9 ms·

And here is the end result of people leaving Firefox for Chrome. You neutered Mozilla. There is no longer a browser vendor which has both your interests in hear

And here is the end result of people leaving Firefox for Chrome. You neutered Mozilla. There is no longer a browser vendor which has both your interests in heart and sufficient power to direct the evolution of the web. Who now gets to choose which features are built into the majority of desktop and mobile browsers? Advertising companies.

tehbeard 11y ago
And here I am heading towards Firefox from Chrome specifically because I can't watch DRM content in Chrome anymore (need silverlight to be able to watch GoT and Comedy central)
- hashmymustache 11y ago
  Silverlight is needed just to add attachments to Outlook in the browser. I don't understand why there isn't a 64-bit version for chrome on mac.
  - tehbeard 11y ago
    ...how? How do they fuck up that badly to need silverlight for attachments?
    - abandonliberty 11y ago
      It's likely part of their tech mandate. I suspect what advantages it may have were not a big driver in that decision. They have a vested interest in driving silverlight adoption and use.
      - mattmanser 11y ago
        Had. Silverlight is no longer improved.
        voltagex_ 11y ago
        And yet it somehow gained huge popularity - http://visualstudio.uservoice.com/forums/121579-visual-studio/suggestions/3556619-silverlight-6 http://visualstudio.uservoice.com/forums/121579-visual-studi...
  - jmspring 11y ago
    Not true. Chrome does not support NPAPI and about:plugins does not show Silverlight installed. Sent an email to myself (at another address) just now with an attachment using Chrome from outlook.com. Did the same on the outlook web access client for an exchange server. Silverlight not needed. Not sure where you get your information. edit - specify that email is between different addresses.
    - hashmymustache 11y ago
      I don't know what to tell you. My school uses an exchange server and I can't add attachments to emails on the online portal unless I use the old lite version on Chrome whereas I can on other browsers.
- cabalamat 11y ago
  > need silverlight to be able to watch GoT No you don't. I've watched every episode of GoT, without having Silverlight installed (Does it even run on Linux? I've no idea).
  - brandmeyer 11y ago
    I actually do have Netflix running via Silverlight on Firefox on Linux. Winodws Silverlight is running in Wine, with Pipelight to display the Windows plugin in the Linux Firefox (actually Iceweasel) process. Its emulators all the way down!
    - ac29 11y ago
      FYI Netflix works natively in chrome on linux, and has for a while. No need for hacky solutions like that anymore.
  - oldmanjay 11y ago
    do you pay for them or torrent? many of us reject piracy, so it would be nice to understand this.
therealfoxy 11y ago
That is the attitude that enabled players like Netfucks to subvert the web into a servile sterile content consume only platform. It may surprise, but some of us don't want DRM, don't want endless binary blobs, and frankly, will walk an extra mile instead of opting for convenience, if said convenience removes a freedom or bites us in the arse later. Still, plenty are happy to throw freedom overboard, ooh wait, shiny on netfucks - what were was saying again?
DCKing 11y ago
Come on. This is the same Mozilla that promoted installing Adobe Flash for internet video since its very inception. If you're really such a purist, they should have been your enemy all along. Nothing has changed, and the conclusion is nowhere near as dramatic as you're making it sound. The suggestion that Mozilla implemented this for market share reasons is also incredibly unsubstantiated and ignores the very obvious practical reasons they will have had: dropping reliance on large propietary application runtimes (the DRM module is much smaller and has less functionality), improving user experience, and the fact that it's an actual web standard (albeit the most controversial one).
- jordanlev 11y ago
  I don't think the parent's point was about purity of not having DRM in firefox, but rather that since Firefox's user base has decreased so much in recent years, Mozilla no longer has the leverage they used to in terms of browser features. In other words, if Firefox had 50% share of browser usage, they would be in a position to prevent EME from becoming an industry standard -- but since they have a much lower percentage (10% I think if you take mobile into account), they felt forced by pragmatism to include it.
- icebraining 11y ago
  I don't disagree that Mozilla was never a purist organization, but I think the suggestion is well substantiated. From the post announcing it: "With most competing browsers and the content industry embracing the W3C EME specification, Mozilla has little choice but to implement EME as well so our users can continue to access all content they want to enjoy. (…) We have come to the point where Mozilla not implementing the W3C EME specification means that Firefox users have to switch to other browsers to watch content restricted by DRM." https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-mission-and-w3c-eme/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-missi...
