> All users of Firefox and Opera generally have another browser

All sweeping statements are generally wrong ;-) You can't have both "all" and "generally". You mean "most".

I don't have another browser.

> All users of banks have an ability to walk to the branch.

Another untrue sweeping statement. Some exceptions: the disabled; the housebound; those who live in the countryside without transport; Antarctic researchers.

> All banks have an ability to ship a downloaded client

That'll work on Windows, Mac OS, Linux, or any other platform that people might want to use (which already has a web browser)?

You could argue that banks have no requirement to support all these platforms; but who wants to turn away customers?

> the users *pay* for their banking access.

Not in the UK. We have this lovely thing called "free banking"; if you stay in the black, you get cards, chequebooks, banking services, statements etc. and pay nothing. Sadly, I believe the USA is not so enlightened.

> I need online banking, but if it's more than $10 a month, I don't need it.

I disagree. I need online banking (which works in Firefox on Linux). If it's not present, or more than $10 a month, I switch banks.

My time is valued at a reasonable number of $ per hour. If my bank wants to waste that making me travel to branches, I'll choose a bank which won't.

Gerv

Awww Gerv! Attacking sweeping statements because minor percentage points are swept away with wanton disregard! That's rich, and as an editorial matter, it was addressed in the very next paragraph. So, I'll let you replace all sweeping statements with *your* estimates of what proportions are more accurate. Then multiply out the percentages, and you can claim that Firefox will serve the infinitesimal proportion of people who do not have another browser, cannot walk to the branch, and do not use XY OS.

To move onto your points.

> You could argue that banks have no requirement to support all these platforms; but who wants to turn away customers?

That's what happens, right?

It is the bank's *choice* to use these platforms, and no browser manufacturer *has* to deliver anything? A bank *chooses* to turn away customers every day of the week - we don't generally argue that they should stop this terrible practice, because the quid pro quo is that customers have a choice in banks.

> Not in the UK.

Hilarious. You pay for it other ways. *One* price sticker on it says "free." They want you to believe it is free, so you won't look too deeply. Congratulations, you are their perfect customer.

> I disagree.

You are in fact agreeing with me. "It's more than $10 a month, I don't need it" is the same as "It's more than $10 a month I switch banks" which is the same as "I'm switching to cash!" or "I'm joining a commune!" It's called switching, and people do it all the time. (Actually, not so much in Britain, they have a tendency to block switching there.)

The core point here your time is valued at a reasonable number of $ per hour. If your bank wants to waste that making you travel to branches, you'll choose a bank which won't.

You use online banking because it saves you money, not because you "need it". If we offered you something else, you'd use that, too. Until it was more expensive. Need is simply the wrong word, the wrong argument.