facepalm

Posted May 15, 2014 12:43 UTC (Thu) by krake (guest, #55996)
In reply to: *facepalm* by gerv
Parent article: Firefox gets closed-source DRM

I am sorry, but this is how the situation looks like and this is how even the official communication is phrased.

That the fear of losing popularity made Mozilla agree to something which they know goes against what they claimed to be their principles.

It makes those principles look like nice bonus goals, which are strifed for as long as doing so doesn't interfer with the primary goal: market share.

facepalm

Posted May 15, 2014 13:31 UTC (Thu) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link] (2 responses)

I think their explanation means that it's more correct to say that their principals are not a suicide pact, they are not going to ride their principals nihilistically into non-existance. Without market share they no longer have an advertising deal with Google and their principals are irrelevant to the marketplace, they have no influence without a substantial userbase.

facepalm

Posted May 15, 2014 16:21 UTC (Thu) by b7j0c (guest, #27559) [Link] (1 responses)

having ideals would not have to form a "suicide pact" if mozilla did not otherwise try to act like a silicon valley big co...the posh offices, the perks...swap the logos and you would think you were in the offices of linkedin or google

except those companies have a business model, not an idealogical model, so they can afford their perks without hypocrisy

in the end my guess is that the mozilla experiment will fail - the notion of dressing up a nominal nonprofit like a successful valley .com just isn't tenable. go look at the offices of the fsf, or debian (does debian even have an "office"?) this is what the reality of a nonprofit with ideals really is...it ain't glamorous...and it seems mozilla really is in it for the glamor

facepalm

Posted May 15, 2014 17:05 UTC (Thu) by gerv (guest, #3376) [Link]

There is nothing wrong or hypocritical with offering competitive pay and conditions. Some people have to choose between getting a job which is paid competitively for their skills, and getting a job where they get to do what they love in line with their principles. We don't think Mozilla employees should have to pick only one of those two things.

And if we did make them pick one, we would have less world-class talent on our side. And that would be very bad.

facepalm

Posted May 15, 2014 16:48 UTC (Thu) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link] (5 responses)

We believe that pursuing this DRM path conflicts with our principles *locally* but is optimal for our principles *globally*.

We are working for the open Web in lots of different ways --- for example, improving Web standards and developing and deploying free video codecs. Our influence in those areas is dependent on Firefox market share. If we choose to take a hard line against DRM we believe we will lose market share, damaging our ability to make progress applying our principles to Web standards and video codec and lots of other areas.

In the limit, allowing Mozilla to slide into irrelevance, destroying our ability to pursue our mission in any area, all for the sake of taking a hard-line stand on DRM which won't actually stop anyone from using DRM since they'll be using another browser, would be a gross *violation* of our principles.

facepalm

Posted May 15, 2014 17:08 UTC (Thu) by krake (guest, #55996) [Link] (1 responses)

Well, lets hope you are right.

I don't see how you will succeed in improving any of those areas now that you have established that will concede to whatever the other big vendors agree on after a bit of dragging your feet.

In the worst case the only thing you will be able to improve on are things that the major vendors have no interest in.

facepalm

Posted May 15, 2014 22:03 UTC (Thu) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]

The situation isn't that bad. The big vendors don't always act in concert. Google does PNaCl/Pepper, which is their own proprietary thing and bad for the Web (we believe), but other vendors don't want to do it so we won't be dragged into it. OTOH if we thought it was good for the Web we could do it, and then it's much more likely Microsoft/Apple would be forced into it, so there's our influence.

It's true that when the entire industry is against us, as in DRM, it's hard for us to win the battle.

facepalm

Posted May 15, 2014 17:11 UTC (Thu) by b7j0c (guest, #27559) [Link] (2 responses)

such wordsmithing...

by implicitly deriding your previous stance as a "hard line" you are already well on your way to using language to isolate and marginalize your critics. oh well, guess i'm a hardliner, i'll learn to live with the stigma

mozilla is just a corporation without a viable business model

at this point there really is absolutely nothing to recommend firefox over chrome. i put many relatives on the path of using firefox years ago and think i did a good thing...at this point i'll be left to asking them what logo they think is prettier

facepalm

Posted May 15, 2014 22:00 UTC (Thu) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]

Our previous stance wasn't a particularly "hard line". We've always allowed DRM to be supported on the Web in Firefox via NPAPI plugins.

I apologize for sounding pejorative. To me, "hard line" isn't a pejorative term. I'm happy to take a hard line on lots of things.

I think there's a big difference between Chrome leading the way into DRM and us being forced into it.

facepalm

Posted May 16, 2014 10:55 UTC (Fri) by krake (guest, #55996) [Link]

> mozilla is just a corporation without a viable business model

It just got more viable.

Next to their current contract with Google they now have a contract with Adobe.

Being the life safer of Adobe's DRM business will surely not go uncompensated.

Lets see if Mozilla can put that money to good use somehow.