  - notsony 11y ago
    One could argue Mozilla was quite purist when they ejected Brendan Eich because his personal beliefs were not shared by fellow employees... but more on that later. Perhaps the real reason Brendan Eich was thrown out of Mozilla was because he didn't embrace DRM and EME? Given his stature as founder of Mozilla and creator of Javascript, he could have posed a significant roadblock if he had decided to reject EME's inclusion in Firefox. If you put on your tinfoil hat, recall that Brendan's donation to Prop 8 was public information for several years... before it suddenly became an issue. >"So long as people want Hollywood movies, and Hollywood is used to getting its way, and DRM vendors are pushing to perpetuate this and codify it, and put it under a fig leaf from the W3C, we have a real problem.". http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/brendan-eich-mozillas-cto-on-eme-and-drm-3569430/ http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/brendan...
bobajeff 11y ago
I left Internet Explorer for Firefox because I was unsatisfied and jumped to the first viable alternative. I left Firefox for Chrome for the same reason. I'll jump to the next viable alternative as soon as it's available.
- enknamel 11y ago
  You would think that but chrome is much more insidious than other browsers. I can log in to chrome on all my devices and share bookmarks, apps, sessions, passwords, etc. That makes me a sticky chrome user because I lose all that functionality if I ever switch.
  - serge2k 11y ago
    Firefox doesn't do that for you?
    - prg318 11y ago
      Firefox absolutely does that for you [1]. You can even run your own sync server if you are into that sort of thing [2]. Works on all desktop platforms and mobile platforms that firefox runs on. [1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/sync/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/sync/ [2] https://docs.services.mozilla.com/howtos/run-sync-1.5.html https://docs.services.mozilla.com/howtos/run-sync-1.5.html
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    Writing a custom version of chrome that can export those things is trivial :) If there is demand, there will be solution provided.
  - StavrosK 11y ago
    You really don't. I switched a few months ago because Chrome was crashy, it took all of two days, and a few more until I stopped using Chrome completely. What irks me about Firefox is that tabs aren't separate processes, so one sticky tab will make everything sluggish, but that's about it.
mmcru 11y ago
agreed. i try to explain to people that firefox is an open source program created by an organization that is trying to keep the web free, while chrome is created by one of the world's biggest advertising companies, but they don't seem to care enough to use firefox. i feel like mozilla should give up on the soccer mom users and focus on being the power user browser. this is already the case to an extent, but they don't market firefox's advantages (like better extensions) well enough, and they don't quite focus on power-user-type features as much as i think they could.
- yuhong 11y ago
  I don't think most users need to care about it this much anyway.
  - RexRollman 11y ago
    It is amazing how little people care about freedom in general.
    - cddotdotslash 11y ago
      I don't know a single non-technical user who equates freedom with their choice of a web browser. The tech community is in such a big bubble when it comes to this.
teacup50 11y ago
Mozilla neutered themselves when they 1) stuck with an ancient, bug-riddled, poorly performing codebase for too long, and 2) tripled down on the JS/HTML/CSS trifecta of suck, and 3) then tried to use it to build an OS. Google was the only browser vendor actively trying to move the web stack beyond the technology swamp it's been mired in for so long. There are individuals today who have literally built an entire career without seeing anything beyond the browser tech stack (a lot of them on HN -- note the downvotes), and Mozilla was champion #1 of that dismal reality.
- DanBC 11y ago
  > (a lot of them on HN -- note the downvotes) You're getting at least some downvotes for your ridiculously hostile aggressive tone.
  - teacup50 11y ago
    It's a tone commiserate with the cost this has levied against our industry.
- Nemcue 11y ago
  "Google was the only browser vendor actively trying to move the web stack beyond the technology swamp it's been mired in for so long." Understand that Mozilla kind of is Google. Where do you think Mozilla get all their money from?
  - throwaball 11y ago
    Yahoo!, since they're the default search engine.
throwaway150512 11y ago
Yeah, so... Mozilla itself deserves to shoulder at least as much of the blame due to a number of decisions that range from mediocre to downright terrible. And I'm not even talking about what happened with Brendan. I'm talking about the organization's downturn during the years that directly correspond with the tenure of people like Gary "JavaScript rendering engine" Kovacs and the years that saw Sullivan at the height of his influence. The engineers aren't blameless either, having allowed themselves and the engineering culture to become the target of whatever neutering that did occur. "But I mean, these are business people; this kind of stuff is what they should know, right?" Sure, right. Totally let 'em go ahead and pursue those useless fucking partnerships at the costs they're coming with. After all, that's what real businesses look like.
