That's more the exception that proves the rule, though. Chrome originally came out when IE was still a steaming pile of garbage, and Google spent lots of marketing money promoting it as a better, faster alternative. (Something that Mozilla had been previously somewhat succeeding at, more or less, but they didn't have the same resources and eventually lost their gains and fell behind.)

These days Chrome just has so much mind-share that it overcomes the defaults on Windows. This is by no means a common outcome. This is anecdotal, but I know far more people who use Safari instead of Chrome on macOS than who use Edge instead of Chrome on Windows; Microsoft just has such a bad reputation when it comes to browsers that Chrome is able to get over that defaults hump on Windows. But a lot of people genuinely like Safari, and trust Apple in general, so the effect is (somewhat) lessened on macOS, even though IIRC Chrome still does have the lead in market share there. Just less of one, percentage-wise.

You're right on some points, other points don't match up with my understanding of the issue.

Chrome was a much better browser compared to the default that came installed on Windows, and certainly if someone is going to switch away from the default they will do it towards a much better alternative, on that we agree.

However, despite how much I think Google as a search engine has declined in quality, I still find them to be significantly superior to the alternatives, such as Bing and even DuckDuckGo (which I believe predominantly makes use of Bing) and that people will switch from whatever default search engine Apple sets to Google.

You're also missing the power of reputation. It takes time to build a good reputation, and it takes a really long time to overcome a bad reputation. MS built itself a really bad reputation, especially with browsers, so even if (hypothetically speaking) Edge were as good as Chrome now, it would still take a very long time to overcome the terrible reputation they earned with IE.

Apple doesn't have this problem.

Because it was helped by already nearly ubiquitous Google search shoving it down everyone's throat on every page

And then ubiquitous Youtube dealing the killing blow: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2019/05/ex-youtube-engineer-...

But your article argues the opposite of your claim.

Your article says that Microsoft themselves were working to move people away from Internet Explorer 6 and encouraging people to upgrade to a modern browser by declaring IE 6 to be at its end of life.

The article says that Youtube displayed a banner recommending users to upgrade to either Firefox, IE 8, or Chrome and that due to concerns by Google's lawyers, the order of the browsers was to be randomized so to avoid the appearance of giving undue prominence to Chrome. Finally the article ends by noting that each of the three options Youtube recommended were chosen equally as opposed to Chrome being the option picked by most people who saw the banner.

This sounds like the exact opposite of shoving it down peoples throats and instead trying to be very careful to move people away from a browser that Microsoft themselves had declared was dead, and onto an alternative option by trying to be as fair as possible.

The significance of your article isn't that Google shoved Chrome down everyone's throat in order to kill off a competitor, it's that due to its popularity and dominant position, Youtube was more effective at getting people to stop using Internet Explorer 6 than Microsoft was, but both companies had the same objective.

Here is an article about Microsoft's own "Friends don't let friends use Internet Explorer 6." which discusses Microsoft's own efforts to get people to stop using IE 6. It's about the same period of time as the article you mentioned.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-friends-dont-let-fri...

> But your article argues the opposite of your claim.

It's not. The article talks about Youtube nailing the final nail in IEs coffin, which it did.

As for shoving Chrome down everyone's throats I'm amazed no one remembers the ancient history of just 15 years ago:

- showing it on search pages: http://www.webandsay.com/archives/google-is-actively-pushing... - prominently showing it on Youtube: http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2008/11/how-google-promotes...

Fascinating how two people can read the same article and take away two opposite conclusions from it. If anything what Youtube did helped Firefox far more than it helped Chrome, but I suppose from your point of view it's the opposite.

Ah well, c'est la vie!

> If anything what Youtube did helped Firefox far more than it helped Chrome

Let's see:

- huge ad banners promoting Chrome

- literally almost singlehandedly killing IE 6.0

- sabotaging Firefox: https://archive.is/tgIH9

This... this is not ancient history. It happened 10-15 years ago. Unless you're very young, and I've fallen under the curse of the old age:

--- start quote ---

One disorienting thing about getting older that nobody tells you about is how weird it feels to get a really passionate, extremely wrong lecture from a much younger person about verifiable historical events you can personally remember pretty well

--- end quote ---

> Fascinating how two people can read the same article

Two different articles describing things a year apart. Youtube was pushing only Chrome long before they presented the three options to kill IE.