4 ms·

From the article: "There is really no justification to stop our users from using system decoders already on the device" Mozilla just spent two years telling e

by sho_hn 15y ago

From the article: "There is really no justification to stop our users from using system decoders already on the device" Mozilla just spent two years telling everyone that they were not going to do this, and posting justifications as for why not. To me this is a serious blow to their credibility. Examples: http://robert.ocallahan.org/2009/06/directshow-and-platform-media_23.html http://robert.ocallahan.org/2009/06/directshow-and-platform-... http://robert.ocallahan.org/2010/01/video-freedom-and-mozilla_23.html http://robert.ocallahan.org/2010/01/video-freedom-and-mozill... ("Mozilla should pick up and use H.264 codecs that are already installed on the user's system.")

paulrouget 15y ago
Not an article, a post in a forum. One person opinion != Mozilla opinion
- sho_hn 15y ago
  Aye, but the person in question is a high-ranking Mozilla employee, and his "opinion" is presented in a very done-deal sort of way. (As for "article", that was just me using a generic term for the context of a HN thead.)
  - RandallBrown 15y ago
    Did you miss the post by the CEO that said basically the exact opposite?
    - sho_hn 15y ago
      I don't see a post by Gary Kovacs. Link? (If you mean the prominent Asa Dotzler, he's neither the CEO nor is he saying the "opposite" in my book.)
      - RandallBrown 15y ago
        whoops.
gcp 15y ago
Mozilla just spent two years telling everyone that they were not going to do this, and posting justifications as for why not. To me this is a serious blow to their credibility. They fought 2 years for getting patent-free video recognized, probably at the cost of some of their userbase, and a lot of anger from web-developers who saw their lives complicated. Today, they seem to be reconsidering their position because they think it's a lost fight. How is this a blow to their credibility? What should they have done? Instantly bend over next time? Stubbornly refuse to reconsider and lose the best hope for a truly free phone OS because nobody would want to use it? If you lose a war, it's never pretty. Kudos to Mozilla for taking a hard stance against patented standards for as long as they could. They deserve credit for that.
- sho_hn 15y ago
  > How is this a blow to their credibility? Because he's not saying "we tried, but it didn't work out in the end". He's saying there is no justification not to use available platform decoders. Yet they were not shy to provide them in the past. He's not addressing why those are no longer relevant arguments. Obviously the real reason they're doing this now is because on their new mobile platform, the Gecko runtime is all there is, and without it supporting H.264 playback, the platform would be considered incomplete at launch more so than their desktop browser is for not supporting it. I get the motivation. I'm not saying it's wrong - I don't agree with it, but that's not the point here. The point is how bad it makes Mozilla look to change their stance so willy-nilly.
  - gcp 15y ago
    Yet they were not shy to provide them in the past. The reasons are still there - it's even pointed out in the parent discussion that they're still a problem on Windows. One main difference is that Windows 7 is an order of magnitude more widespread now than it was 2 years ago - when those posts you refer to were written. And as you already admitted - they're doing this on mobile first. There's no guarantee yet it turns out to be actually feasible on desktop if those same arguments can't be properly addressed.
    - 15y ago

by sho_hn 15y ago

paulrouget 15y ago

Not an article, a post in a forum. One person opinion != Mozilla opinion

sho_hn 15y ago
Aye, but the person in question is a high-ranking Mozilla employee, and his "opinion" is presented in a very done-deal sort of way. (As for "article", that was just me using a generic term for the context of a HN thead.)
- RandallBrown 15y ago
  Did you miss the post by the CEO that said basically the exact opposite?
  - sho_hn 15y ago
    I don't see a post by Gary Kovacs. Link? (If you mean the prominent Asa Dotzler, he's neither the CEO nor is he saying the "opposite" in my book.)
    - RandallBrown 15y ago
      whoops.

gcp 15y ago

Mozilla just spent two years telling everyone that they were not going to do this, and posting justifications as for why not. To me this is a serious blow to their credibility. They fought 2 years for getting patent-free video recognized, probably at the cost of some of their userbase, and a lot of anger from web-developers who saw their lives complicated. Today, they seem to be reconsidering their position because they think it's a lost fight. How is this a blow to their credibility? What should they have done? Instantly bend over next time? Stubbornly refuse to reconsider and lose the best hope for a truly free phone OS because nobody would want to use it? If you lose a war, it's never pretty. Kudos to Mozilla for taking a hard stance against patented standards for as long as they could. They deserve credit for that.

sho_hn 15y ago
> How is this a blow to their credibility? Because he's not saying "we tried, but it didn't work out in the end". He's saying there is no justification not to use available platform decoders. Yet they were not shy to provide them in the past. He's not addressing why those are no longer relevant arguments. Obviously the real reason they're doing this now is because on their new mobile platform, the Gecko runtime is all there is, and without it supporting H.264 playback, the platform would be considered incomplete at launch more so than their desktop browser is for not supporting it. I get the motivation. I'm not saying it's wrong - I don't agree with it, but that's not the point here. The point is how bad it makes Mozilla look to change their stance so willy-nilly.
- gcp 15y ago
  Yet they were not shy to provide them in the past. The reasons are still there - it's even pointed out in the parent discussion that they're still a problem on Windows. One main difference is that Windows 7 is an order of magnitude more widespread now than it was 2 years ago - when those posts you refer to were written. And as you already admitted - they're doing this on mobile first. There's no guarantee yet it turns out to be actually feasible on desktop if those same arguments can't be properly addressed.
  - 15y ago