- notsony 11y ago
  What happened with Brendan may be very relevant. See my post further up in this thread. Brendan did not like what the W3C was doing with DRM and was quite vocal about it. His prop 8 donation was public knowledge for years and nobody had a problem with it... but then suddenly the board, the employees and the community were outraged. As soon as he was forced out the other execs at Mozilla announced they would be implementing DRM and EME. Coincidence?
  - yuhong 11y ago
    But that is not the point. The point is that the problems with Mozilla that actually matter has nothing to do with either.
  - Manishearth 11y ago
    You forget that another significant event happened at the time; he was nominated for CEO. That puts a person under a lot of scrutiny in the first place. I would say that it was indeed a coincidence.
higherpurpose 11y ago
I for one am pretty decided to move to Firefox once Mozilla integrates Servo into it (granted the performance benefits really are significant). But I'm also waiting for Mozilla to implement its multi-process sandboxing system. Microsoft seems to be doing some interesting things on that front as well - I hope Mozilla is watching. I like the idea of having each tab in an secured app container, which sounds even better than Chrome's tab-in-a-process system. https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2015/05/11/microsoft-edge-building-a-safer-browser/ https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2015/05/11/microsoft-edg... Of course this will only work on Windows 10, but I don't think that's any reason to wait on implementing such a system (unless it has some major issues I'm not seeing, of course).
- callahad 11y ago
  > I for one am pretty decided to move to Firefox once Mozilla integrates Servo into it Hooray! I'm excited to have you back. :) If your switch is gated on Servo, you might be in for a long wait: we're moving small, modular components into Firefox as we're able, but completely changing implementation languages for parts of a browser used by hundreds of millions of people is a slow, deliberate process which involves pretty significant changes not only to our codebase, but also to our build infrastructure. Right now the immediate goal is to share either an image decoder or the URL parser between Servo and Firefox. Quite likely by the end of the year. Follow these bugs to find out more when things land: https://bugzil.la/oxidation https://bugzil.la/oxidation, https://bugzil.la/1151899 https://bugzil.la/1151899, https://bugzil.la/1161350 https://bugzil.la/1161350 > I'm also waiting for Mozilla to implement its multi-process sandboxing system I believe we're uplifting multi-process into the Dev Edition 40 release in a week or so. If not, it'll be in 41. Goal is to have it on by default in the release channel by the end of the year: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis#Schedule https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis#Schedule
  - magicalist 11y ago
    > Right now the immediate goal is to share either an image decoder or the URL parser between Servo and Firefox Interesting, it seems like there would be an order of magnitude (or more) difference in effort to write these two things. The third link you gave links to mp4parse-rust, is that what you mean by image decoder?
shmerl 11y ago
Blame Netflix for this garbage. And if you use their service, you can stop as well.
- codexon 11y ago
  Why not blame youtube as well?
  - magicalist 11y ago
    Media Source Extensions (MSE)[1] were added for YouTube HTML5 video, and is different from Encrypted Media Extensions (EME)[2], which is what allows DRMed videos. MSE allows things like adaptive bitrate while streaming and programmable video buffering without a plugin. [1] https://w3c.github.io/media-source/ https://w3c.github.io/media-source/ [2] https://w3c.github.io/encrypted-media/ https://w3c.github.io/encrypted-media/
    - codexon 11y ago
      So are you really telling me Youtube wouldn't use EME if it was there?
byuu 11y ago
> And here is the end result of people leaving Firefox for Chrome. Mozilla brought that on themselves by racing as fast as possible to become Chrome. If I'm going to be forced to use the Chrome UI, why would I settle for an inferior copy of it named Australis? Then there was the Awesomebar, Hello, mandatory signed extensions, ads on your newtab page, forcing the retention of download history, and on and on. DRM is just the next step in a long, sad succession. Mozilla has been trying as hard as possible since 4.x to get us to stop using their browser. No surprise it's working.
cddotdotslash 11y ago
This is ridiculous. In every other example, we say "innovate or die" (think taxis and Uber). In this case, Mozilla did not innovate as quickly as Chrome, and made a number of bad decisions, which led to their loss of market share. Consumers should not be blamed for picking a new product when it outpaces the old.

