Comments on: quick thought on blizzard’s thoughts on google chrome

By: Luis Villa’s Blog / quick thought on blizzard’s thoughts on google chrome

Thu, 04 Sep 2008 20:40:36 +0000

[...] if the web is not based on open standards is effectively zero [↩] Post a comment — Trackback URI RSS 2.0 feed for these comments This entry (permalink) was posted on Monday, September 1, 2008, at [...]

By: http://www.kogmedia.com/

http://www.kogmedia.com/ — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 23:03:36 +0000

i’ve been using Chrome for about a day now and it seems to be a lot faster than FireFox or IE… though i do miss the “previously closed tabs” feature in Firefox

By: Re: [ilugd] Google's browser - Chrome

Re: [ilugd] Google's browser - Chrome — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 13:22:17 +0000

[...] existing developers and projects > instead of starting your own incompatible projects, Google! http://tieguy.org/blog/2008/09/01/quick-thought-on-blizzards-thoughts-on-google-chrome/ It is a pretty bizarre “market” where the major participants are, in market share order: 1. a [...]

By: Friends

Friends — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 07:36:58 +0000

[...] wmfhttp://wmf.editthispage.com/2008/09/02Luis Villa: Quick thought on Blizzards thoughts on Google Chrome. Dude, wut about OmniWeb!?! Bonus: “Non-advertising, non-charging, non-compensation-in-any-way [...]

By: Friends

Friends — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 06:55:10 +0000

[...] a comment September 3rd, 2008 wmfTime:01:10 amhttp://wmf.editthispage.com/2008/09/02Luis Villa: Quick thought on Blizzards thoughts on Google Chrome. Dude, wut about OmniWeb!?! Bonus: “Non-advertising, non-charging, non-compensation-in-any-way [...]

By: Hack the Planet:

Hack the Planet: — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 01:01:14 +0000

[...] by a former Self researcher. I wonder if V8 is faster than Dalvik; that would be sad. Luis Villa: Quick thought on Blizzard�s thoughts on Google Chrome. Dude, wut about OmniWeb!?! Bonus: “Non-advertising, non-charging, non-compensation-in-any-way [...]

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 20:47:27 +0000

Well, before Google rolled out AdSense, you could have said the same thing about it. Twitter will probably find a way to make money off of its microblogging platform, either by serving up some kind of ads, or by getting itself acquired by a larger company that uses it to burnish its overall brand image. I don’t think a business has to be profitable before it can be considered a “market.”

And just to flesh out the browsers/search engines comparison:

Current browser share (Net App):

Internet Explorer: 73.81%
Mozilla Firefox: 18.43%
Safari: 6.14%
Other: <2%

Current search share (Neilsen/Netratings):

Google: 60.2%
Yahoo: 17.4%
Microsoft: 11.9%
Other: ~12%

So at the moment, the search market is more competitive. But at the rate Google has been rising (up from 46% in early 2006) and IE has been falling (down from 85% in early 2006), the lines should cross around the end of next year.

By: Advogato - Recent Blog Entries

Advogato - Recent Blog Entries — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:06:28 +0000

[...] Will be interesting, as always, to see where this goes from here. almost all by way of the new #5really!chance that Linux or Apple are viable desktop OS platforms right now if the web is not based on open standards is effectively zeroSyndicated 2008-09-02 02:57:07 from Luis Villa’s Blog [...]

By: Luis

Luis — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:26:54 +0000

chris: I think that the fact that these weird models exist is largely because of player #1. Agreed completely. That doesn’t make it non-weird; I’d think that the normal response in such markets is for people to cede the primary market to the monpolist and move into nearby profitable niches rather than to use other markets as sources of certain-to-be-lost funding.

Marco: I did think it was interesting that the comic made little mention of plugins changing the behavior of the browser itself.

Tim, Jamesh: advertising is all well and good, but only one of these players has advertising as a primary revenue stream, and like I pointed out, all of the three players who advertise make their revenue almost completely from… another one of the players.

Non-advertising, non-charging, non-compensation-in-any-way markets like microblogging aren’t really markets- they’re just sophisticated giveaways financed by extracting cash from venture capitalists, an even more unusual definition of ‘market’. At least every player in this market expects to get something non-financial in return for their product- compensation for another part of their platform, developer contributions, etc.

Tim: I do think your point about browsing and search engine market share converging is very interesting, since it suggests a massive leap for Google and suggests that Apple should be in the search space. I’ve always joked that Google should acquire Apple and Nintendo to build the front ends for their webOS; maybe it’ll finally happen.

By: Tim Lee

Tim Lee — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 11:02:02 +0000

How unusual is this? There are lots of markets–instant messaging, microblogging, search engines, web-based email–where the key players either don’t make direct revenue at all or make money only via advertising.

Consider too: the market share profile in the search engine market is converging with the profile of the browser market. It’s easy to imagine the Google/Yahoo/Microsoft market share in search looking identical to the Microsoft/Mozilla/Apple market share numbers in web browsers. Search is clearly a competitive market despite Google’s dominance, and as far as I can tell so is the browser market.