Top Browsers Per Country from 1 to 30 June 2013


Recommended Posts

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-daily-20130601-20130630-map

 

Take a look at this.  I was like what?!!!!!!!!!!!! Google's Chrome is still king! I am sure that EU and Opera would sue Google for anti-trust one day. I see that Opera has gone to unpopular in the world now.

Wow, i must be the only who still doesn't use Chrome :laugh:

Nope, I use and love Firefox and, after trying Chrome many times over the past few years, so no reason to change :)
  • Like 2

I am using Internet explorer 9 everyday. Did you remember EU and Opera sued MS for Browsers Wars? I feel bad for EU has tiny brain, because Opera wants to be more popular in the world, but it already failed.   EU should not fined MS for over billions dollars a few months ago, so they can sue Google's Chrome in first place!

I use Internet Explorer and I'm not planning to move anytime soon to another browser. Anyway, I don't trust GlobalStats way of counting either. China is, according to them, as large as Belgium (they both have the same influence on the stats)! I don't understand either why 1 user can count multiple times (they count page views). 

  • Like 1

I am using Internet explorer 9 everyday. Did you remember EU and Opera sued MS for Browsers Wars? I feel bad for EU has tiny brain, because Opera wants to be more popular in the world, but it already failed.   EU should not fined MS for over billions dollars a few months ago, so they can use Google's Chrome in first place!

Slightly different situation, if memory serves me right. Microsoft got in trouble because IE came bundled with the OS and didn't inform people of other options available to them. For Chrome and Firefox (and the other ones) you need to voluntarily download the browser to use it.

I am so sorry, my mispell word changed use to sue.  "EU should not fined MS for over billions dollars a few months ago, so they can sue Google's Chrome in first place!"

Changing the word doesn't change the difference though. ;)

You can't sue Google for having a majority marketshare because that marketshare was won due to the customer's choice. Or at least, my reasoning works if I was correct about why Microsoft were sued for IE. I'm going to go and check to make sure.

EDIT: This article seems to agree with me. It was about choice, so Google could not be sued for offering Chrome.

EDIT 2: Wait, I just understood what you meant with "EU should not fined MS for over billions dollars a few months ago, so they can use Google's Chrome in first place!"

But still, MS should have been sued for breaking the deal with the EU, and Google cannot be sued for the same reasons.

You can't sue Google for having a majority marketshare because that marketshare was won due to the customer's choice.

That's only partially correct. Google Chrome is pushed heavly on google.com and more importantly it is the default browser on many systems (Dell and Sony in my own experience). I can't remember the last time I was not asked to install Chrome on google.com when I went there with IE10/11 and Firefox (my browsers of choice).

That's only partially correct. Google Chrome is pushed heavly on google.com and more importantly it is the default browser on many systems (Dell and Sony in my own experience). I can't remember the last time I was not asked to install Chrome on google.com when I went there with IE10/11 and Firefox (my browsers of choice).

True, but you are still being informed that there are choices available to you, aren't you? With Dell and Sony, you get Windows which comes with IE, but they also bundle in Chrome (not sure why, but hey ho). When you visit Google.com you are being told that Google Chrome is available, but you are not obligated to install it. That is why Microsoft got fined, they bundled it with the OS and for the most part didn't inform users that there were other options available to them.

At least, that's my understanding. Like I said, my memory might have muddled things up a bit over time.

You can't sue Google for having a majority marketshare because that marketshare was won due to the customer's choice. Or at least, my reasoning works if I was correct about why Microsoft were sued for IE. I'm going to go and check to make sure.

What? I'm sorry but it's Chrome that get pushed if you visit Google.com with any browser, it's Chrome that installes itself as part of thousands of programs. Google Chrome is acting like malware. And then you say IE's way was unfair? Chrome is worser. And if it isn't installed on one of those ways, it's done by Google-fanboys that force their family to use another browser they're not used to use. So, "customer's choice"? No, I don't think so.

 

True, but you are still being informed that there are choices available to you, aren't you? With Dell and Sony, you get Windows which comes with IE, but they also bundle in Chrome (not sure why, but hey ho). When you visit Google.com you are being told that Google Chrome is available, but you are not obligated to install it. That is why Microsoft got fined, they bundled it with the OS and for the most part didn't inform users that there were other options available to them.

Does Google notes you that there are other options available as soon as you use their browser? On Android and pre-installs on Windows (most of the time, all IE shortcuts are removed when Chrome is pre-installed). Why is Google not fined? They do EXACTLY the same thing.

.

I love Chrome for its extensions and how easy they are. I used to use themes but since went back to default. My only annoyance is why does it need to split itself into a dozen separate processes? Oh well, I love how it syncs between my Android phone and tablet too.

