I realize this was written with the intent of saying, "What a great victory for our hero, Mozilla!"

But let's look at the numbers...

Browser share for November 2008 per w3schools:

IE7: 26.6%
IE6: 20%
Chrome: 3.1%
Firefox: 44.2%
Mozilla: 0.4%
Safari: 2.7%
Opera: 2.3%

So, non Microsoft leaves us with 53.4% of the market... Meaning Firefox already commands 80%+ of the non Microsoft share.

Gaining two out of every three - 67% of users quitting Microsoft - when it already has 80%+ of the non Microsoft share - implies its popularity is dropping not gaining amongst non Microsoft users.

Safari's stayed pretty constant for the last few months - as has Firefox, crawling up at a very slow rate. Chrome jumped from 0 to 3% pretty much immediately but has then barely moved in three months. Opera has actually gained proportionally the quickest (2% to 2.3% is a 15% improvement for them in three months).

So, I realize it was intended as a "Yay Firefox" claim - but, if you look deeper at the numbers - less of the new Anti-MS crowd are adopting it than have in the past.

No. The app has thousands of games and other applications that display 480x320 which looks great on a 3.5 inch screen.

At 163ppi, they look great.

Run those same resolutions on a screen with 2x (7 inch) or 2.5x (9 inch) resolution and you're looking at 60-80ppi of massively pixelated crap.

A 9 inch touchscreen with iPhone/iPod touch style OS-X and the same 163ppi resolution makes for a really interesting alternative to the netbook market. Stop hobbling the bluetooth so you can use their bluetooth keyboard when you want to type a lot and it's a fascinating package.

But the app store's catalog remains completely useless unless they come up with a way for resolution to upscale. Granted, I've not written anything for it, but I'm guessing most apps are written with a 480x320 assumption and no scaling, no multi-resolution icons, graphics, etc. bundled in to the downloads, etc. Apple would need to get the means for updating apps to support that out to developers way in advance of a larger Touch release if they wanted the app store to carry any value beyond to show off how bad apps could look... something that would harm the reputation of the device far more than help it.

If you work three days a week - 60% of the time...

Your computer doesn't cost 60%.

Your software licenses aren't 60% either.

That desk you use didn't cost 60% as much.

The office space to put your desk in doesn't cost 60% as much.

The HR department doesn't only do 60% of the work for you.

Your health insurance doesn't only cover 60% of you - you either insure or don't insure a person.

And so on.

As a rule of thumb, most employees cost their companies 2-4 times the cost of their full time salary. Take a hypothetical $50,000/year salary. Cost to the company may well be around $200,000 a year. You take a pay cut to $30,000 in exchange for working 40% less, that $200,000 cost has just dropped to $180,000 or only 10% less. They're paying 10% less to get 40% less value out of you. Hardly a good deal. Admittedly, many costs do scale - 401k matching only matches what you pay, taxes are relative to salary, etc. Still, those that don't ensure the argument's not in your favor.

Worked in reverse, it makes it painfully obvious why companies like EA so famously loved forcing overtime, especially when they could get it unpaid, out of workers. Health insurance doesn't cost them any more for a 100 hour week than it does for a 40 hour week. Office space costs no more. Hardware and software costs no more. On purely mercenary terms, efficiencies come in with more hours, not less. You're asking them to do the opposite.

So, your wife's going to leave all your bone stuck in one end?

That suddenly seems much more pornographic than I intended it.