tehbeard 11y ago

And here I am heading towards Firefox from Chrome specifically because I can't watch DRM content in Chrome anymore (need silverlight to be able to watch GoT and Comedy central)

hashmymustache 11y ago
Silverlight is needed just to add attachments to Outlook in the browser. I don't understand why there isn't a 64-bit version for chrome on mac.
- tehbeard 11y ago
  ...how? How do they fuck up that badly to need silverlight for attachments?
  - abandonliberty 11y ago
    It's likely part of their tech mandate. I suspect what advantages it may have were not a big driver in that decision. They have a vested interest in driving silverlight adoption and use.
    - mattmanser 11y ago
      Had. Silverlight is no longer improved.
      - voltagex_ 11y ago
        And yet it somehow gained huge popularity - http://visualstudio.uservoice.com/forums/121579-visual-studio/suggestions/3556619-silverlight-6 http://visualstudio.uservoice.com/forums/121579-visual-studi...
- jmspring 11y ago
  Not true. Chrome does not support NPAPI and about:plugins does not show Silverlight installed. Sent an email to myself (at another address) just now with an attachment using Chrome from outlook.com. Did the same on the outlook web access client for an exchange server. Silverlight not needed. Not sure where you get your information. edit - specify that email is between different addresses.
  - hashmymustache 11y ago
    I don't know what to tell you. My school uses an exchange server and I can't add attachments to emails on the online portal unless I use the old lite version on Chrome whereas I can on other browsers.
cabalamat 11y ago
> need silverlight to be able to watch GoT No you don't. I've watched every episode of GoT, without having Silverlight installed (Does it even run on Linux? I've no idea).
- brandmeyer 11y ago
  I actually do have Netflix running via Silverlight on Firefox on Linux. Winodws Silverlight is running in Wine, with Pipelight to display the Windows plugin in the Linux Firefox (actually Iceweasel) process. Its emulators all the way down!
  - ac29 11y ago
    FYI Netflix works natively in chrome on linux, and has for a while. No need for hacky solutions like that anymore.
- oldmanjay 11y ago
  do you pay for them or torrent? many of us reject piracy, so it would be nice to understand this.

therealfoxy 11y ago

That is the attitude that enabled players like Netfucks to subvert the web into a servile sterile content consume only platform. It may surprise, but some of us don't want DRM, don't want endless binary blobs, and frankly, will walk an extra mile instead of opting for convenience, if said convenience removes a freedom or bites us in the arse later. Still, plenty are happy to throw freedom overboard, ooh wait, shiny on netfucks - what were was saying again?

DCKing 11y ago

Come on. This is the same Mozilla that promoted installing Adobe Flash for internet video since its very inception. If you're really such a purist, they should have been your enemy all along. Nothing has changed, and the conclusion is nowhere near as dramatic as you're making it sound. The suggestion that Mozilla implemented this for market share reasons is also incredibly unsubstantiated and ignores the very obvious practical reasons they will have had: dropping reliance on large propietary application runtimes (the DRM module is much smaller and has less functionality), improving user experience, and the fact that it's an actual web standard (albeit the most controversial one).

jordanlev 11y ago
I don't think the parent's point was about purity of not having DRM in firefox, but rather that since Firefox's user base has decreased so much in recent years, Mozilla no longer has the leverage they used to in terms of browser features. In other words, if Firefox had 50% share of browser usage, they would be in a position to prevent EME from becoming an industry standard -- but since they have a much lower percentage (10% I think if you take mobile into account), they felt forced by pragmatism to include it.
icebraining 11y ago
I don't disagree that Mozilla was never a purist organization, but I think the suggestion is well substantiated. From the post announcing it: "With most competing browsers and the content industry embracing the W3C EME specification, Mozilla has little choice but to implement EME as well so our users can continue to access all content they want to enjoy. (…) We have come to the point where Mozilla not implementing the W3C EME specification means that Firefox users have to switch to other browsers to watch content restricted by DRM." https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-mission-and-w3c-eme/ https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-missi...
- notsony 11y ago
  One could argue Mozilla was quite purist when they ejected Brendan Eich because his personal beliefs were not shared by fellow employees... but more on that later. Perhaps the real reason Brendan Eich was thrown out of Mozilla was because he didn't embrace DRM and EME? Given his stature as founder of Mozilla and creator of Javascript, he could have posed a significant roadblock if he had decided to reject EME's inclusion in Firefox. If you put on your tinfoil hat, recall that Brendan's donation to Prop 8 was public information for several years... before it suddenly became an issue. >"So long as people want Hollywood movies, and Hollywood is used to getting its way, and DRM vendors are pushing to perpetuate this and codify it, and put it under a fig leaf from the W3C, we have a real problem.". http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/brendan-eich-mozillas-cto-on-eme-and-drm-3569430/ http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/brendan...

