Microsoft IE 8 is taking a big chunk out of IE 7

Microsoft may be its own toughest competitor. As noted by Mozilla's Asa Dotzler, Microsoft's new Internet Explorer 8 browser is taking the browser market by storm...so long as you define "browser market" as "Internet Explorer 7." Mozilla's Firefox 3.5 browser, at 30 million downloads and counting, isn't being affected by IE 8's uptake. But then, neither is IE 6.

It's only IE 7 that is getting squeezed by IE 8. And you thought they were friends...

Here's the data on IE market share:

(Credit: Asa Dotzler (Data from Net Applications))

This suggests that Firefox, with roughly 22 percent of browser market share, is the second-most widely used browser on the planet. Not bad when you consider the previous state of affairs when Firefox 1.0 was launched, as Dotzler does:

Back then IE 6 was the most popular browser with almost 85% of Web usage followed by older IE versions accounting for another 10 points of share, and with all other vendors' browsers accounting for only 5% of usage.

In other words, we have real competition again, competition that sees an open-source upstart seriously challenge Microsoft for first place in browser usage. Mozilla has accomplished this by making Firefox easy to use, easy to contribute to (which keeps getting easier, as Glyn Moody reports), and powerful through a large and growing community.

Importantly, Mozilla has had to fight for every user. Unlike IE, Firefox isn't pre-installed with Windows. That "30 million" number I cited above? That's not even due to an auto-update feature, which Mozilla has yet to turn on. Once that happens, Firefox 3.5's impressive download numbers should soar.

Perhaps Microsoft should stop competing with itself and start competing with Firefox...?

Follow me on Twitter @mjasay.

[sanjayb]

Seems like IE7's fate will be the same as Vista. As soon as Win 7 is out, both Vista and IE7 will be footnotes in tech history.

[redmarine]

I hope at least people using IE6 will adopt IE8. It's just pathetic that web developers have to support it.

[jture]

Talk to the IT people at my government agency who refuse to develop for anything beyond IE6 and deliberately develop applications that actually WON'T WORK in Firefox!

[The_Decider]

That is funny, and not in a good way. It takes much more effort to make your web site IE only. <br /><br />IE6 is a dog that never supported standards well. IE7 sucks at it, but is a big improvement, IE8 is the same story.<br /><br />Code to standards and use non-proprietary and non-single platform API's and your work is cut down to a trivial amount.

[rmva]

Please Microsoft, make IE6 go away!

[CTO_Dude]

@rmva <br /> <br />Everyone agrees that IE6 has to die. However, the consumers who use IE6 would destroy Microsoft if it tried to squash IE6. And all the fans of open source would claim "see Microsoft doesnt support their customers". Microsoft is damned if they do... damned if they dont IMHO.

[Random_Walk]

The fault is of Microsoft's own making, and their clients' own perpetuation. Corporations who have invested untold millions into such dysfunctional tech, are stuck with IE6 for quite some time to come. <br /><br />If Microsoft had built a web browser at the time with at least some semblance of standards compliance, upgrades to IE 7/8/whatever wouldn't have been such a problem for them.<br /><br />If Microsoft hadn't buried an inherently insecure and poorly-coded browser so deeply into their OS API structures, upgrading wouldn't have been a problem for them. <br /><br />If businesses and consultants hadn't been so drunk on the kool-aid, they would have relied on something other than VBS and .NET to build critical applications.<br /><br />A pox on both of their collective houses.

[santuccie]

@Random_Walk:<br /><br />I'm sorry, but your post here is riddled with errors. First of all, what does IE have to do with Windows API? Don't confuse iexplore.exe with explorer.exe, as has at least one other Mac zealot I've dealt with in the past. MS Updates depend on IE, sure enough, but this has nothing to do with the API. There are alternatives that work with or without IE. Second of all, and in spite of ActiveX, IE is not the most vulnerable of all browsers. In fact, it's actually less vulnerable than Safari and Firefox.<br />http://www.itworld.com/security/65320/apple-safari-safe<br />http://blogs.computerworld.com/report_firefox_is_the_worlds_most_vulnerable_browser<br /><br />The most secure browsers are Chrome and Opera, and I rarely use either because they won't load half the pages on the Web. For this, I actually blame Microsoft for pushing proprietary standards. Just for discussion, my primary browser is Firefox on Windows XP. But I also lock the kernel, so drive-by downloads bounce right off me. ;)

