this.Look at BrowserChoice.eu case, Microsoft was / is considered to maintain a monopoly regardless that there are alternatives (other OSs).
Mad Scientist (عادل)Sunday, July 11, 2010 10:23:15 AM
Originally posted by qlue:
prd3Monday, July 12, 2010 10:06:44 AM
Originally posted by ofspinets:
But it isn't, so you are wrong. Wishful thinking on your part does not change reality.
Why, yes they are. They are a monopoly in the true sense of the word, as defined by law.
ofspinetsMonday, July 12, 2010 6:37:41 PM
Originally posted by prd3:
Perhaps as redefined by law, but not as defined by the traditional, literal definition of the word "monopoly". Notice the root word in monopoly. Mono (Greek monos) means one. (Poly [Greek polein] means to sell.)
So while I guess you're right in that Haavard is technically correct in calling Google a "monopoly" if that's how his government erroneously redefines the word, I think it's silly to call Google a monopoly because going by the literal definition of the word mono-poly, it is not... I think it's more accurate to say it has a very significant advertising reach.
But that's just my two cents. I'm not looking to create a heated argument here.
prd3Monday, July 12, 2010 7:51:08 PM
Originally posted by ofspinets:
Wow, if that's what you are going by, you must be getting your balls in a twist a lot! Because, you know, words very frequently don't have the literal meaning of the historical basis of those words.
No, Mr. Racist/Xenophobe. This is not something HIS government "erroneously redefined". This is how the law THROUGHOUT THE F'ING WORLD defines a monopoly. Quit it with your xenophobic BS already.
It IS a monopoly if you go by the CORRECT, CURRENT definition of the word, as defineed by LAW.
No, it is PERFECTLY ACCURATE to point out the fact that Google holds a monopoly in the online advertising market.
ofspinetsMonday, July 12, 2010 9:54:26 PM
Originally posted by prd3:
Okay, now you just made yourself look really stupid. There is zero basis to your claim that I am a "racist" or a "xenophobe". In fact I can't stand racists or xenophobes.
Name calling is what immature little children do. Grow up.
Originally posted by prd3:
Have you never heard of Yahoo? Microsoft? AOL? AdBrite? Have you not noticed that many of the most popular websites on the internet don't display any Google ads and aren't owned by Google?
Google does not have "sufficient control over a particular product or service [online advertising] to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it".
If I want to advertise something on the internet I can easily go to one of the many other providers besides Google, or I can even go through a website's "custom" advertising method (such as purchasing a banner ad directly from the website owner). Calling Google a "monopoly" really just makes it sound like you're just sore that they have a large market share.
Websters defines monopoly as n 1: (economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller; "a monopoly on silver"; "when you have a monopoly you can ask any price you like"
2: exclusive control or possession of something; "They have no monopoly on intelligence"
TFD defines it as Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service
Random House Dictionary defines it as exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices
Since you clearly can't hold a respectful, polite conversation, this will be my final post in this thread.
prd3Tuesday, July 13, 2010 3:40:59 PM
Originally posted by ofspinets:
Are you just playing dumb? There are several other operating systems in the world than Windows, and yet Windows is a monopoly. As determined by law.
Again, stop spewing ignorant nonsense. You are consciously misrepresenting the word. I have repeatedly explained that MONOPOLY is defined by LAW in this case, not by your ignorant and wishful thinking.
No, calling Google a monopoly correctly reflects their huge market share. Stop playing dumb.
Stop playing dumb, and educate yourself about how the law defined a monopoly.
Since you clearly wish to spread lies and ignorance, I will keep correcting your blatant lies and misinformation.
Charles SchlossWednesday, July 14, 2010 4:34:48 AM
Mad Scientist (عادل)Wednesday, July 14, 2010 11:47:02 AM
Cutting SpoonWednesday, July 14, 2010 4:24:12 PM
AsiresThursday, July 15, 2010 4:39:10 PM
Originally posted by porneL:
They may steal Opera's features, but they don't be able steal Opera's speed
Constantine VesnaFriday, July 16, 2010 4:10:06 AM
Also google has both human, and financial resources to reverse engineer and implement ANY feature of competitors.
but the question is - what is opera gonna do with it ?
firefox will just die, ie will rise again, but what's with opera ?
FREE chromium might appear satisfying for devices, and then nobody will need to buy opera sdk.
Also, 10.60 while being awesome browser in absolute numbers, is much less awesome in relative ones. Most of opera's previous key features have been already stole.. sorry, "borrowed" in Chrome / Safari / FF.
9.64 was THE best browser on the market (yet it wasn't able to capture any significant market share outside ex-USSR), 10.60 is merely "very good", and with way more aggressive opponents this time, it doesn't seem to have bright future.
Correct me if i'm wrong, Haavard.
ChrisFriday, July 16, 2010 9:52:06 AM
Originally posted by c69:
What makes you think Firefox will die? It might lose a bit of market share, but it doesn't matter. As long as there is revenue, Firefox will survive. The same goes for Opera.
Nothing is free. It costs a lot of money to make a browser, even with free components available. As you can see, a lot of companies don't want to become browser vendors, so they license Opera's engineering expertise instead.
People have predicted Opera's demise for 15 years. It's still around. And not only is it around, but it's growing. And it's growing despite more aggressive competitors.
Actually, Opera's growth accelerated after Chrome was released. More focus on alternative browsers is good for Opera. The more aggressive Google becomes, the more people will be aware about alternatives, and the more people will try Opera.
It's a win-win situation for Opera.
I'm not him, but yes, you are wrong.
Ofir DavidFriday, August 6, 2010 4:24:36 AM
Anna CostelloMonday, August 23, 2010 12:36:15 AM
Carlos Manuel Juaristi ManriqueThursday, August 26, 2010 5:08:11 AM