bobajeff 11y ago

I left Internet Explorer for Firefox because I was unsatisfied and jumped to the first viable alternative. I left Firefox for Chrome for the same reason. I'll jump to the next viable alternative as soon as it's available.

enknamel 11y ago
You would think that but chrome is much more insidious than other browsers. I can log in to chrome on all my devices and share bookmarks, apps, sessions, passwords, etc. That makes me a sticky chrome user because I lose all that functionality if I ever switch.
- serge2k 11y ago
  Firefox doesn't do that for you?
  - prg318 11y ago
    Firefox absolutely does that for you [1]. You can even run your own sync server if you are into that sort of thing [2]. Works on all desktop platforms and mobile platforms that firefox runs on. [1] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/sync/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/sync/ [2] https://docs.services.mozilla.com/howtos/run-sync-1.5.html https://docs.services.mozilla.com/howtos/run-sync-1.5.html
- venomsnake 11y ago
  Writing a custom version of chrome that can export those things is trivial :) If there is demand, there will be solution provided.
- StavrosK 11y ago
  You really don't. I switched a few months ago because Chrome was crashy, it took all of two days, and a few more until I stopped using Chrome completely. What irks me about Firefox is that tabs aren't separate processes, so one sticky tab will make everything sluggish, but that's about it.

mmcru 11y ago

agreed. i try to explain to people that firefox is an open source program created by an organization that is trying to keep the web free, while chrome is created by one of the world's biggest advertising companies, but they don't seem to care enough to use firefox. i feel like mozilla should give up on the soccer mom users and focus on being the power user browser. this is already the case to an extent, but they don't market firefox's advantages (like better extensions) well enough, and they don't quite focus on power-user-type features as much as i think they could.

yuhong 11y ago
I don't think most users need to care about it this much anyway.
- RexRollman 11y ago
  It is amazing how little people care about freedom in general.
  - cddotdotslash 11y ago
    I don't know a single non-technical user who equates freedom with their choice of a web browser. The tech community is in such a big bubble when it comes to this.

teacup50 11y ago

Mozilla neutered themselves when they 1) stuck with an ancient, bug-riddled, poorly performing codebase for too long, and 2) tripled down on the JS/HTML/CSS trifecta of suck, and 3) then tried to use it to build an OS. Google was the only browser vendor actively trying to move the web stack beyond the technology swamp it's been mired in for so long. There are individuals today who have literally built an entire career without seeing anything beyond the browser tech stack (a lot of them on HN -- note the downvotes), and Mozilla was champion #1 of that dismal reality.

DanBC 11y ago
> (a lot of them on HN -- note the downvotes) You're getting at least some downvotes for your ridiculously hostile aggressive tone.
- teacup50 11y ago
  It's a tone commiserate with the cost this has levied against our industry.
Nemcue 11y ago
"Google was the only browser vendor actively trying to move the web stack beyond the technology swamp it's been mired in for so long." Understand that Mozilla kind of is Google. Where do you think Mozilla get all their money from?
- throwaball 11y ago
  Yahoo!, since they're the default search engine.

throwaway150512 11y ago

Yeah, so... Mozilla itself deserves to shoulder at least as much of the blame due to a number of decisions that range from mediocre to downright terrible. And I'm not even talking about what happened with Brendan. I'm talking about the organization's downturn during the years that directly correspond with the tenure of people like Gary "JavaScript rendering engine" Kovacs and the years that saw Sullivan at the height of his influence. The engineers aren't blameless either, having allowed themselves and the engineering culture to become the target of whatever neutering that did occur. "But I mean, these are business people; this kind of stuff is what they should know, right?" Sure, right. Totally let 'em go ahead and pursue those useless fucking partnerships at the costs they're coming with. After all, that's what real businesses look like.