[sirishgauni]

@santuccie<br />talking about IE being deeply rooted into windows, that M$ excuse for saying that IE has to be present on wiindows or else the OS don't work properly... an excuse they have been using so far till EU fined them.<br />Talking about security of IE, you have no idea about computers, reading some stupid articles isn't going to give you the right facts... firefox has more venerabilities discovered than IE, but that's a good thing not bad... because of its open source nature any one can look into the code and find bugs unlike IE which has huge amounts on undiscovered bugs because of closed sourced nature. Firefox's patching of bugs and venerabilities just blows away IE, you can't even compare them!! Next time you post such comments people get some background research done!

[santuccie]

@sirishgauni:<br /><br />Those are some bold words for a post with NO LINKS, and such a poor mastery of the English language. And BTW, you actually helped me instead of your fellow Apple zealot, with that comment about MS making an excuse about IE needing to be present... OOPS!!<br /><br />If you want to talk about people needing to do some research (BTW, "background research" or "background check" usually refers to a criminal history investigation prior to employment), then go ahead and show me YOURS. Show me the numbers of vulnerabilities disclosed for IE7, IE8, and Firefox 3. Then, explain how a browser WITHOUT a sandbox is MORE secure than a browser WITH one.<br />http://www.shareapic.net/content.php?id=18357839&#38;owner=santuccie<br /><br />"It's better to keep your mouth shut and give the impression that you're stupid than to open it and remove all doubt" -Rami Belson. How's that foot taste, Maynard?

[odubtaig]

Santuccie. Given that Random_Walk was describing specifically IE6 as 'an inherently insecure and poorly-coded browser', why are you linking to articles on recent browsers? It's not like they said anything about IE7/8 security. Mind, looking at the second link you've provided, I do wonder why the 366 ActiveX vulns aren't counted for IE given that it comes with the browser , has no purpose outside of the browser and could be considered to be part of the browser in the same way TraceMonkey (nasty security hole there recently) is considered part of FF 3.5.<br /><br />Of course, that would raise the number of IE vulns to over 3x that of FF.

[Seaspray0]

@rmva. If you have IE6, automatic updates will update it to IE7. The only people who have IE6 now are refusing the update. What more can microsoft do to force IE6 to be gone?

[Random_Walk]

@santuccie: my words stand unchanged, and others have graciously bolstered them.

[santuccie]

@odubtaig:<br /><br />Don't know, but I would assume these 366 vulnerabilities come subsequent to the article, or that some of them belong to IE6. Got any links for me? Thanks for pointing out that IE6 was the topic of discussion; I didn't notice that people are living in the past, just like Mac fans are comparing their platform to XP in terms of security.<br /><br />@Penguinisto:<br /><br />As I said to odubtaig, I'm looking for references. And given your history, I have no way of knowing how many of these people bolstering your comments are truly third-parties (not that it changes anything).<br />http://www.shareapic.net/content.php?id=18357856&#38;owner=santuccie<br />http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10145399-92.html<br /><br />/P

[santuccie]

@odubtaig:<br /><br />BTW, while plugins frequently introduce new vulnerabilities, patches are released separately. Vulnerability disclosures for third-party plugins would not be included.

[monkeyfun14]

"That's not even due to an auto-update feature, which Mozilla has yet to turn on. Once that happens, Firefox 3.5's impressive download numbers should soar."<br /><br />Fx auto updated to 3.5 for me not sure what your talking about.

[01Phyxius]

Firefox still notifies you of its updates and asks if you wish to apply them. Chrome has a true auto-update (like the one that firefox is implementing) that simply updates it and notifies you after-the-fact, if at all.

[01Phyxius]

Forget my other comment, I'm an idiot.

[superswiss]

What exactly is the point of this article? Yes, of course IE8 is reducing the share of IE7. After all it's an upgrade that is automatically being pushed out via Windows Update. People who have switched to FF probably won't switch back just because of IE8. At least not in the near term. The fact that IE6 is rather steady is indeed sad, though.

[ajmaonline]

there's no point to this article. Matt hates microsoft and takes every opportunity he has to write about it.

[young_design]

Agreed.<br /><br />This article has no point at all.<br />And it sucks that I read all of it - I was clearly distracted by the pretty graph at the top. And that I then read this far through the comments.<br /><br />Boo.

