H.264 support coming to Firefox
H.264 support coming to Firefox
Posted Mar 20, 2012 0:09 UTC (Tue) by Zack (guest, #37335)In reply to: H.264 support coming to Firefox by kripkenstein
Parent article: H.264 support coming to Firefox
How so ? Mozilla, as I understand it, is a non-profit. So they don't have the usual "fiduciary responsibilities" cop-out. They aren't forced to support anything that would go against their mission statement.
>>That is sad but true, if you ignore a dominant technology, you will become irrelevant, even if it is nonstandard, proprietary or patented.
>>The only defense against this is to prevent nonstandard, proprietary or patented technologies from becoming dominant on the web.
The first logical step for this prevention would be, in my opinion, to not support it.
>>Becoming irrelevant isn't an option for Mozilla and Opera, because they would then lose any ability to promote open standards altogether.
In my opinion Mozilla's claim to fame in the current world of many fast competitive browsers, is being the champion of an open and unencumbered web.
If they can't do that, they're quickly becoming irrelevant already.
If they feel they are in not a position where they can say "no" to supporting known software patents, the current greatest threat to software freedoms, as a part of the web, what's the reason for their existence ? To produce a very popular browser ? There are several takers doing a good job in that department already.
I also feel that "irrelevant" and "less popular" are being used interchangeably in most arguments concerning this decision, even though they're not, and it confuses any argument.
They could become "less popular" for the time being, but I doubt very much they would become completely "irrelevant".
I understand Mozilla's predicament to a certain extent, but I don't feel pandering to commercial interests was in their (and our) own long term benefit in this case.
Posted Mar 20, 2012 0:42 UTC (Tue)
by dlang (guest, #313)
[Link] (3 responses)
However, not doing so would have meant that Mozilla would only get used by pureists, and would probably have died by now due to the lack of users.
If you don't have users, it doesn't matter how 'pure' you are, you have no influence.
Posted Mar 20, 2012 1:40 UTC (Tue)
by lab (guest, #51153)
[Link]
Posted Mar 20, 2012 9:58 UTC (Tue)
by robert_s (subscriber, #42402)
[Link]
HTML5 was supposed to be different.
Posted Mar 20, 2012 11:21 UTC (Tue)
by Zack (guest, #37335)
[Link]
As I understand it, Flash is a proprietary program, and as such, it can be worked around. But acknowledging software patents to be a legitimate part of an open web is something different.
>>However, not doing so would have meant that Mozilla would only get used by pureists, and would probably have died by now due to the lack of users.
Mozilla's mission says nothing about keeping Mozilla alive.
>>If you don't have users, it doesn't matter how 'pure' you are, you have no influence.
Users may come and go, but "supporters" (of a free and unencumbered web, for example) usually stick around, because they appreciate the deeper significance of what you're trying to achieve, even if 'success' is not imminent. But if you change/compromise on what you're trying to achieve *and* you fall behind in development (which is not unthinkable given the giants they're up against in the browser arena, especially if one of those giants basically pays for your own development) prompting your normal users to leave, you're left with nothing.
H.264 support coming to Firefox
H.264 support coming to Firefox
H.264 support coming to Firefox
H.264 support coming to Firefox
It is implied by many that the worst that could happen is that Mozilla would cease to exist, or its influence would wane. But the purpose, in my opinion, of Mozilla, is not Mozilla itself, it's their mission.