notsony 11y ago
What happened with Brendan may be very relevant. See my post further up in this thread. Brendan did not like what the W3C was doing with DRM and was quite vocal about it. His prop 8 donation was public knowledge for years and nobody had a problem with it... but then suddenly the board, the employees and the community were outraged. As soon as he was forced out the other execs at Mozilla announced they would be implementing DRM and EME. Coincidence?
- yuhong 11y ago
  But that is not the point. The point is that the problems with Mozilla that actually matter has nothing to do with either.
- Manishearth 11y ago
  You forget that another significant event happened at the time; he was nominated for CEO. That puts a person under a lot of scrutiny in the first place. I would say that it was indeed a coincidence.

higherpurpose 11y ago

I for one am pretty decided to move to Firefox once Mozilla integrates Servo into it (granted the performance benefits really are significant). But I'm also waiting for Mozilla to implement its multi-process sandboxing system. Microsoft seems to be doing some interesting things on that front as well - I hope Mozilla is watching. I like the idea of having each tab in an secured app container, which sounds even better than Chrome's tab-in-a-process system. https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2015/05/11/microsoft-edge-building-a-safer-browser/ https://blogs.windows.com/msedgedev/2015/05/11/microsoft-edg... Of course this will only work on Windows 10, but I don't think that's any reason to wait on implementing such a system (unless it has some major issues I'm not seeing, of course).

callahad 11y ago
> I for one am pretty decided to move to Firefox once Mozilla integrates Servo into it Hooray! I'm excited to have you back. :) If your switch is gated on Servo, you might be in for a long wait: we're moving small, modular components into Firefox as we're able, but completely changing implementation languages for parts of a browser used by hundreds of millions of people is a slow, deliberate process which involves pretty significant changes not only to our codebase, but also to our build infrastructure. Right now the immediate goal is to share either an image decoder or the URL parser between Servo and Firefox. Quite likely by the end of the year. Follow these bugs to find out more when things land: https://bugzil.la/oxidation https://bugzil.la/oxidation, https://bugzil.la/1151899 https://bugzil.la/1151899, https://bugzil.la/1161350 https://bugzil.la/1161350 > I'm also waiting for Mozilla to implement its multi-process sandboxing system I believe we're uplifting multi-process into the Dev Edition 40 release in a week or so. If not, it'll be in 41. Goal is to have it on by default in the release channel by the end of the year: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis#Schedule https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis#Schedule
- magicalist 11y ago
  > Right now the immediate goal is to share either an image decoder or the URL parser between Servo and Firefox Interesting, it seems like there would be an order of magnitude (or more) difference in effort to write these two things. The third link you gave links to mp4parse-rust, is that what you mean by image decoder?

shmerl 11y ago

Blame Netflix for this garbage. And if you use their service, you can stop as well.

codexon 11y ago
Why not blame youtube as well?
- magicalist 11y ago
  Media Source Extensions (MSE)[1] were added for YouTube HTML5 video, and is different from Encrypted Media Extensions (EME)[2], which is what allows DRMed videos. MSE allows things like adaptive bitrate while streaming and programmable video buffering without a plugin. [1] https://w3c.github.io/media-source/ https://w3c.github.io/media-source/ [2] https://w3c.github.io/encrypted-media/ https://w3c.github.io/encrypted-media/
  - codexon 11y ago
    So are you really telling me Youtube wouldn't use EME if it was there?

byuu 11y ago

> And here is the end result of people leaving Firefox for Chrome. Mozilla brought that on themselves by racing as fast as possible to become Chrome. If I'm going to be forced to use the Chrome UI, why would I settle for an inferior copy of it named Australis? Then there was the Awesomebar, Hello, mandatory signed extensions, ads on your newtab page, forcing the retention of download history, and on and on. DRM is just the next step in a long, sad succession. Mozilla has been trying as hard as possible since 4.x to get us to stop using their browser. No surprise it's working.

cddotdotslash 11y ago

This is ridiculous. In every other example, we say "innovate or die" (think taxis and Uber). In this case, Mozilla did not innovate as quickly as Chrome, and made a number of bad decisions, which led to their loss of market share. Consumers should not be blamed for picking a new product when it outpaces the old.