facepalm

Posted May 15, 2014 21:06 UTC (Thu) by flussence (guest, #85566)
In reply to: *facepalm* by roc
Parent article: Firefox gets closed-source DRM

OTOH if Firefox can't play Netflix then people can and will switch to another browser very easily.

That's a false dichotomy, and one I'm seeing prominently used as the bogeyman behind this change.

It doesn't match what I'm seeing "in the trenches": people from a wide spectrum of technical ability have little problem switching between multiple browsers (or non-browser programs, or content providers) when one or the other fails to do what they want. It already happens, and nobody seems to mind. They don't immediately abandon or uninstall their day-to-day browser just on account of a website failing to work in it (maybe in part because they've been trained not to trust said website's big "download and run mybrowser.exe to view our shiny!" banner).

I also don't buy the reasoning that Firefox is doing this because it's compelled to give users, developers or website owners what they want in order to survive: Bugzilla is littered with plenty of evidence to the contrary. Here's one example — it's a WebRTC interoperability bug (which I got bitten by recently while searching for open Skype alternatives), marked wontfix with some harsh developer responses. As a web developer myself I've followed the MNG/JNG/APNG/WebP circus for well over 10 years; Mozilla still refuses to back down or compromise on that even though all sides have already lost (except Google, who uses it as a selling point for their "faster browser" since they can optimise both ends of the wire).

The list could go on longer than two examples, but I think it makes the point clear even without mentioning UI experiments.

There's plenty of history to suggest Mozilla is quite capable of saying no to implementing an anti-feature like EME, or at the very least, organising to make it painful for the bad guys to actually use. But in reality the exact opposite is happening — the relative quickness (and uniqueness) of this about-face regarding support for encumbered codecs and DRM over the last few months, and the subtle PR shift that came with it, is concerning.

facepalm

Posted May 16, 2014 8:20 UTC (Fri) by gerv (guest, #3376) [Link]

It was not particularly quick. It may seem so, because in order to get as good a deal as we've managed from a CDM vendor, we had to be prepared to walk away if the deal wasn't good enough (and I believe we were). And discussing our exact strategy in public would have blown up most of that negotiating leverage.

facepalm

Posted May 16, 2014 11:16 UTC (Fri) by krake (guest, #55996) [Link]

> There's plenty of history to suggest Mozilla is quite capable of saying no to implementing an anti-feature like EME, or at the very least, organising to make it painful for the bad guys to actually use. But in reality the exact opposite is happening

It is likely that this case is different because there are a lot of wealthy companies that gain a lot through that change and are almost certainly be generous in their rewards.

Adobe, for example, would have no selling point left for their DRM system now that Flash is on the way out. This deal allows them to keep that part of their business alive.

Which will very likely result in a second corporate sponsor for Mozilla (additional to Google), so it is a win-win situation for the two companies.

facepalm

Posted May 16, 2014 14:48 UTC (Fri) by tterribe (guest, #66972) [Link]

> Here's one example — it's a WebRTC interoperability bug (which I got
> bitten by recently while searching for open Skype alternatives), marked
> wontfix with some harsh developer responses.

What you're seeing in that WebRTC bug is someone attempting to rehash an argument they already lost in the rtcweb WG at the IETF (see comments 7 and 9). Our developers were understandably not amused.

This is a classic example of Mozilla pushing for real standards built through an open process instead of "whatever browser X happens to ship". In other words, exactly the kind of good we're able to do because we have market share.

I'm not going to touch the image format debate, because people tend not to respond rationally, but I will say that it is obviously impossible to give everyone what they want all the time. Citing two examples where we have not given someone exactly what they wanted does not imply that there is not some imperative to build a product that people actually want to use in order to have some kind of influence.

facepalm

Posted May 19, 2014 6:41 UTC (Mon) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link]

Everyone I have switched to Firefox over the past decade has had a backup browser that they use for one or two 'special' websites that they must use for some reason but refuse to, well, be websites. Even the most nontechnical can get the concept of 'one browser good, safe to use, other browser very insecure, must use for task x and y but avoid otherwise.' This was never a threat to firefox market share, quite the opposite, it helped regular people become and stay aware of the challenges the free and open web faces.

I have never known anyone to switch away from firefox because a specific site didnt want to work with it no matter how important the site. I have known dozens to switch after I gave up and quit fixing the cascading UI breakage caused by updating it, however.