6 ms·

The writing was on the wall a while ago once Google implemented this into Chrome(Netflix on Chromebooks was the first real world use of this IIRC). Firefox no l

The writing was on the wall a while ago once Google implemented this into Chrome(Netflix on Chromebooks was the first real world use of this IIRC). Firefox no longer has the market power it once used to have thanks to Chrome being bundled and installed by default with Flash, Acrobat and Java updates etc. Google has been spending massively on pushing Chrome even bundled as default on new machines with OEM agreements to reduce payments to Mozilla in the long term and it's working since the past few years. Pluginless HTML5 support for H.264 followed a similar path, in which Google promised to remove support from Chrome in favor of WebM(which FF and Opera added support for) but never did, in the meantime Firefox and Opera relied on the promise and then were forced to start implementing support once they realized Google was not going to keep the promise and it was hurting them and then included support(I don't think Opera ever did?). Three of the four major browsers, Chrome, IE, Safari are owned by huge corporate interests and Mozilla is pretty much powerless since users blame FF if it doesn't support something, so I expect more of such things to happen in the future. It's pretty much game over at this point and I fear this is only the tip of the coming iceberg with all these companies having huge media deals for Play Store, XBox Music/Video and iTunes.

chimeracoder 12y ago
> Mozilla is pretty much powerless since users blame FF if it doesn't support something Mozilla is pretty much powerless since users blame FF if it doesn't support something and the bulk of its funding comes from one of those corporate interests (Google). (Both are problems - even if Mozilla had the market share, if it were still funded (almost) solely by Google, these things would still eventually happen, since the power tends to follow the money in the end.). I really hope Mozilla manages to become financially independent of Google, whether through donations or some other revenue stream.
- magicalist 12y ago
  > even if Mozilla had the market share, if it were still funded (almost) solely by Google, these things would still eventually happen, since the power tends to follow the money in the end.). This isn't supported by reality. Feel free to offer any evidence at all, however. You could just as easily postulate that every privacy enhancement that google adds to their search page is because of influence by Mozilla, which Google is massively dependent on for traffic and therefore revenue, since power tends to follow the money in the end. Depending on your stat source, at least 1/5 of internet users use Firefox, which means that the percentage of Google users on Firefox is probably that percentage or higher. The Mozilla Corporation is wholly owned by the Mozilla Foundation, but Google has shareholders. So who is more important to whom?
- gcp 12y ago
  I really hope Mozilla manages to become financially independent of Google, whether through donations or some other revenue stream. They announced Directory Tiles a while ago, which is a step in that direction.
  - mlissner 12y ago
    that plan was canceled.
    - dblohm7 12y ago
      That was a misinterpretation of Jonathan's blog post.
    - callahad 12y ago
      Unfortunately, there was a fair amount of misreporting over the weekend in response to Johnathan Nightingale's blog post here: https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2014/05/09/new-tab-experiments/ https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2014/05/09/new-tab-e... The point of the post is that Mozilla is going ahead with experiments like Directory Tiles, but that no money will change hands during testing and development of those experiments. The commitment is that Mozilla will only move forward with seeking revenue if the experiments actually demonstrate added value for users, and that any revenue is collected in a way consistent with the Manifesto.
    - cpeterso 12y ago
      That is incorrect. See "New Tab Experiments" just for days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7725324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7725324
  - thisisrobv 12y ago
    They pulled the plug on this pretty quickly. It's not really clear how they'll transform it in the future, but I think the larger point is still valid. They should not be dependent on a single source of revenue.
gsnedders 12y ago
Opera still doesn't ship H.264 support, except on mobile and some embedded products (TVs, settop boxes, etc.).
- atopal 12y ago
  In other words: except where they have any market share at all.
atopal 12y ago
> in the meantime Firefox and Opera relied on the promise > and then were forced to start implementing support once > they realized Google was not going to keep the promise > and it was hurting them and then included support(I don't > think Opera ever did?). Not only that, Mozilla partnered with CISCO to make h264 usage free for all. Now, people can modify and redistribute Firefox and still retain the ability to play h264. Something that Google gave a shit about when they included h264 in Chrome, but not in Chromium. If you are using Chrome, don't fool yourself, you are not using an open source browser, but you are helping Google further the agenda of its stakeholders, and they made it clear what their priorties are when they took the first step by implementing this on Chromebooks.
- evilpie 12y ago
  Actually what happened to that Cisco h264 project?
- EdwardDiego 12y ago
  > If you are using Chrome, don't fool yourself, you are not using an open source browser, but you are helping Google further the agenda of its stakeholders As an example, Chrome won't ship an adblocker by default... but they will add code to prevent popunders from working. Guess which ad format Google doesn't do...
JonoW 12y ago
A lot of people include Apple when talking about how the big companies are pushing EME, but Safari is now the only browser that hasn't announced support for it. I assume they'll eventually do it, but it's worth noting that Firefox wasn't the last browser to announce support.
EdwardDiego 12y ago
> . Firefox no longer has the market power it once used to have thanks to Chrome being bundled and installed by default with Flash, Acrobat and Java updates etc. Firefox also went through a very long period of being a memory heavy browser with multiple tabs and the UI sharing a single thread of execution for JS execution - meaning that one badly behaving website could render the entire browser unresponsive. ...at least that's why I stopped using it.
- EdwardDiego 12y ago
  I love the person who downvoted this without any response. Am I wrong about the technical challenges Firefox faced?

