Apple has lot of products and subsequent strategies, hence controversy. :) I didn't mean it in a very wide sense. I'm not sure how the walled gardens fit into

Apple has lot of products and subsequent strategies, hence controversy. :) I didn't mean it in a very wide sense. I'm not sure how the walled gardens fit into my story/observation. I don't like walled gardens, but I think it is tangental. I mean it in the context of a person buying a gadget (ipods and/or ipads make a good example) The other hardware companies will tweak a product to be have the biggest screen, RAM or HDD (whatever feature retailers are highlighting ) at some price-point and they'll do it at the expense of the battery or some feature shoppers are not looking at as closely right now. They'll create a product just tailored to buying managers' checklists. Apple don't do this. They won't compete on price or checklist features. I don't want to idealize them too much, but I think Apple do a lot less of the above than most. They generally win by making some something people will want enough to pay for with their own money at a price that gives Apple their fat profit margin. Sometimes it's by "inventing" a category like the last big string of big wins. But, for a long time people have been buying Apple laptops at a premium price. No major category invention just consistently good quality of software and hardware. I hope I'm not drinking kool-aid. I'm not even mush of an Apple consumer (more of a windows avoider) but I think they do keep and artistic integrity like a Jazz band that chooses not to make a trendy pop record. Mot people prefer (by definition) poppier music. But, from a certain perspective there is a greeter victory in making a popular Jazz song than a popular pop song, if you're a jazz band. I'm not sure if that's the optimal strategy for being successful (though it obviously serves Apple) but I think that's the kind of competition that improves a market. Back to FF. I really appreciate them. They won by being awesome and making using the web better. Faster, prettier. They had tabs. They had awesome plugins like firebug that helped developers and helped a lot of non developers understand how the web worked. They had lots of plugins that showed people they could customize their web experience. They proved that OSS could be awesome for users. My perspective is that of a fan. From that perspective, I'd like to see FF succeed or fail by trying to be the best browser. If that conflicts with being a more popular browser or more profitable one, I'd like them to choose "best browser." If they are handicapped because Chrome has better access to users, I still want them to compete on being the best. I would rather see them die trying then surviving because they figured out a way to get more ad revenue at the expense of user experience. That's obviously different to the investor/owner/employee perspective. As for support, I don't think they can raise the kind of money from donations they can make in advertising. I like the PrivatefFox crowdsourcing idea.