6 ms·

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

by 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...
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    This is an interesting theory and given what we know how how hollywood works in the backroom, plausible, but there are no facts to support it. Eich was not "thrown out of mozilla". The board knew about his donation and appointed him anyways - the pressure for him to resign came from the community and Mozilla employees. Hollywood is great at fomenting outrage, but not that much and not in that way :)
    - notsony 11y ago
      If only company boards listened to their employees and "community" all the time! I think it's about opportunism. A situation developed and by simply stoking the fires of social media outrage, a major obstacle to adoption of DRM in a popular browser could be eliminated. Consider the Mozilla position as soon as Brendan had been forced out - coincidence? >"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. Read on for some background on how we got here, and details of our implementation." - Mozilla CTO Andreas Gal, 14 May 2014 "Mozilla will be adding a way to integrate Adobe Access DRM technology for video and audio into Firefox, via a common specification called Encrypted Media Extensions (EME)." - The Mozilla Blog, 14 May 2014 http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/05/why-brendan-eich-had-to-go.html http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/05/why-brendan-eich-had-to-g...
      - Karunamon 11y ago
        Given that Mozilla is a nonprofit, they've got more reason than most to pay attention. I don't really buy that narrative that all of Mozilla really really wanted to accept DRM in the browser, but this one guy is such a pain in the ass about shooting it down that they'll promote him and hope that the outrage machine takes him out, and thus fulfill their evil plan to ??????! Muahahah! Ahem. Made-for-TV movie plots aside, it fails occam's razor, it fails basic logic, and as mentioned there isn't a single shred of a fact to support it. The actual story is shocking enough without trying to read patterns into it that don't actually exist.
  - 11y ago

by DCKing 11y ago

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...
- Karunamon 11y ago
  This is an interesting theory and given what we know how how hollywood works in the backroom, plausible, but there are no facts to support it. Eich was not "thrown out of mozilla". The board knew about his donation and appointed him anyways - the pressure for him to resign came from the community and Mozilla employees. Hollywood is great at fomenting outrage, but not that much and not in that way :)
  - notsony 11y ago
    If only company boards listened to their employees and "community" all the time! I think it's about opportunism. A situation developed and by simply stoking the fires of social media outrage, a major obstacle to adoption of DRM in a popular browser could be eliminated. Consider the Mozilla position as soon as Brendan had been forced out - coincidence? >"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. Read on for some background on how we got here, and details of our implementation." - Mozilla CTO Andreas Gal, 14 May 2014 "Mozilla will be adding a way to integrate Adobe Access DRM technology for video and audio into Firefox, via a common specification called Encrypted Media Extensions (EME)." - The Mozilla Blog, 14 May 2014 http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/05/why-brendan-eich-had-to-go.html http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/05/why-brendan-eich-had-to-g...
    - Karunamon 11y ago
      Given that Mozilla is a nonprofit, they've got more reason than most to pay attention. I don't really buy that narrative that all of Mozilla really really wanted to accept DRM in the browser, but this one guy is such a pain in the ass about shooting it down that they'll promote him and hope that the outrage machine takes him out, and thus fulfill their evil plan to ??????! Muahahah! Ahem. Made-for-TV movie plots aside, it fails occam's razor, it fails basic logic, and as mentioned there isn't a single shred of a fact to support it. The actual story is shocking enough without trying to read patterns into it that don't actually exist.
- 11y ago