3 ms·
> They even happily implemented DRM when everyone else was doing it. This is a totally disingenuous interpretation of EME. I think you mean when Google, despit
by jonchang 10y ago
> They even happily implemented DRM when everyone else was doing it.
This is a totally disingenuous interpretation of EME. I think you mean when Google, despite their ~open source bona fides~ with Chromium, collaborated with Microsoft and Netflix to introduce DRM to the browser and used their crushing market dominance to force Mozilla to comply or fall even further behind?
- Tharre 10y agoI'm perfectly aware that they didn't want to. But if Mozilla can be bullied into implementing it anyway, then how does using Firefox stop Google from doing whatever they want?
- jonchang 10y agoDon't backpedal, you literally said they were happy to implement DRM! To address your point, if Firefox had a 90% market share on both desktop and mobile the other vendors would have had a much more difficult time doing an end around on the open web with EME. The only way for Firefox to gain market share is for people to use it... hence the title of the blog post.
- Tharre 10y agoDoes the word sarcasm mean anything to you? If Firefox had a 90% market share, we wouldn't have this discussion about how we should use Firefox instead of Chrome. But the fact of the matter is that the majority of users doesn't care, and won't change their opinion because of a random blog post. Now, Mozilla could have decided to make Firefox a privacy focused, truly open browser for those who do care. They could've been the first major browser who blocks privacy invading Ads by default, and that didn't implement DRM like all the others. But they didn't. And so my point stands.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]