> I hold that implementing DRM is what doomed them
Then again, if Firefox had refused to implement DRM, I'd probably have switched to Chrome by now, so there's that.
I'm really not a fan of DRM, but I don't think it's fair to blame Firefox for doing what probably a huge part of their user base demands, especially given their pretty dire usage stats. Sometimes, there's wisdom in knowing which battle to pick.
The argument is, there would have been a patch, people could install.
I think if that click was right at netflix and a ff restart away from working, then maybe yes. But most people would just switch browsers, before looking for that patch.
What's the difference between that and Firefox outright shipping with a DRM module, though?
I do get the ideological objection to not wanting to support DRM, although I don't think that's the battle that Mozilla should pick right now. But extra clicks probably wouldn't make anybody who does happy, while inconveniencing most other users.
Then again, if Firefox had refused to implement DRM, I'd probably have switched to Chrome by now, so there's that.
I'm really not a fan of DRM, but I don't think it's fair to blame Firefox for doing what probably a huge part of their user base demands, especially given their pretty dire usage stats. Sometimes, there's wisdom in knowing which battle to pick.