Safari numbers still dwarfed by Firefox downloads
Apple has been desperately trying to turn Safari into a mainstream browser player. Unfortunately, its numbers simply don't compare to Firefox.
Safari 4.0 notched 11 million downloads in just three days. While significant, this number is almost a rounding error compared with Firefox 3.0.11, which pulled down 150 million downloads in just 24 hours, as Mozilla's Asa Dotzler reports.
With more than 300 million active users of Firefox, Mozilla is miles ahead of Safari in terms of users. Firefox also dwarfs Safari (and Internet Explorer) in community; indeed, it is Firefox's rich ecosystem of add-ons and extensions that arguably render irrelevant any performance advantages Safari claims.
Perhaps for this reason, despite the apparent rise of Safari, Firefox is actually gaining at its expense, as Dotzler calls out:
Safari, just like IE, gets virtually all of its usage by shipping as the bundled and default browser with its operating system...
Safari usage is growing...the explanation, though, is not more people choosing Safari; it's more people choosing Mac. That's a very different thing. Having chosen Mac, Safari users, about 27% of them, have opted out of the bundled and default browser and instead chosen Firefox.
That's an even higher conversion to Firefox rate than we're seeing on Windows.
I'm an example of this. I was one of those 11 million Safari downloads, but I did so because the Apple update system pushed the update to me, not because I actually wanted it. (Nor am I alone in this.) I use Safari roughly twice per month: once when I check my bill on Comcast.com (which doesn't seem to work with Firefox), and once when I review Net Applications for browser market share (which, again, doesn't seem to work properly with Firefox).
Other than that, it's all Firefox, all the time.
I'm a Mac fanatic, but that doesn't mean I swallow Safari along with it. Safari lacks the add-ons that make my Firefox experience so rich. Safari may be fast, but it's like having a fast car without enough room to seat my family or accommodate a stereo and cup holder. I'm sure there's an audience for that, but I'm not it.
So, while Microsoft resorts to charitable donations to goose its IE8 downloads, and Apple claims misleading Safari numbers, Firefox wins because it's simply better.
Update @ 3:50 PT: It turns out that the Comcast.com problem stems from Adblock Plus, not Firefox. I guess I shouldn't blame Firefox for its extensions' problems.
Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay. 
Worse are the often trivial features of the addons, such as skinning and service functions (Digg, etc) that attract users to a "christmas tree ornamentation" of the browser without rewarding the user experience.
Firefox once held great promise but has been, sadly, lapped in the development and user experience department. Opera, Chrome and Safari hold the keys to the future currently.
Even without add-ons, FireFox has load of mini features making it easily best of the best right now.
"Opera, Chrome and Safari hold the keys to the future currently."
Without automatic updates, without decent ad/pop-up/script blocker - only in your dreams.
safari is the future for unskilled hackers because it will take them less effort to exploit holes in it and man it's one of the crappiest and ugliest browser."
Prove it!
I'd be curious how the 6 million Windows users Safari gained in that period compare to the number of Safari to Firefox switches among Mac users over the same period. Is it a net loss or gain?
Also, on a side note, I think it shouldn't be at all surprising that Firefox conversion would be higher among Mac users than PC users, because Mac users are on average more tech savvy and more likely to experiment with alternatives. The long tail of tech-handicapped PC users, on the other hand, are unlikely to ever convert unless someone else does it for them.
I'm sorry but I don't buy that Mac users are more tech savvy than PC users. The reason why most people use Macs is because they aren't too technical to start with, and just buy into the whole "Macs are easier to use" fud. Also Apple fans are very brand loyal and would be the last people you would expect to experiment with alternatives.
Many tech savvy people choose Macs, but that doesn't mean Mac users are "on average" more tech savvy than PC users. That's myth often repeated without substantiation (even on this blog, I might add) Just hang around any Apple Store for a few minutes and interact with the "Geniuses" there... you'll quickly understand that the term "Genius" could only be applied here because so many Mac users have zero technical knowledge.
In fact Macs are specifically targeted to NON tech savvy people... historically those who couldn't understand the C:\ prompt and were afraid of "the command line" ... more recently to people who's technical prowess barely goes beyond knowing how to sync their iPods. Think journalists, musicians, educators...
I'd hazard to guess that many tech savvy Mac users own at least one PC in addition to their Mac. As you say, they like to experiment, and from a hardware point-of-view the PC is where experimentation happens. You can't play with the latest motherboards, CPUs, video cards, etc., on the Mac.
