Not sure what you mean. Of course browsers run websites containing proprietary code all the time. They wouldn't have much to do if all they did was run just open source websites (no proprietary websites would mean no Google, no YouTube, no github, etc.).
I wouldn't advocate Firefox trying to block proprietary sites. But it's just interesting that Mozilla fought H.264 for years and now he's endorsing something that's even worse (it's not even documented or RAND licensed). Is Mozilla interested in freedom for users or freedom for Mozilla themselves?
I'm not sure he's "endorsing" it or not. All I see is him saying it's cool technology - which it definitely is. It opens up a lot of possibilities, and proves a whole different set of approaches is possible to a large set of problems. That's exciting.
Will it end up being good or bad for users overall? It's hard to say with any new technology, but this does look promising in some respects.
But how is this "worse than H.264"? We don't know anything about it yet. (When it launches on the web, perhaps it will be documented? Licensed? Who knows.) Unless you have additional information not in this article?
It seems to me that we hackers/nerds ought to work at not being drawn to new technologies because they're "cool", and instead think about their broader social implications, especially those implications beyond immediate convenience.
In this case, I think wmf is right to point out that what the OP is talking about is a proprietary, as-yet unducmneted video codec. Surely the inevitable outcome of such things is to concentrate power, rather than decentralize it. Is that the kind of thing that anyone associated with Mozilla wishes to encourage?
> I think wmf is right to point out that what the OP is talking about is a proprietary, as-yet unducmneted video codec
Is it? They haven't yet officially announced any details of that nature that I can see. Unless I missed that part?
> Surely the inevitable outcome of such things is to concentrate power, rather than decentralize it.
If it is in fact proprietary, then that is not great. But, that it shows that a downloadable codec can be comparable to a builtin one is more important than this specific codec. If they can do it, others can too.
And if their proving it is possible opens up a new industry of downloadable codecs, that run in all web browsers regardless and on all OSes, then that sounds like something good.
Because it's compared to the H.264 world where no open source browser can ship the codec. And sadly soon with EME we will have DRM in HTML that again, cannot be shipped by any open source browser. Whereas if the codec is downloadable - just another website - then both of these problems are averted.
I agree with you that we should and must consider the broader social implications. It seems to me that this product has positive potential there. But again, it is far too soon - we don't have enough technical details nor enough legal details.
They fought h.264 because it would prevent open source browsers from competing because the browser maker would have to pay for a license (or it might have evolved in that direction). If the codec is distributed as javascript (or some other patent-free open format), then any open source browser that implements a fast javascript engine can run it. The answer to 'who pays?' gets moved from the browser maker to the video distributor (where in all fairness it belongs).
