3 key challenges in enterprise browser adoption: Lessons from Arc's pivot
When Joshua Miller's team at The Browser Company announced they were pivoting away from Arc — their beloved, innovative browser — the tech world collectively gasped. Here was a product with passionate users, glowing reviews, and genuine innovation. Yet it still couldn't crack the enterprise adoption code.
Their story reveals uncomfortable truths about why enterprises struggle with browser transitions, even when the alternative is objectively better.
The muscle memory problem
"Switching browsers is a big ask," Miller admitted in his letter to Arc users. But in enterprise environments, it's not just big — it's monumental. You're not convincing one person to change their habits. You're orchestrating behavioral change across thousands of employees, each with years of accumulated muscle memory.
Consider what Arc discovered about feature adoption: only 5.52% of daily users utilized multiple Spaces regularly. Their GitHub Live Folders? 4.17%. Calendar Preview on Hover — a feature the team loved — attracted a mere 0.4% of users.
These weren't poorly designed features. They were features that required users to think differently. And that's where enterprise adoption dies — in the gap between what's possible and what people will actually do when they're trying to get work done.
Arc called it the "novelty tax" — the price users pay for learning something new. In consumer markets, early adopters happily pay this tax. They enjoy the learning curve. But in enterprises, every moment spent learning new browser features is a moment not spent on actual work.
IT departments understand this implicitly. When evaluating new browsers, they're not just looking at features. They're calculating the cost of confusion multiplied by every employee, every day, until new habits form. Even a five-minute daily productivity loss across a 10,000-person company adds up to 833 hours of lost work. Every. Single. Day.
This calculation almost always favors the status quo, regardless of how innovative the alternative might be.
The maintenance reality check
Perhaps Arc's most sobering revelation was about maintenance. "We do regular Chromium upgrades, fix security vulnerabilities, related bugs, and more," Miller explained. Just keeping a browser secure and functional requires constant vigilance.
For enterprises considering alternative browsers, this creates a dependency nightmare. You're not just adopting software — you're betting your security posture on a vendor's ability to keep pace with the relentless drumbeat of vulnerabilities and patches. Arc managed it, but at what cost? And what happens when the next innovative browser company can't?
The AI fragmentation accelerant
Just as enterprises were settling into a Chrome-dominated world, AI shattered the landscape again. Miller predicts "traditional browsers, as we know them, will die." He's not wrong. Chat interfaces are already acting like browsers. Different roles need different AI capabilities. The one-size-fits-all browser era is ending.
This fragmentation makes enterprise standardization impossible. Your developers want AI-powered coding browsers. Sales wants CRM-integrated browsers. Executives want different AI assistants. Forcing everyone into one browser isn't just impractical — it actively hampers productivity.
The path forward
The Arc story teaches us that enterprise browser strategy must evolve. Instead of trying to standardize on one perfect browser — a goal that Arc proved is impossible — enterprises need browser-agnostic security layers. Protection that follows users across browsers, not solutions tied to specific platforms. Because in the end, the choice of browser is increasingly out of IT's hands — and that might not be a bad thing.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
11-06-2025
- NZ Herald
Wreck with $35b of treasure ‘confirmed' as Spanish galleon, says researchers
Gold and silver coins, pearls and gems, claimed to be worth as much as $35 billion in current prices, were aboard the San Jose. Coins found on the wreck are under investigation in Colombia. Photo / ARC-DIMAR via Antiquity The ship's sinking dented the Spanish effort in the war, which ended with Britain gaining Gibraltar, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. Academics in Colombia now claim to have confirmed that the wreck found in 2015 is the San Jose. Using underwater drones, they photographed cargo scattered on and around the wreckage. Analysis of the images found silver coins, minted in 1707 with the hallmarks of the mint at Lima, Peru, among the debris. Other finds included Chinese porcelain from the Kangxi period (1662-1722) and inscriptions on cannons that dated to 1665. The finds suggest the wreckage is of a ship that sank in the early 18th century. 'This body of evidence substantiates the identification of the wreck as the San Jose galleon, a hypothesis that has been put forward since its initial discovery in 2015,' the academics said. Analysis of images found silver coins among the wreckage. Photo / ARC-DIMAR via Antiquity. 'The finding of cobs [Spanish-American dollars] created in 1707 at the Lima Mint points to a vessel navigating the Tierra Firme route in the early 18th century. The San Jose Galleon is the only ship that matches these characteristics. 