You might be right. I would probably even agree with respect to certain decisions. But I'm also doubtful of your and my armchair quarterbacking, especially whe

You might be right. I would probably even agree with respect to certain decisions. But I'm also doubtful of your and my armchair quarterbacking, especially when it's hard not to bring in a self-serving angle (as in, it would obviously be better to prioritize X, where X is something I really want). Mozilla does a lot of surveying of current and potential users, and evaluates things in terms of maintenance costs that might not immediately be obvious. I'll bet that neither of us would be able to accurately predict all of those findings. Stories like "...but power users are who are going to drive adoption, so investing in them is clearly the right strategy even if they're a small component of current users!" are intuitively persuasive. But again, someone who has studied the situation extensively is going to know things that we won't. Off the top of my head: "power users" is an amorphous group (and "self-reported power users" only weakly overlaps with "users who depend on advanced features"); the range of things that cater to power users is vast and all over the place; security, privacy, and maintenance concerns are far larger than the "why can't you just..." crowd ever seems to realize. None of which mean power users are unimportant, just that the tradeoffs are not at all clear. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong. (Well, except maybe about the anti-competitive bit. The time frames of any legal or governmental action on those grounds is far too long, and often far too sidesteppable. Those things are good for dead companies to eventually receive justice, and for the playing field to be leveled out for future companies. The ROI of $1 spent on chasing down the legal or regulatory rathole pales in comparison to $1 spent on development or marketing.)