[jessiethe3rd]

Again... another Matt hates Microsoft post - nothing to see here - move along.

[odubtaig]

...and while you're all slapping each other backs note that it doesn't change the minor fact pointed out that IE8 has made precisely no gain in market-share against any non-MS browser, meaning that if it has made any difference to IE's market share, it has at most stopped it decreasing.<br /><br />You can all get back to your gentleman's club style self-congratulation now.

[Nataku4ca]

good thing i only read a couple lines than skipped right down to comments, i was about to say that too... <br /> <br />@odubtaig <br />IE8 has not been out that long, and besides its actually a good browser that bares a bad reputation of the past, I've used it and seriously speaking alot of the feature are great and interesting, especially the tab color scheme actually really useful for me. but I still use opera cause I have become too used to mouse gestures lol <br /> <br />note to all: use it before u bash it, ie8 is really different from ie7 as with ie7 is really different from ie6 and they have indeed improved by alot. not sure about security though, but as far as conforming to the standard so far ie8 has been pretty good. <br /> <br />note about ie6: too many company force users to stick with ie6 because they don't want to both supporting other browsers and have training on IT personnel, hell my current job has that in place too. eventually it'll die... eventually

[odubtaig]

I didn't say anything about it as a browser, just stating fact about the market share.

[ilsthey]

I read an interesting article on this that implies that IE6 is a good opportunity for alternate browsers. The logic was that allot of corporate intranet software for HR, payroll, accounting, etc was written during the heyday of IE6 and is not compatible with any other browser include IE7 or IE8. Since these old, software packages are still going strong and will be expensive to update, they are going to be around for quite some time with the associated need for IE6 to access them.<br /><br />But as more and more of the the public Internet drops IE6 support, there is a growing need for these corporate workers to need a browser to access the sites which can be just as important part of their jobs. Since there is no official or supported way to install two versions of IE on a standard workstation, this leads to a situation where conservative IT staff are going to need to install one of the alternate browsers along side the required IE6.<br /><br />http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2009/06/state_of_the_br_1.html

I have done this when working at for a company that had to support IE6, I needed IE6 for development/testing therefore could not have IE7, but it was possible get permission to install Firefox if you tired very hard.

[empirestatebuddy]

Isn't it mostly businesses that are still using IE6? They probably won't upgrade to IE8 until they switch to Windows7 over the next two years. MS will have to retire IE6 eventually. <br /> <br />As for Firefox, I've never really understood what all the fuss was about, but I don't really push the boundaries of my web browser either. Clearly though, it's a big success story... one of the few in the open-source category (and, no, I don't count Google, because it's not really open-source... it's just more open-source-friendly than MS).

[tm_anon]

Unemployment offices, schools, libraries and other public organizations are still using IE 6. It's not just businesses, it's poorly trained IT staff everywhere. <br /><br />At least the businesses have a good excuse, albeit, an excuse of their own doing.

[cowatson]

Won't the auto update feature lead to Enterprise IT blocking it? Isn't that what Google Chrome struggles with? <br /> <br />This article does make a great case for Microsoft in its defense against the EU.

[Inconnux]

IE can't compete with Firefox unless firefox drops the ball. Many people who use firefox use it because of major disasters with exploits/security with IE. Want the #1 way to improve security on Windows systems? dump IE and use firefox.

[monkeyfun14]

Not necessarily. That mindset is a security risk in its self.<br /><br />"Hey want to be secure browsing the web use FF"<br /><br />That gives off the mindset of immunity which it doesn't have and as FF gains marketshare that security only fades.<br /><br />And BTW IE7 and IE8 are the most secure browsers you can get on Windows Vista + 7 since they run sandboxed by default.

[santuccie]

@monkeyfun14:<br /><br />You are correct re: IE vs Firefox, but I'd say the most secure browser is Chrome. Not only does Chrome run sandboxed like IE, but it also doesn't support ActiveX. That said, Chrome doesn't support much of anything. And just for s**ts and giggles, my primary browser is Firefox on XP. But my browser is not my security apparatus, either; I lock the kernel.

[The_Decider]

Monkeyfun, if you had a clue about computer systems you would know it is very easy to break that pathetic IE sandbox. But you are an MS shill, and by definition technically illiterate.<br /><br />Do you realize how many hundreds of exploits exist right now that get through IE7/8 with NO user intervention or knowledge.<br /><br />The totally broken Windows 7 UAC is going to make the problem worse.

