It is ironic that so many developers are taking the time to complain on the bug tracker but won't simply write Chrome out of their org. I did that at a place and most of the users didn't even realize something had changed.
No developers seem to have a problem simply refusing to support Firefox. I wonder how much extra effort it is going to take for them to finally make the switch.
This statistic is not without reason. Chrome still has considerable usability and security advantages, especially for non-technical people(at least on anything that's not OS X), and still the best dev tools out there.
We can be lucky that FF at least tries to stick to standards where Safari doesn't bother.
I don't think that's material. If we're talking about corporate policy on corporate-owned machines, employees shouldn't be complaining to IT that their favorite websites aren't working properly in Firefox. If they do, the canned IT response should always be "why are you doing personal tasks on your work machine?"
As long as the corporate/enterprise apps work on Firefox (which they should?), it's not a problem for a corporate IT department to ban Chrome.
Companies also want their employees to be as productive as possible, which are likely already using Chrome at home because it has the best usability and quality of life for non-technical users.
I don't think any IT department worth their while would ban worthwhile software because of some agenda that frankly just doesn't matter too much to most regular users, at least in an US context.
In the EU this might be a bit different, as they would have an interest in getting Google out of their ecosystems - but we've seen that that just doesn't really work too well, with pilots in various governments. People aren't as productive and complain about not having the same Excel and the same Internet as they have at home.
How is expecting things to work "having an agenda?"
For the longest time Chrome would search google first before local DNS for FQDNs. When I reported that years ago they labelled it "wontfix."
In Chrome 69 they started single-sign-on and didn't get around to adding an option to disable until 71. And this autocomplete bug has been a problem for years also.
There are valid reasons to switch. I'm not here to make users feel at home. I'm here to make sure the stack runs on their machine. I find that is easier to accomplish with Firefox.
> Companies also want their employees to be as productive as possible[...] I don't think any IT department worth their while would ban worthwhile software
This shows a disconnect / bubble. Lots of IT departments require permission to install any software, i.e., a whitelist, rather than the blacklist being proposed (and which is fine in this instance). Granted, many of those places don't care about their employees being as productive as possible (even if they tell themselves they do), and their IT departments aren't worth their salt, and this tends to be norm, unfortunately.
> As long as the corporate/enterprise apps work on Firefox (which they should?)
They have even less of a reason to support Firefox. I used to work on an partially enterprise (well, government) program. We dropped Firefox support for it because it was easier to tell the client to just install Chrome. And the complexity of enterprise software means that that will always be easier for the client as well than switching.
No developers seem to have a problem simply refusing to support Firefox. I wonder how much extra effort it is going to take for them to finally make the switch.