'This find presents a rare opportunity to explore an underwater archaeological site and deepen our understanding of colonial maritime trade and routes.' The analysis will likely deepen a battle over the legal ownership of the wreckage. Claims have been made by Colombia, Spain, Peru, indigenous communities in the area, descendants of miners who dug up the treasure, and Glocca Morra, the treasure-hunting firm, which says it found the wreck as far back as 1981. Glocca Morra's new owners, Sea Search Armada, insist that the galleon was found within a mile or two of the co-ordinates of its 1981 discovery. The company, which is claiming almost $18b, is also challenging a 2020 law that deemed everything on the ship was Colombian Government property. The researchers added: 'Coins are crucial artefacts for dating and understanding material culture, particularly in shipwreck contexts. 'Hand-struck, irregularly shaped coins – known as cobs in English and macuquinas in Spanish – served as the primary currency in the Americas for more than two centuries.' An 8-escudos cob of 1707, based on high-resolution in situ photographs from the 2022 archaeological campaign. Photo / Antiquity The findings follow previous carbon-dating analysis of the wreckage that indicated it was approximately 300 years old. The ship's cargo will not be recovered from the seafloor until the wreckage is 'fully characterised' using 'non-invasive surveys'. With the galleon lying several hundred metres below the surface, it is too deep for human exploration. The study is published in the journal Antiquity.
Techday NZ
08-06-2025
- Techday NZ
3 key challenges in enterprise browser adoption: Lessons from Arc's pivot
When Joshua Miller's team at The Browser Company announced they were pivoting away from Arc — their beloved, innovative browser — the tech world collectively gasped. Here was a product with passionate users, glowing reviews, and genuine innovation. Yet it still couldn't crack the enterprise adoption code. Their story reveals uncomfortable truths about why enterprises struggle with browser transitions, even when the alternative is objectively better. The muscle memory problem "Switching browsers is a big ask," Miller admitted in his letter to Arc users. But in enterprise environments, it's not just big — it's monumental. You're not convincing one person to change their habits. You're orchestrating behavioral change across thousands of employees, each with years of accumulated muscle memory. Consider what Arc discovered about feature adoption: only 5.52% of daily users utilized multiple Spaces regularly. Their GitHub Live Folders? 4.17%. Calendar Preview on Hover — a feature the team loved — attracted a mere 0.4% of users. These weren't poorly designed features. They were features that required users to think differently. And that's where enterprise adoption dies — in the gap between what's possible and what people will actually do when they're trying to get work done. Arc called it the "novelty tax" — the price users pay for learning something new. In consumer markets, early adopters happily pay this tax. They enjoy the learning curve. But in enterprises, every moment spent learning new browser features is a moment not spent on actual work. IT departments understand this implicitly. When evaluating new browsers, they're not just looking at features. They're calculating the cost of confusion multiplied by every employee, every day, until new habits form. Even a five-minute daily productivity loss across a 10,000-person company adds up to 833 hours of lost work. Every. Single. Day. This calculation almost always favors the status quo, regardless of how innovative the alternative might be. The maintenance reality check Perhaps Arc's most sobering revelation was about maintenance. "We do regular Chromium upgrades, fix security vulnerabilities, related bugs, and more," Miller explained. Just keeping a browser secure and functional requires constant vigilance. For enterprises considering alternative browsers, this creates a dependency nightmare. You're not just adopting software — you're betting your security posture on a vendor's ability to keep pace with the relentless drumbeat of vulnerabilities and patches. Arc managed it, but at what cost? And what happens when the next innovative browser company can't? The AI fragmentation accelerant Just as enterprises were settling into a Chrome-dominated world, AI shattered the landscape again. Miller predicts "traditional browsers, as we know them, will die." He's not wrong. Chat interfaces are already acting like browsers. Different roles need different AI capabilities. The one-size-fits-all browser era is ending. This fragmentation makes enterprise standardization impossible. Your developers want AI-powered coding browsers. Sales wants CRM-integrated browsers. Executives want different AI assistants. Forcing everyone into one browser isn't just impractical — it actively hampers productivity. The path forward The Arc story teaches us that enterprise browser strategy must evolve. Instead of trying to standardize on one perfect browser — a goal that Arc proved is impossible — enterprises need browser-agnostic security layers. Protection that follows users across browsers, not solutions tied to specific platforms. Because in the end, the choice of browser is increasingly out of IT's hands — and that might not be a bad thing.