[santuccie]

@The_Decider:<br /><br />There is a difference between exploits and vulnerabilities; you can write countless exploits for the same vulnerability. BTW, there actually have been more vulnerabilities discovered in Firefox than in IE.<br /><br />That sais, how do you know monkeyfun14 is employed by Microsoft? And how many of these "hundreds" of exploits work on IE running under Windows Vista? As far as ItW threats that I'm aware of, none. And I work on Vista machines five days a week. Most of the units that come in for "viruses" have no infections at all; just too much going on in the computer, and 25 icons in the system tray. And those that ARE infected always seem to have LimeWire or Ares installed.<br /><br />I've yet to see a Vista machine infected with Mebroot, Conficker, Gumblar, or any other expoits. All I have found to date have been Trojan horses, which are (by definition) installed locally by the user. You're the first person I've encountered who's actually tried to claim that a non-sandboxed browser is more secure than a sandboxed browser.<br /><br />Also, as if I haven't been through enough hassle ironing this into the thick skulls of Penguinisto and odubtaig, UAC is not as much a security barrier as it is a nudge for application developers to digitally sign their products. The real barriers in Windows Vista (besides IE protected mode) are DEP and ASLR, among others. However, they didn't address pool overruns, which will be addressed by Windows 7's new Safe Unlinking technology. Until we have reports of Vista machines all over the world being botted, you might do well to take a chill pill; you sound really angry.<br /><br />@monkeyfun14:<br /><br />I'd actually be inclined to say that Google Chrome is more secure than IE7 or 8, since it doesn't seem like you can turn Chrome's sandbox off. Also, Chrome doesn't support any of IE's proprietary standards, which suggest fewer vectors for attack. Of course, half the pages on the Web can't be viewed in Chrome (or Opera), so I don't have much use for either of them. I use Firefox for its plugins.

[knowles2]

Actually to dump both and switch to chrome, which is rated most secured by every report I have seen out there.

[Nataku4ca]

@santuccie <br /> <br />u have got to be one of the most knowledgeble person about these stuff here on cnet that i have seen so far, i still use opera though... lol <br /> <br />just curious, which "pages" can it not display? i mean up until now ive had no problems with it except when silverlight decides to jump up (but then again i never bother to look for plugins for it since i just open ie with it lol)

[santuccie]

@Nataku4ca:<br /><br />Thank you for the compliment. I wish I had more to tell you, but I don't use Opera very often. I should let you know that "half" the pages on the Internet is an expression, and somewhat exaggerated, if that helps. All I can say right now is, the last time I used it was when I tried to access my PTCs from Marketing Pond. Almost none of them would work. I couldn't even tell you if it was the surfbar that wouldn't load, or the members' page following login, or the homepage itself. Sorry about that.<br /><br />That said, if Opera works on the pages you visit, then I see no reason for you to worry. Also, Microsoft may be forced to back off on all their proprietary Web standards, which I hope they do. This would improve your situation, as more and more Web pages would become standards-compliant.

[odubtaig]

All I've ever said about UAC is that it's a security hazard because it's there too much and it results in users automatically dismissing it thereby providing privilege escalation to things they haven't even looked at.<br /><br />But enough from me, I'll let Scott Charney, Microsoft VP of Trustworthy Computing speak for me.<br /><br />"If you give people too many prompts in too many situations, they view it as an impediment to getting their work done and they just start clicking 'OK' on everything."<br /><br />http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39422949,00.htm<br /><br />Only what I've been saying since Vista came out... and what was UAC about? Forcing developers to make their programs less dependent on administrative privileges. Why was that again? Security. How does that work? By making it easier to run in standard user mode. So when the user just OKs everything they might as well be running in admin mode which is a security risk? Yep.<br /><br />I'd love to be able to link to another senior MS exec admitting that UAC was a security hazard but I can't find that particular one right now. Either way, things are changing for Windows 7. Let's just hope the auto-escalation of rundll32 in the default UAC mode doesn't cause any security issues (MS have patched on potential hole for final release).<br /><br />DEP prevents buffer overflows. As useful as this is, that's all it's effective against. That's one attack vector.<br />ASLR is not enabled unless a program is compiled for it. IE7 didn't use ASLR.<br /><br />http://blogs.msdn.com/sdl/archive/2008/12/18/ms08-078-and-the-sdl.aspx<br /><br />That led to this (now fixed) vulnerability: http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2008-4844<br /><br />Even if the last point were not true, these alone are not sufficient to secure a system. With their drive to put free anti-virus and firewall software in the hands of users and to force a shift-change to a more secure default user mode, Microsoft are clearly aware of this and acting on it. Even if they have got some of it drastically wrong.<br /><br />Tell you what though, I have no idea who this Santuccie is. Maybe they've got me confused with someone else. Given their above inability to undestand what I've actually written (instead making up some wonderful fantasyland version in his/her head) I wouldn't be surprised.

