In that article, he talks about Netscape's biggest mistake being the decision to rebuild from scratch for version 5 (which went on to become the Mozilla suite).
It's worth noting that if you do resort to pushing the company into bankruptcy, at best you'll get nothing, and at worst you'll make things even more difficult for the founders than they already are.
A trimmed-down mobile app usually means that the desktop app is unnecessarily bloated - the "get to the right information quickly" goal is just as appropriate on the desktop as on a mobile.
Even where other jurisdictions have made laws, often very little has been done.
For instance the European Union was due to be fully compliant by 2010, but not a single government is likely to make the deadline: http://www.headstar.com/eablive/?p=441
The equivalent of an app store fee is a pay-wall to the application. It would probably drive away more customers than the equivalent app store fee, but I don't think it is defeating the point at all.
Are there likely to be the same lowest-common-denominator problems as you get with cross-platform development of console games, or those seen with Java apps like OpenOffice.org?
Most companies that try to do something about accessibility seem eager just to find a checklist they can go through. If access keys somehow turned up there, then they go into the website!
So many "new interface" ideas seem to forget that a large percentage of what people use computers for is in offices, producing documentation. Using your voice, or spinning 3D interfaces around with your hands, just isn't practical in an office environment with dozens of people working, where you are essentially outputting text.
Until that basic reality changes, I don't think mainstream computing needs will change. Along the same lines, I don't think the reverse is feasible, with computing interface changes bringing about social changes. The shifts we've seen from hand-writing to type-writing to computer-based word-processing has been happening in roughly the same environment for a very long time.
I think the idea that users that need/advocate these features can contribute fixes to an open source project is one of the unfortunate myths (for want of a better word) of the FOSS movement. The idea is noble, but, as with Mozilla, the items that project sponsors want fixed/sorted get fixed/sorted, while other "unsexy" features/bugs/components just get left behind for years.
Despite all the flack that Microsoft gets, its browser is far and away the strongest for accessibility, with Mozilla a close second. Sadly Opera, Apple and Google almost need not bother...
It's amazing that only in 2010 are we reaching the point where the vast amounts of information that are inherently made public (like SSIDs) are actually sensitive information.
Long gone are the days when public policy could be dictated by what people specifically made public or private by opting to publish it (in a newspaper, for example) or not.
As a society, I don't think we quite know how to handle this. Technically, this information is public by definition, but having it used like this by a corporation just doesn't "feel right" to most people.