Yes, I can.
But I can also think, actually, remember, the cost of supporting Microsoft's non-standard Web implementations. For some reason, many people on this thread assume it's legitimate to ask Mozilla to spend time supporting Microsoft products, but it is not legitimate to ask users who want this functionality to support Mozilla's product (by installing it).
Ladies and gentlemen: Actions and decisions have consequences. Choose Windows Phone, and lose a native YouTube app. Choose Internet Explorer and have no access to latest-and-greatest web stuff.
It's as simple as that. There is no reason for anyone to feel entitled to more work spent to support their favorite browser -- even if it was the most popular, which it hasn't been for quite a while now.
For years, organizations said switching to Linux is more costly than paying the MS tax. Recently, many large organizations rolled out Linux installs on a massive scale (European government institutions).
Anyhow, installing Firefox on some workstations is relatively small compared to say, replacing COBOL, or Windows XP...
Edit - and while I don't manage a large computer install base, I use them at a large organization with thousands of installs (a University), and they somehow managed to install Firefox on every single computer.... (but they still advertise COBOL jobs)
Yes, it can be.
Can you think of certain situations where doing this is extremely costly (in money, time or both) or do I need to give you a few examples?
In my experience, people displaying this kind of naïveté have never been in a situation of large leadership (where you are in charge of a large organization or when your decisions can impact hundreds of employees across a company).