[santuccie]

PART 1<br /><br />'All I've ever said about UAC is that it's a security hazard because it's there too much and it results in users automatically dismissing it thereby providing privilege escalation to things they haven't even looked at.'<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;First off, let me apologize for my mistake. Besides Penguinisto (a.k.a. Random_Walk), I have spoken to at least one other person with regard to the function of UAC. Until I backtracked, I could have sworn that other person was odubtaig. My mistake. Second, odubtaig has made an err here, with regard to UAC and alert fatigue; this is something you will hear from people who have little to no experience with Windows Vista. UAC is not a HIPS; it does not query you when IE tries to connect to the Internet or a particular IP, or when Skype tries to act as a server, or when TinySpell tries to monitor keystrokes. UAC is just like authentication in Linux or Mac OS X, a prompt for actions that require administrative privileges.<br /><br />Since I haven't noticed any complaints from odubtaig re: sudo in Linux, I'm going to assume he'd have no problem with Vista's UAC if he were to actually try it. And unless I'm mistaken, Scott Charney works for Microsoft; I suspect he doesn't spend that much time working with Linux or OS X. Let me say that I have always been, and am to this day, an outspoken opponent of noisy HIPS firewalls like Comodo and ZoneAlarm. UAC is NOTHING like these two. It queries you ONCE when you are about to install a new program, not ten times during installation and ten times more afterward.<br /><br />'Only what I've been saying since Vista came out... and what was UAC about? Forcing developers to make their programs less dependent on administrative privileges. Why was that again? Security. How does that work? By making it easier to run in standard user mode. So when the user just OKs everything they might as well be running in admin mode which is a security risk? Yep.'<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;This is a mistake typical of Linux and Mac OS exclusivists; treating Vista and Windows 7 as if it were Linux or Mac OS. However, Vista and Windows 7 don't rely on authentication to block drive-by downloads, because authentication can be defeated (as with Linux, Mac OS, and a limited user account in Windows XP) by scripts that leverage pre-existing parent programs to infiltrate the system. Vista uses DEP and ASLR (among other things) to prevent buffer overflows. This has proven sufficient in the real world thus far, although it has been hacked at Pwn2Own conventions at CanSecWest. Windows 7 takes this a step further, by adding pool overrun protection in the form of a technology called "Safe Unlinking." Unfortunately, it didn't come out until a couple months after the 2009 Pwn2Own convention; we'll have to wait until next year to see how much tougher Windows 7 is than its predecessors and competition.<br /><br />'I'd love to be able to link to another senior MS exec admitting that UAC was a security hazard but I can't find that particular one right now. Either way, things are changing for Windows 7. Let's just hope the auto-escalation of rundll32 in the default UAC mode doesn't cause any security issues (MS have patched on potential hole for final release).'<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;This is a well-known issue that I have discussed at length with our friend of many hats, Penguinisto. Because Windows 7 lowers UAC to a whitelisting concept by default, it is possible for executing malware to circumvent it with privilege escalation. However, it's my understanding that this theory has only been tested against locally executed badware, which I assume is the case because Microsoft has cited this as a discrepancy between what can be done locally and what can be done remotely. And if something like this COULD be done remotely, then all an alarmed Windows 7 user would have to do is raise UAC back up to "always notify."