 

post-350302-0-11850400-1373221705.png

I love Chrome for its extensions and how easy they are. I used to use themes but since went back to default. My only annoyance is why does it need to split itself into a dozen separate processes? Oh well, I love how it syncs between my Android phone and tablet too.e 

its inherent in the design of chrome, each tab and extension is its own process, they are sandboxed and cannot bring down the whole browser. Sure it uses more RAM, but hey its designed to be effective, and effective it sure is! Also the cross platform sync features are unrivaled. Chrome isn't "malware" as some trolls here call it, they need to stop spreading FUD and learn to get a life. Chrome is popular because its easy to use out of the box, convenient and keeps up to date. Haters gonna Hate.

What? I'm sorry but it's Chrome that get pushed if you visit Google.com with any browser, it's Chrome that installes itself as part of thousands of programs. Google Chrome is acting like malware. And then you say IE's way was unfair? Chrome is worser. And if it isn't installed on one of those ways, it's done by Google-fanboys that force their family to use another browser they're not used to use. So, "customer's choice"? No, I don't think so.

 

Does Google notes you that there are other options available as soon as you use their browser? On Android and pre-installs on Windows (most of the time, all IE shortcuts are removed when Chrome is pre-installed). Why is Google not fined? They do EXACTLY the same thing.

.

and even more, why is apple not fined? they do the exact same thing on OSX and they force other browsers to be gimped on iOS

http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-ww-daily-20130601-20130630-map

Take a look at this.  I was like what?!!!!!!!!!!!! Google's Chrome is still king! I am sure that EU and Opera would sue Google for anti-trust one day. I see that Opera has gone to unpopular in the world now.

Did you remember EU and Opera sued MS for Browsers Wars?

"Opera Software did not sue Microsoft. Opera Software reported to the EC that Microsoft seemed to be breaking the law, and the EC agreed."

Microsoft/EU antitrust case: It's not just about bundling!:

http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2009/01/19/eu

Why does Opera get all the credit? Mozilla and Google complained too!

http://business.opera.com/press/releases/general/consumers-win-in-the-eu-case-against-microsoft

---

Did everyone forget that the complaint was also about web standards?

"The complaint describes how Microsoft is abusing its dominant position by tying its browser, Internet Explorer, to the Windows operating system and by hindering interoperability by not following accepted Web standards."

http://business.opera.com/press/releases/general/opera-files-antitrust-complaint-with-the-eu

"Currently, Microsoft is bundling their browser with the dominant desktop operating system. This would not have been a problem in itself if Microsoft did not actively undermine open standards. Basically, Microsoft's position in the browser market allows it to lock people to their proprietary technologies."

http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/microsoft-antitrust

"Opera has filed a formal complaint with the European Commission to force Microsoft to support open Web standards in its Web browser, Internet Explorer."

http://people.opera.com/howcome/2007/msft/

"In addition, the Commission is concerned that the ubiquity of Internet Explorer creates artificial incentives for content providers and software developers to design websites or software primarily for Internet Explorer which ultimately risks undermining competition and innovation in the provision of services to consumers."

---

 

and even more, why is apple not fined? they do the exact same thing on OSX and they force other browsers to be gimped on iOS

I know the answer was from a long time ago, but here you go:

 

Q: But Opera is bundled on various devices. Doesn't that make Opera Software a hypocrite?

A: Bundling software in itself is not the problem. The problem with Internet Explorer is that Microsoft has used its strong position in the market to stifle competition.

Q: But Apple bundles Safari/Ubuntu bundles Firefox, etc.?

A: See above. Bundling in itself is not a problem, but it becomes a problem when a dominant player in the market uses bundling in combination with other tactics to prevent others from competing in the market.

Please note that Safari and Firefox are very good at standards compliance. If they didn't have to deal with MSIE compatibility, they (and Opera) could have spent even more time on improving their standards support.

http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/microsoft-antitrust

According to that position, forcing "other browsers to be gimped on iOS" is a problem because it prevents "others from competing in the market".

Chrome isn't "malware" as some trolls here call it, they need to stop spreading FUD and learn to get a life.

Are you aware that when installing popular software, Chrome is bundled by default, just like toolbars were bundled years ago? By employing this sneaky tactic, Chrome acts like malware.

Are you aware that when installing popular software, Chrome is bundled by default, just like toolbars were bundled years ago? By employing this sneaky tactic, Chrome acts like malware.

haha, get over it, chrome isn't malware, come on.... stop spreading FUD.

haha, get over it, chrome isn't malware, come on.... stop spreading FUD.

While he's being dramatic, you're being a drone. Bundling software in with other software in a sneaky manner like Google does with Chrome is an unsavoury practice. I go to get the latest version of Flash and if I don't uncheck the box conveniently checked for me under the download button, I end up with Chrome on my system. That is annoying.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
    • Compared to the 7735HS it is around 25-30% slower in multi-threaded tasks (according to Google search) I did a review of the 7735HS Beelink SER6 Max in 2023, but thinking about it, it's not comparable to the 7730U. For the example you gave about how it will be used, the 7730U is actually an excellent choice for its power and battery efficiency.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      194
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      71
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      67
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!