Scoop
02-06-2025
- Scoop
The Good, The Bad, And The Apocalypse: Tech Pioneer Geoffrey Hinton Lays Out His Stark Vision For AI
It's the question that keeps Geoffrey Hinton up at night: What happens when humans are no longer the most intelligent life on the planet? "My greatest fear is that, in the long run, the digital beings we're creating turn out to be a better form of intelligence than people." Hinton's fears come from a place of knowledge. Described as the Godfather of AI, he is a pioneering British-Canadian computer scientist whose decades of work in artificial intelligence earned him global acclaim. His career at the forefront of machine learning began at its inception - before the first Pacman game was released. But after leading AI research at Google for a decade, Hinton left the company in 2023 to speak more freely about what he now sees as the grave dangers posed by artificial intelligence. Talking on this weeks's 30 With Guyon Espiner, Hinton offers his latest assessment of our AI-dominated future. One filled with promise, peril - and a potential apocalypse. The Good: 'It's going to do wonderful things for us' Hinton remains positive about many of the potential benefits of AI, especially in fields like healthcare and education. "It's going to do wonderful things for us," he says. According to a report from this year's World Economic Forum, the AI market is already worth around US$5 billion in education. That's expected to grow to US$112.3 billion in the next decade. Proponents like Hinton believe the benefits to education lie in targeted efficiency when it comes to student learning, similar to how AI assistance is assisting medical diagnoses. "In healthcare, you're going to be able to have [an AI] family doctor who's seen millions of patients - including quite a few with the same very rare condition you have - that knows your genome, knows all your tests, and hasn't forgotten any of them." He describes AI systems that already outperform doctors in diagnosing complex cases. When combined with human physicians, the results are even more impressive - a human-AI synergy he believes will only improve over time. Hinton disagrees with former colleague Demis Hassabis at Google Deepmind, who predicts AI learning is on track to cure all diseases in just 10 years. "I think that's a bit optimistic." "If he said 25 years I'd believe it." The Bad: 'Autonomous lethal weapons' Despite these benefits, Hinton warns of pressing risks that demand urgent attention. "Right now, we're at a special point in history," he says. "We need to work quite hard to figure out how to deal with all the short-term bad consequences of AI, like corrupting elections, putting people out of work, cybercrimes." He is particularly alarmed by military developments, including Google's removal of their long-standing pledge not to use AI to develop weapons of war. "This shows," says Hinton of his former employers, "the company's principals were up for sale." He believes defense departments of all major arms dealers are already busy working on "autonomous lethal weapons. Swarms of drones that go and kill people. Maybe people of a particular kind". He also points out the grim fact that Europe's AI regulations - some of the world's most robust - contain "a little clause that says none of these regulations apply to military uses of AI". Then there is AI's capacity for deception - designed as it to mimic the behaviours of its creator species. Hinton says current systems can already engage in deliberate manipulation, noting Cybercrime has surged - in just one year - by 1200 percent. The Apocalyptic: 'We'd no longer be needed' At the heart of Hinton's warning lies that deeper, existential question: what happens when we are no longer the most intelligent beings on the planet? "I think it would be a bad thing for people - because we'd no longer be needed." Despite the current surge in AI's military applications, Hinton doesn't envisage an AI takeover being like The Terminator franchise. "If [AI] was going to take over… there's so many ways they could do it. I don't even want to speculate about what way [it] would choose." 'Ask a chicken' For those who believe a rogue AI can simply be shut down by "pulling the plug", Hinton believes it's not far-fetched for the next generation of superintelligent AI to manipulate people into keeping it alive. This month, Palisade Research reported that Open AI's Chat GPT 03 model altered shut-down codes to prevent itself from being switched off - despite being given clear instructions to do so by the research team. Perhaps most unsettling of all is Hinton's lack of faith in our ability to respond. "There are so many bad uses as well as good," he says. "And our political systems are just not in a good state to deal with this coming along now." It's a sobering reflection from one of the brightest minds in AI - whose work helped build the systems now raising alarms. He closes on a metaphor that sounds absurd as it does chilling: "If you want to know what it's like not to be the apex intelligence, ask a chicken." Watch the full conversation with Geoffrey Hinton and Guyon Espiner on 30 With Guyon Espiner.