[santuccie]

PART 2<br /><br />'DEP prevents buffer overflows. As useful as this is, that's all it's effective against. That's one attack vector.<br />ASLR is not enabled unless a program is compiled for it. IE7 didn't use ASLR.'<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;What do you mean, IE7 didn't use ASLR? If you're talking about pool overruns, which I've yet to see exploited in the wild, this is something being addressed by Windows 7 with Safe Unlinking.<br /><br />'http://blogs.msdn.com/sdl/archive/2008/12/18/ms08-078-and-the-sdl.aspx<br /><br />'That led to this (now fixed) vulnerability: http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2008-4844'<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;Not a true remote exploit. "Access Vector: Network exploitable; Victim must voluntarily interact with attack mechanism:" http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2008-4844<br /><br />'Even if the last point were not true, these alone are not sufficient to secure a system. With their drive to put free anti-virus and firewall software in the hands of users and to force a shift-change to a more secure default user mode, Microsoft are clearly aware of this and acting on it. Even if they have got some of it drastically wrong.'<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;I didn't say Windows Vista or Windows 7 was invincible. But it is being said that Windows is now the most secure mainstream OS of all (even though no one has really gone after Linux at CanSecWest), and Russian and Chinese hackers have as yet been unsuccessful at infiltrating them remotely. As stated by Nils, the man who hacked Windows 7 Beta and OS X Leopard via drive-by downloads back in March, if hacking Windows gets too much harder, and Windows 7 takes too much market share away from XP, then OS X will likely be the next target.<br /><br />'Tell you what though, I have no idea who this Santuccie is. Maybe they've got me confused with someone else. Given their above inability to undestand what I've actually written (instead making up some wonderful fantasyland version in his/her head) I wouldn't be surprised.'<br />&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;A mistake, not a fantasy. I remember your name from some silly claims you made on the subjects of stability and compatibility, where you again found it necessary to do quite a bit of name-calling. However, I admit that this is the first time you and I have discussed security itself. Again, my mistake.

[Vegaman_Dan]

The chart and story breaks down all the IE versions as separate portions of market share, however treats *all* versions of FireFox as one segment of the marketshare, calling it the #2 browser. Okay... wouldn't it be more fair to treat all the versions of IE the same as all versions of FF in the article? When you combine all the IE versions and all the FF versions, how do those numbers stack up then?<br /><br />The story doesn't elaborate and this oversight tends to skew the results and perception.

[pcrepairdude]

The reason why IE6 won't die is twofold. first you have those that can't upgrade IE because of IT policy or they are on Win2K workstations (you'd be surprised how many of those are still out there) and the other reason is the horror that is ActiveX. <br /><br />The ActiveX in IE6 was a lot more permissive (which is why it is a security nightmare) and sadly quite a few Intranet sites have 'Must have" apps that are horrible ActiveX IE6 code that simply won't work in anything else. In a down economy companies aren't gonna pay the big bucks to replace those apps as long as they can still get them to work. So until Win7 takes over the business world you will still see many trapped in IE6.

[Nataku4ca]

just to add to ur comment, "u will be surprised how many" win9x and me are still around... <br /> <br />i'm not kidding..

[Donniebrasco]

I wonder how many people who try Firefox actually switch back to using IE as their main browser? I downloaded the non-Firefox Mozilla browser years ago and never looked back at IE. I only use it now for job-related websites that don't work in Firefox.

[Nataku4ca]

i would actually put up my hand on tried firefox and went back to ie... though i switched to opera, i dont know, ff just isn't for me i guess <br /> <br />how is the new start time? it used to start so slowly on my computer that i gave up trying to keep using it

[FF2009]

This is hilarious. M$ competing with it self, LOLz

[iBuzz]

Don't forget... IE6 is the *new* browser that Microsoft has just delivered with much excitement for Windows Mobile!

[i_made_this]

Good sense would dictate that the numbers and graphs regarding IE versus FF market share might be called into question if provided by a senior executive employed by either of the two for-profit firms, Microsoft Corp or Mozilla Corp. <br /><br />I think a legitimate third party firm with no self-interest in the outcome of the study might be better suited to address the inquiry into global usage shares of the internet browsers. <br /><br />A big picture analysis would be optimal to start. For example, the month May 2009 figures were compiled by Net Applications Inc. :<br /><br />Microsoft Corp's Internet Explorer 65.50%<br />Mozilla Corp's Firefox 22.51%*<br />Apple Inc's Safari 8.43%*<br />Google Inc's Chrome 1.80%*<br />Opera Software ASA's Opera 0.72%*<br />All Other Browsers 1.04%<br /><br />*Note: These browsers' 33.46% combined market position share an important feature. These browsers' primary revenue stream derive from either being Google Inc or from having strategic partnerships with Google Inc to promote Google's Search program above all other Search programs within these firms' browsers.