That’s as true as it is irrelevant. I don’t think I’ve heard anyone say chrome isn’t a great browser or chromium isn’t good - it’s the control Google has over it that everyone has a problem with
Mozilla is only as strong as the community. In recent years it’s been like a red Panda backed in a corner and tried everything to get offset the contribution of Google. But rather than focus on money, it should’ve focused on community. No matter how many bucks Mozilla chases, it will never match what Google contributes. But no matter how much Google pays Mozilla, it should pale in comparison to the value of community contributions. Sadly Mozilla only value code contributions, not realising that pull requests come thicker and faster with real community engagement. They hired a bunch of people that don’t care for the community and as such community engagement dwindled.
while i must agree on community portion (i personally dont partake) even the money contribution is but a wet fart
What google pays mozilla for their search engine deal: 450 million
What google pays apple for the same deal: 15 billion by the time google made this deal mozilla had lost their voice
as much as i hate anything google (i use firefox myself), mozilla lost most of its power to make a compelling argument and the community or rather the people who jumped on the google wagon are very much just as much t blame as google itself
They try to present it as “detecting abuse”, but it’s literally just “allow servers to block non-verified browers”(in other words google blocking access to their services for non-chrome users(the people proposing it work for google)).
And as always these types of asshats always shit all over anyone using accessbility tools(or don’t even consider them in the first place, which amounts to the same thing).
Just for clarification. Can someone just not write an extension where if you are visiting a google service it will just lie in the http request that you are using chrome or is does the DRM also stop that with keys and hashes?
pretty much yes to keys and hashes. Just think HDCP and HDMI
That said, I imagine it’ll have to be easier to hack software that isn’t embedded in hardware. but it’s also easier to issue revocation lists when you don’t have to worry about bricking everyone’s hardware. So I have no idea which way that balance tilts.
Even if I go along that line of thought, few years ago when I was using Chrome it started scanning my computer without any notice, causing the fan to run hard.
I stopped using that creepy POS immediately and switched to Firefox. Never again a browser can just make a decision to scan my computer to “protect” me from whatever.
If this DRM can force you to use Chromium to display a webpage or content, that would be the most anticompetitive thing in recent times, and would absolutely not fly.
Yeah, the sad thing here is that if Apple comply, it will basically become a standard and there’s nothing that Firefox or anything else can do about it. If they can get it on iPhone, it’s game over. Half the web will be blocked unless you agree to see adverts.
While this is true, I struggle to understand how Apple would stand to gain from implementing this unless it had already become a widespread standard. It’s also an opportunity for more privacy focused marketing if they oppose it, just like they do with government attempts to force them to implement backdoors into iOS.
Yeah, they already dont bother implementing a bunch of actual standards. I don’t see what they would get out of this since their ad network is very limited
I have limited understanding of the technical side of this issue, but based on this comment, this sounds like a brilliant move by Google - Don’t like the rules of the game, change the game…
Edit: for clarification, this comment was very tongue in cheek - I don’t support Google, this was just an acknowledgement of a smart business play.
While I have issues with the rules of “the game”, the current rules are better than the changes that Google are proposing, but since they are infinitely more powerful than me, I can only hope whatever body (W3C?) does not make it an official standard. As long as it’s just an extra thing that Chrome/Chromium does, there’s still hope for Google to get into legal trouble.
Fingers crossed that you’re right. Definitely don’t want to see them repositioning into an (even more) advantageous policy position. I imagine that a standards body such as the one you mentioned would be fairly careful about adopting anything proposed by a company without significant caution. At least that’s how it works with some international standards agencies haha
We need to stop this capitalist brainrot. It’s not a smart business move; a smart business move would be one where everyone wins. This is a lazy and evil move designed for pure extraction of value and coercion of compliance.
Live the way we want you to (and we take 30% off the top!)
`I mean, yes, agreed. But this is literally how businesses operate - stay ahead of governments, or change the game so govts are onboard (as regulation regularly trails behind business). A genuinely smart business move would obviously be preferable, but the modern history of megacorps is not exactly a shining beacon of benevolence to the ppl. It should be, but gestures wildly at everything
People ask me why I use Firefox when other products hace better features. This is the reason. This is the only feature I want: A fundation that helps and understands the user Thanks for all Mozilla.
Add comment