> So while they might champion for the open web in cases like these, it's obvious that the only thing they really care about is their bottom line and not paying license fees on video formats.
So? Netflix and Google are the two biggest online video players. Without them, adoption is going to be pretty pathetic. You want to start excluding people because of perceived (or actual) motivations?
>You want to start excluding people because of perceived (or actual) motivations?
Nah, I don't subscribe to the (unfortunately common) mentality of being exclusionary based on ideological purity evaluations. But since they obviously don't really subscribe to the idea of Open Web (as evident by their enthusiastic support for DRM in HTML, which is about as anti-Open Web as it gets), I guess I just wish they could be more honest about it. After all, what good is it that someone uses an "Open Media" format when it's put behind a completely closed black box barrier of DRM that you aren't even allowed to legally poke at thanks to anti-circumvention laws?
I do think this particular development is very much a good thing for the Open Web, and I certainly don't doubt Mozilla commitment to that. But the whole HTML DRM debacle did leave a really bitter taste in my mouth.
So? Netflix and Google are the two biggest online video players. Without them, adoption is going to be pretty pathetic. You want to start excluding people because of perceived (or actual) motivations?