chimeracoder 12y ago

> Mozilla is pretty much powerless since users blame FF if it doesn't support something Mozilla is pretty much powerless since users blame FF if it doesn't support something and the bulk of its funding comes from one of those corporate interests (Google). (Both are problems - even if Mozilla had the market share, if it were still funded (almost) solely by Google, these things would still eventually happen, since the power tends to follow the money in the end.). I really hope Mozilla manages to become financially independent of Google, whether through donations or some other revenue stream.

magicalist 12y ago
> even if Mozilla had the market share, if it were still funded (almost) solely by Google, these things would still eventually happen, since the power tends to follow the money in the end.). This isn't supported by reality. Feel free to offer any evidence at all, however. You could just as easily postulate that every privacy enhancement that google adds to their search page is because of influence by Mozilla, which Google is massively dependent on for traffic and therefore revenue, since power tends to follow the money in the end. Depending on your stat source, at least 1/5 of internet users use Firefox, which means that the percentage of Google users on Firefox is probably that percentage or higher. The Mozilla Corporation is wholly owned by the Mozilla Foundation, but Google has shareholders. So who is more important to whom?
gcp 12y ago
I really hope Mozilla manages to become financially independent of Google, whether through donations or some other revenue stream. They announced Directory Tiles a while ago, which is a step in that direction.
- mlissner 12y ago
  that plan was canceled.
  - dblohm7 12y ago
    That was a misinterpretation of Jonathan's blog post.
  - callahad 12y ago
    Unfortunately, there was a fair amount of misreporting over the weekend in response to Johnathan Nightingale's blog post here: https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2014/05/09/new-tab-experiments/ https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2014/05/09/new-tab-e... The point of the post is that Mozilla is going ahead with experiments like Directory Tiles, but that no money will change hands during testing and development of those experiments. The commitment is that Mozilla will only move forward with seeking revenue if the experiments actually demonstrate added value for users, and that any revenue is collected in a way consistent with the Manifesto.
  - cpeterso 12y ago
    That is incorrect. See "New Tab Experiments" just for days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7725324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7725324
- thisisrobv 12y ago
  They pulled the plug on this pretty quickly. It's not really clear how they'll transform it in the future, but I think the larger point is still valid. They should not be dependent on a single source of revenue.

gsnedders 12y ago

Opera still doesn't ship H.264 support, except on mobile and some embedded products (TVs, settop boxes, etc.).

atopal 12y ago
In other words: except where they have any market share at all.

atopal 12y ago

> in the meantime Firefox and Opera relied on the promise > and then were forced to start implementing support once > they realized Google was not going to keep the promise > and it was hurting them and then included support(I don't > think Opera ever did?). Not only that, Mozilla partnered with CISCO to make h264 usage free for all. Now, people can modify and redistribute Firefox and still retain the ability to play h264. Something that Google gave a shit about when they included h264 in Chrome, but not in Chromium. If you are using Chrome, don't fool yourself, you are not using an open source browser, but you are helping Google further the agenda of its stakeholders, and they made it clear what their priorties are when they took the first step by implementing this on Chromebooks.

evilpie 12y ago
Actually what happened to that Cisco h264 project?
EdwardDiego 12y ago
> If you are using Chrome, don't fool yourself, you are not using an open source browser, but you are helping Google further the agenda of its stakeholders As an example, Chrome won't ship an adblocker by default... but they will add code to prevent popunders from working. Guess which ad format Google doesn't do...

JonoW 12y ago

A lot of people include Apple when talking about how the big companies are pushing EME, but Safari is now the only browser that hasn't announced support for it. I assume they'll eventually do it, but it's worth noting that Firefox wasn't the last browser to announce support.

EdwardDiego 12y ago

> . Firefox no longer has the market power it once used to have thanks to Chrome being bundled and installed by default with Flash, Acrobat and Java updates etc. Firefox also went through a very long period of being a memory heavy browser with multiple tabs and the UI sharing a single thread of execution for JS execution - meaning that one badly behaving website could render the entire browser unresponsive. ...at least that's why I stopped using it.

EdwardDiego 12y ago
I love the person who downvoted this without any response. Am I wrong about the technical challenges Firefox faced?