Hacker News Reader

Comment by dragonwriter | Hacker News Reader

> For the record, Google made billions off being Firefox's default search engine. They paid Firefox $300mil a year for three years, but that was only a small fraction of how much Google profited from Firefox searches. Not sure if it's still true, but three years ago they made more from Firefox than they did from Chrome.

Google doesn't really make money from Firefox or Chrome (the browser), per se (except insofar as Chrome increases the value of things that Google does sell that include it, like Chromebooks, Nexus devices, etc.), it makes money from searches, whether default or not. 3 years ago, sure, more searches -- to Google or any other search provider -- came from Firefox than Chrome because Firefox had more usage share than Chrome. That's rather dramatically reversed since then.

View on HN

which is the point. they get money through firefox/chrome. if they didnt have the firefox search deal, then a lot - lot - lot - less money.

Don't forget that Chrome users are more tech savvy on average than Firefox users, meaning they click ads less.

> Don't forget that Chrome users are more tech savvy on average than Firefox users

I somewhat doubt that. They're both mostly non-default browsers where they are used (and the places where Firefox is default probably have more technically savvy users than those where Chrome is default), Chrome has far and away more current mindshare and is, therefore, probably more likely to be a crowd-inspired (rather than technically-inspired) choice as a non-default browser. I suspect that there was a time when your statement was true, but I don't think its true now. (Though inertia in both camps may make it true even when its less likely to be true for new users.)

> I somewhat doubt that

Ask anybody that runs ads and they'll tell you Chrome ranks last in CTR. See also:

http://chitika.com/insights/2012/web-usage-infographic/

I don't doubt that Chrome has a lower CTR, I just doubt that its particularly because Chrome users are more tech savvy.

I don't doubt that Chrome has a lower (real or, even moreso, measured) CTR, I just doubt that its particularly because Chrome users are more tech savvy.

Tech savvy isn't the only explanation for CTR differences, especially measured CTR difference; ISTR a while ago discussions of what was possible in Chrome v. Firefox for adblocking, and from that it seemed that Chrome ad blockers would still download (but not show) ads, while Firefox wouldn't download them. Don't know if that understanding was accurate or if it is still the case, but that could conceivably result in Chrome impressions being overstated (and CTR being understated) relative to Firefox.

Anecdotally my experience has been quite the opposite. I know a few developers who primarily use Chrome, but besides that the rest are people that heard it was faster, or installed it by mistake as part of a bundle.

Do you have anything other than anecdotal evidence to support this claim?

My "source" is more direct, however this collaborates:

http://thenextweb.com/apps/2012/11/12/opera-users-click-on-t...

Even a large difference in CTR wouldn't necessarily say anything about being "more tech savvy". A sub 0.2% difference between Firefox and Chrome is therefore meaningless in this context. That's making the heroic assumption that Chitika Insights data is not biased in some way and can overcome methodological problems (no script, user agent changes, bots clicking ads) even if it was perfectly representative.

I actually don't disagree with this. Even though I'm a pretty tech-savvy Firefox user (and by "tech-savvy", I mean "seasoned Unix administrator and backend programmer"), "Mozilla" is also a household name among plenty of less-tech-savvy folks; I've seen Firefox (often called "Mozilla" or "Netscape" by its users, amusingly enough) everywhere from the most high-tech web development shops to computers owned/operated by seniors and running Windows XP and dial-up internet. Chrome hasn't had that level of adoption yet; while it's certainly popular among the tech-savvy, it hasn't trickled into ordinary households quite the same way as Internet Explorer and "Mozillafire Netfox" have.

It helps that Firefox has a lot of brand maturity in non-tech circles, whether it's referred to as "Firefox" or by the names of its ancestors. It also helps that Firefox is the default browser on the vast majority of desktop GNU/Linux distributions (which are gaining some popularity now that Windows XP is unsupported and being phased out more aggressively), though this probably isn't as significant of a factor as the existing brand recognition/maturity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com