I can honestly say most truly tech savvy people I know right now are tinkering with Windows 7... again mostly due to curiosity and experimentation more than anything else. They like to be up-to-date on anything technology and from a hardware perspective that means the PC.
The 6 million Windows downloads is also misleading. Apple pushes Safari downloads/updates via it's updater software that comes with iTunes so many of them probably just click yes to the download and then never actually open the browser.
So, to further clarify, I'm not saying that your typical Mac user is more tech savvy than your typical PC user, just that there is a large population of luddites that pull down the average. And that isn't a judgment of any sort -- I just think it helps explain the numbers.
More likely they are too clueless to uncheck it, as we all know if they had a clue they wouldn't be using Windows.
Huh?
On what planet is that?
This is the real world here, not some Apple zombie dreamland!
In the real world, Mac users are some of the most ignorant humans you could ever meet anywhere. You only have to read some of the comments of the Apple Defence Force on this very site to see that.
You really can't have it both ways. On the one hand, Apple zombies constantly and shrilly claim that the Mac is the most user friendly operating system ever made by man, so much so that even the most clueless humans use the Mac, and in the very next breadth, the same Apple fanatics turns round and cliam that the same technically clueless Mac users are somehow more technically savvy than Windows PC users. It just don't add up.
Opera.
Also the Mac interface is fairly dire - it could really do with either an overhaul or a Camino-style spinoff.
Don't.
I'm very very happy that Safari and Chrome make such strides. Because that might finally push Opera to make some decent UI to its browser. It is rather sad that such excellent technology rots under such antiquated user-unfriendly interface.
Also, I would NOT recommend Opera for one more reason: lack of auto-updates. Opera is last browser which requires manual updates what in this age is simply unacceptable.
Opera auto-updates it just asked me the other day.
Philips seems to think that the only browser in the world that does auto updates is Firefox.
As for add ons, aside from perhaps ad blocking, what do I need? Themes are hardly necessary if the browser vendor knows how to do a UI design. (Do I really need buttons with bright green lightning bolts and pink fluffy bunnies?) My guess is a large chunk of Firefox users don't actually use add ons aside from perhaps a google one here and there.
Firefox is good for the industry, but thankfully it's not going to be the new microsoft of the browser space, and nobody should want it to!
As for adblocking, a proxy system such as Glimmer is far preferable to an extension IMO anyway - works regardless of which browser you're using and won't affect stability like extensions can.
Safari also has a much better and faster rendering engine, webkit.
And not everyone cares about or uses addons. I expect a browser to function without needing additions.
Firefox works fine without addons, it renders pages nices, will bring up your email and anything else IE will bring up. In fact, even the pages that say IE only will work in Firefox 99.9% of the time as long as you fool the pages into thinking you're using IE. Found that out using Firefox on Linux.
The purpose of addons is to customize your browser in ways which make sense to you. For example, I have X-marks, Adblock Plus, bit'ly preview, power twitter and User Agent Switcher. That means I can look at minimized links and see what page they lead to before clicking them, I can block ads on any site in Flash format, I can sync my bookmarks with as many computers as I like and I can fool a website into thinking I'm using one of several different browsers.
Haven't heard of any browser having all of those capabilities in their native interface.
I've never understood the argument that extensions for Firefox make it better.
Some of my favorites are aardvark (saves printer ink by letting me remove the elements from a page which I don't want printed), answers (alt-click on a word to look up its definition), chatzilla (IRC inside my browser), all-in-one sidebar (opera-style sidebar, only better and more customizable), ctrl-tab (lets me quickly search/select tabs by keywords, since I usually have at least 20 tabs open), download statusbar (neatly displays my downloads' progress in the status bar), downthemAll (great download accelerator), FEBE (backup my FF profile so that I can take all my addons and settings with me and restore them), fission (to get safari-style progress bar), foxy tunes (lets me control music players from within FF), Google Notebook, tab mix plus, read it later, MR tech toolkit, drag-drop upload, and more.
So I have all the inbuilt features of all the other browsers, plus many more. All the addons save me a lot of time.
And many of those things you list you use addons for I can do with the developer menu in Safari, or with addons from http://pimpmysafari.com/
You were NOT forced to accept it. Safari 4 was presented by Software Update as an OPTION.
Simply deactivating the checkbox would have prevented it's installation.
Furthermore, to qualify for Safari 4 as a Mac user, you have to be running Mac OS X 10.4.11 or Mac OS X 10.5.7. Not everyone is. Neither does that restriction apply to users of the latest Firefox.
