101–110 of 133 posts
Anyone have any insight on why they removed autocomplete from username & password fields?
They removed the ability of a site maker to tell user if they should use password manager on their website. A much needed feature aka 'no, I do not care about password for your stupid site'.
> Mac OS X: Implemented a subset of the Media Source Extensions (MSE) API to allow native HTML5 playback on YouTube HTML5 > Implemented Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) API to support encrypted HTML5 video/audio playback (Windows Vista or later only) HTML5 > Automatically download Adobe Primetime Content Decryption Module (CDM) for DRM playback through EME (Windows Vista or later only) :( Notice which OSes are left o…
Hey Touche, I work on Firefox at Mozilla. We launched EME on Win32 (Vista+) first because that is by far the biggest share of Fx users. We will keep rolling out new platforms, the work will be long and hard. Streaming providers want to move off of Silverlight and Flash but will still support them for the foreseeable future, so content is still available.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand your frustration, but I think you're complaining that you didn't get an option that was never realistically on the table in the first place. Your respect for the W3C matters a lot less to them than millions of people being able to watch content produced by a billion dollar industry, which much of that industry simply isn't willing to make available without DRM-style safeguards at the present time. Yes, w…
> For those users, a lot of major sites still "don't work properly" today because of Apple's arrogance. How well did Flash on Android work? The answer is "not very". Jobs was (apparently) entirely correct when he wrote that Adobe was never able to show him a version of mobile Flash that wasn't complete garbage.
I briefly looked at Bugzilla and can't figure out its future. Is it really being replaced with a tie-in to a closed source US based startup company, Pocket? Can any devs comment?
Can someone explain why Mozilla is not signing gmpopenh264.dll and now eme-adobe.dll? These are executed from AppData (a folder with read/write permissions). Executing dll's from AppData is generally a bad idea but if I'm going to allow it I at least want a Publisher rule attached. Google signs their CDM (WideVine) dll delivered with Chrome that executes from AppData, why isn't Mozilla?
Firefox is now a malware installer? Awesome!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I do think calling those plug-ins non-standard is a bit of a joke, given that Flash had 90+% market penetration for years Flash was also proprietary. It's closed-source, patent-encumbered, and has a single implementation. It's completely under the control of Adobe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard > For those users, a lot of major sites still "don't work properly" today because of Apple's arrogance. As A…
Flash existed for Symbian OS (think Nokia smartphones) way before there was iPhones, and those devices naturally had even lower hardware specs. (I still agree that not supporting Flash was the correct choice for Apple, though.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll second Silhouette's comments that the desirable world you'd like to live in was never an option. The problem is simple: the major copyright owners insist on DRM and the inconvenience has not been enough to get many people to stop buying all but the most encumbered content. Sure, the usability was worse. That didn't stop many people from doing whatever they needed to play the video — it just trained a generation…
I disagree. The pains of DRM were growing. The usability wasn't bad enough yet, but it was getting worse. As people use more and more devices and they want their media in all places, the existing plugins were getting less suitable. That's why there was a push for standardization anyways. Dealing with all the quirks of all the platforms was becoming difficult for the copyright owners. There was no reason that the W3C…
MS, Google, and Apple would've set up their own venue to standardise the exact same thing. The W3C having it within their walls is really not that relevant to the outcome of this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand your frustration, but I think you're complaining that you didn't get an option that was never realistically on the table in the first place. Your respect for the W3C matters a lot less to them than millions of people being able to watch content produced by a billion dollar industry, which much of that industry simply isn't willing to make available without DRM-style safeguards at the present time. Yes, w…
> I do think calling those plug-ins non-standard is a bit of a joke, given that Flash had 90+% market penetration for years Flash was also proprietary. It's closed-source, patent-encumbered, and has a single implementation. It's completely under the control of Adobe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard > For those users, a lot of major sites still "don't work properly" today because of Apple's arrogance. As A…
See for example http://web.archive.org/web/20130302154428/http://www.adobe.c...
I bet the real reason for blocking flash player in Mobile Safari was to block all the flash based ad banners of the day. It would have degraded battery life and the user experience quite a lot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand your frustration, but I think you're complaining that you didn't get an option that was never realistically on the table in the first place. Your respect for the W3C matters a lot less to them than millions of people being able to watch content produced by a billion dollar industry, which much of that industry simply isn't willing to make available without DRM-style safeguards at the present time. Yes, w…
> I do think calling those plug-ins non-standard is a bit of a joke, given that Flash had 90+% market penetration for years Flash was also proprietary. It's closed-source, patent-encumbered, and has a single implementation. It's completely under the control of Adobe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard > For those users, a lot of major sites still "don't work properly" today because of Apple's arrogance. As A…
Perhaps, but I'm not sure how any of this is different to the various media extension proposals/standards we're starting to see more recently.
And at least before, if you wanted to serve video from your web site, all you had to do was get one of the numerous Flash video players and prepare one version of your videos that would work in that player on almost any device.
As Apple explained countless times, it is not because of "arrogance" that they did not support Flash.
Please forgive me if I don't take their word for it. The thing is, Flash has run -- and reasonably well -- on numerous other mobile devices, even some from quite a few years ago, so I don't really buy the performance arguments. Even if they had been true for early generations of smartphones and tablets, the performance of these types of device was always expected to increase significantly over time, as indeed it has.
If the performance would still be a problem on today's iOS devices then presumably Apple's users would opt for other implementations instead, but as far as I'm aware, Apple still have an effective monopoly on distribution of software that runs on iOS devices, and they can and do block anything they don't like for sometimes not entirely clear (or, some might argue, entirely fair) reasons. So no-one was ever allowed to decide whether Flash running on a modern iPhone or iPad would have been OK, because that option was removed from the table, and we were left with devices that have bugs and/or non-standard behaviours in basic functionality.
Flash was also a massive security and stability headache: as Apple loved to point out, it was the single largest source of application crashes on OS X.
Leaving aside the disturbing implications of Apple actually having a reliable data set on which to base such a claim, browsers are a constant security and stability headache. Take a look at the release notes for Chrome or Firefox, and see how often that little update every few weeks includes at least one critical security update, and how often they have glitches so bad they have to push an out-of-band update instead of waiting just a few weeks. As I said before, there seems little reason to expect better results just because someone shifts things like video rendering and DRM technologies to a slightly different bit of low-level, native, closed source, patent-encumbered, even-the-browser-devs-don't-see-it code written in an error-prone language by the same kinds of development team that wrote the plug-ins.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should be ashamed of doing the work of adding EME to Firefox. Please don't add it to other platforms. Remove it from Windows. If the work will be long and hard there are better uses of your time than working to ensure that "streaming providers" can oppose Mozilla's vision of an open web.
> If the work will be long and hard there are better uses of your time than working to ensure that "streaming providers" can oppose Mozilla's vision of an open web. Your criticism is misguided; as soon as the W3C endorsed EME, it was all but a done deal that Firefox would have to support it. Microsoft and Google have no interest in keeping proprietary software out of their browsers, and the only alternative is for Fi…