This reminds me of all of those times that people would tell you that their websites get 100k+ hits per day.<p>Um.. no you don't, you have 100,000 requests to your servers per day. Each page request generates a subsequent 248 requests for assets. You actually get 403 requests per day.<p>O wait, what's that? You are including "spiders" and other web crawlers in this statistic? What happens if you filter these out?..<p>100 unique visitors per day! Nice! (So you only just tried to mislead me by a factor of 1000.)<p>Some people need to learn how to report MAU/DAU/uniques/views/impressions.<p>These all mean different things.<p>To say you have grown 1M to 100M <i>users</i> is really disingenuous and a maniuplative use of ambiguity...
xSwag made an interesting but auto-killed comment that implies most of these installs are from malware. Is there truth to that?<p>> Oh wow that is really hilarious. The majority of application downloads from your network are worms, specifically the lilyjade worm (browser extension), which, once installed, spams peoples facebook to exploit pages where the extension is again installed and used for click-fraud.
Funny how it takes your team over two months for application takedowns. You're more than aware that a vast majority of you're users are from lilyjade variants. Now you're taking credit for malware downloads. Those aren't 100M users, they're 100M downloads. Stop hyping yourself up.
Further reading if anybody is interested:<p>> [1] <a href="http://krebsonsecurity.com/2012/05/facebook-takes-aim-at-cross-browser-lilyjade-worm/" rel="nofollow">http://krebsonsecurity.com/2012/05/facebook-takes-aim-at-cro...</a> [2] <a href="http://www.exposedbotnets.com/2012/05/facebook-lily-systemmalware-downloader.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.exposedbotnets.com/2012/05/facebook-lily-systemma...</a>
Isn't it disingenuous to say you have 100M users? That's like Apple saying they have 25 billion iPhone (SDK) users because people have downloaded that many apps. (Note: world population still ~7 billion.)
We were one of the early Crossrider adopters and they've been consistently great and above board in terms of support and improving the product.<p>The majority of our users (Sales People) have never even heard of installing a browser extension so I'm not terribly surprised to hear about the crazy Google "Crossrider Uninstall" options.<p>This probably also isn't helped by inconsistent branding between the extension name 'by Crossrider', on Windows the browser helper is called 'crossrider.exe', etc. which the users won't be familiar with as they likely haven't even visited Crossriders site.<p>One last note as to the 'inflated' numbers for Crossrider, they actually directly serve up and push updates from their servers so they're more connected to the users than just having a download. It might make more sense if they had said: "Supporting 100M users for X Customers" or something.
Developers always faced the annoying decision of choosing a certain browser and losing a huge chunk of other browser-users, or maintaining several branches of code that is supposed to do the same thing.
Well done & Congrats!
As an extension author, one problem with using Crossrider is that you lose control over the code that is being distributed to users.<p>At least that's my understanding from reading about Crossrider on Reddit (<a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/inkl0/crossrider_plugins_are_still_dangerous_be_careful/" rel="nofollow">http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/inkl0/crossrider...</a>) where they alleged, for example, that Crossrider extensions changed users' default search engine.
Very cool idea. Excited about the possibilities here!<p>Wish there was more meat to this post though...nothing but the wireframe of what you did to get there.
Internet Explorer = Retarded Kid in a Helmet.<p>Would it be acceptable to depict IE as a ditzy girl, a pigeon-chested homosexual, or a black student with a failing report card? No.<p>But for some reason, the image a glue-eating retard is fair game. Why?<p>(FWIW the helmet should signify <i>autistic</i>, not retarded, because because autistic children are the ones that tend to be self-injurious. And autistics' IQs are all over the place. But I don't think that cartoon is trying to say that Internet Explorer has trouble relating to people because it processes information very differently from the rest of us.)