Leaving out a few simple facts can make your numbers look like anything you want them to.
Some people immediately hit okay without reviewing anything just to get it out of the way.
The guy writes a tech blog on cnet and according to his bio below the piece:
"Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management."
Yet he can't figure out how Apple Software Update works?
It took me about half a second to figure it out, the first time I saw it. It was that obvious.
As for being forced to uncheck something -it's a single mouse click.
The same mouse click that he used to click the OK button, I'll bet.
AdBlock and FlashBlock are also not the least reasons why I stay with FireFox.
How do we know what Apple is counting here? Mozilla doesn't have anyway like that to push Firefox on people.
Many people can't be bothered to do it.
People are that lazy
The difference is that you already had Firefox installed by your choice. Apple's updater that comes with iTunes or Quicktime tries to sneak Safari in as an added bonus."
That may be true, but like an earlier poster said, if you're too lazy to read what may or may get installed on your computer, then that is not the fault of any company. ID10T error!
Reminder to self: Add ckh1272 to the suspect list.
I don't use Safari also, but this article is obviously biased.
But unlike most website designers, I want to make sure what I create will appear and work consistently no matter what browser or machine is viewing the site.
Some "professional' website designers should consider that before unleashing their flawed code on the world...
Internet Explorer. Even the latest version.
Chrome > Safari > Firefox > Opera > IE
Speeds trumps Firefox's plugins. The most important plugins like adblock are available in Safari, and soon will be in Chrome.
I can't live without Firefox's extensions. If I move to any other browser, my productivity gets cut in half.
I have 18 extensions installed right now, and I use every one of them daily. They're all customized just the way I like and it's an experience unmatched in any other browser. Not even close.
But.. props to Chrome for its speed (although miserable lack of features), and Safari for its huge version 4 (public beta) upgrade, which now makes it very usable on Windows.
Um, would you mind not imposing your "opinion" on mine? I have my own opinion and that is, FireFox is not better... far from it. Just a tip for next time you write an article; I would refrain from stating "facts" just because it's your opinion. Also, some research on statistics and how those numbers relate to each other could prove to be helpful before presenting "your facts".
But since you put it out there, I tend to see Firefox as being this never-right, always updating Frankenstein's monster on the Mac. Looks odd, clunks along, especially since nearly every time I load it it takes 2-4 minutes updating itself or plugins. Bleck. Who cares if it renders a page quickly if you lose all your performance waiting for it to launch and update weekly.
Don't you have a complaint to file with the FCC right about now for something that offended you on last night's TV? QQ
I agree that the fact that Safari had 11 million downloads doen't not qualify as a "news event". But I'm not going to agree that Firefox really wins...
I've had a Mozilla browser on my PC before there was a Firefox... and I agree that Firefox has been ahead of IE in bringing new features, speed and security. But Microsoft has improved quite a bit, and like in the article, I've found many situations where Firefox would not work with a webpage and I'd have to swap over to IE. Becuase of this, I don't think you can say that Firefox is the winner... if you have to have another browser as a back-up, then maybe it isn't really the best.
I've noticed many sites simply state "IE only" for no reason. I fake the user agent and have no problems rendering the page in Firefox. It's not the browser most of the time, it's some idiot trying to force his choices onto me.
ActiveX... history (finally)
- by twburger June 13, 2009 12:18 PM PDT
- I tried Safari, the darn thing would not work and I could not figure out why. Chrome, FF, and IE were fine. I think the Apple people need a little more experience in the odd world of Windows: They have been spoiled working with an OS that does what is expected, when expected.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by shellcodes_coder June 13, 2009 4:04 PM PDT
- One thing's for sure they make really slick looking machines but when it comes to software...DUH!! they suck
- Like this
-
- by tm_anon June 14, 2009 2:10 AM PDT
- @shellcodes_coder
- Like this
-
- by shellcodes_coder June 14, 2009 6:13 AM PDT
- @tm_anon: dude am talking about expose integrated into that dock aka ugly copy of aero peek
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (149 Comments)I really like the Firefox add-on library. FF may not be the best browser for technical reason (re: Acid3) but is very adaptable and customizable.
I have used Opera on my Linux boxes and from the comments here I will play with it in Windows and see if it has an advantage.
Personally, I'm simply very happy to have all of these choices.
Just look at that ugly copy of Aero peek in endangered os--snow leopard; well that was just an example
OS X has had that look a lot longer than Windows. Neither one looks very good to me but Apple didn't steal it from MS.