>but to the average slob, they all look the same.
Perhaps, but I know more than a few average slobs who now cant live without adblock and occasionally dabble in other extensions. The large amount of firefox extensions I think is the most obvious difference to the end user.
Its really a Microsoft vs the world issue.
Other software/Internet Services companies need to create dent’s in Microsoft’s near monopoly in order to create a space for their software. We’re not just talking browsers here, but everything from Operating Systems to Movie Editor software. Right now Microsoft has an edge in every category. If they are not the “Standard” they are a serious competitor.
It’s to the point where most people assume that when they buy software they have to buy it from Microsoft.
The point of the other browsers out there is to create brand awareness - to let people out there know that they have options. The idea is that once people aren’t 100% stuck on Microsoft they will be willing to explore other, often better, alternatives rather than just reaching for the software with the Microsoft Logo.
Only for certain values of average slob. I get really annoyed when I’m forced to use IE and realize my mouse gestures don’t work, just for starters. The extensions on FF are amazing. I even have AdBlocker, and TabMixPlus, which is so good it’s amazing. Saying IE is good enough is like saying that an old VW Beetle is good enough because it eventually gets there. “Well, I guess you don’t like driving, and you don’t want to get anywhere very quickly.”
Firefox has two things that make it vastly superior to IE. Spell check as you type in text for things like webmail and SDMB and as others have said adblock.
Google doesn’t car if you use Chrome or not. Chrome was merely a way to goose the other web browsers (cough, cough FIREFOX cough) into building browsers that can quickly execute JavaScript and do it with accuracy. Google’s webpages depend heavily upon JavaScript, and the better job your browser does, the happier Google is.
If Chrome crashes and burns, but Firefox executes JavaScript faster and more cleanly, Google would be thrilled.
And, all the browsers, since Chrome came out, have done a much better job with JavaScripting and are much more HTML5 compliant. Before, Firefox was getting way too interested in features, and Firefox was starting to suffer.
To be fair, Netscape wasnt interested in the common good or standards. They built their own little monopoly. They also just wrote the HTML spec as they pleased, adding whatever they wanted, etc. MS is no more evil than Netscape in this regard. Actually they are a lot better. Perhaps NS would have been more standards friendly over time too, but now we will never know.
A lot of the fight over what you use on your personal computers, even the “free” stuff like web browsers, is part of the larger fight over what your company puts on it’s computers - because there’s a bit of crossover where what you like to use at home will be what you’ll prefer at work, and vice versa.
In the case of the browser wars, IE was once the only browser you’d see in corporate windows-based environments…because enterprise administrators didn’t want the fuss of supporting multiple browsers. In my own company, at least, Firefox has gained enough momentum through private use it’s snuck into our enterprise network, such that it’s not “official” but it is support by our internal IT. Meanwhile, Google Chrome, Opera, and others are still forbidden and even blocked by server policies.
So what does it gain them in the long run? Well, for Microsoft it’s defense: everything you rely on in Windows is one more reason you won’t ditch their OS for another. If your company embraces Firefox on an enterprise scale, what do you need Windows for? Firefox runs on many platforms, and linux is free!
It’s not only why MS pushes IE so hard, but also why IE is historically prone to being so “different” in how it renders web pages. Web designers are then forced to decide which platform to code for: IE, or everyone else? While public sold products will try for cross compatibility, companies developing their intranets and internal web apps tend to code for just one platform - it’s cheaper - and again, lock that company a little bit more into Microsoft’s OS.
Much of Microsoft’s dominance of the corporate desktop is due to inertia, and Microsoft has a vested interest in maintaining that status quo.