On May 16, 2014, at 12:13 , Bob Ham <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2014-05-16 10:06, David Singer wrote: >> On May 16, 2014, at 12:00 , cobaco <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Mozilla doesn't "have to", Mozilla is "choosing to" >>> That's a crucial difference and not one you get to sweep under the rug >> >> Their assessment is that it is necessary if outcomes they do not want >> are to be avoided. That’s a requirement, “have to”. > > You use the word "want" and then use the word "requirement". What you're > saying here is: Mozilla is choosing to require the implementation of EME. > It's still a choice. > > Twisting words won't give you the high ground. In fact, the lack of high > ground becomes more evident as you do so.
That applies to you as well. I agree, staying relevant is technically a choice, like eating to stay alive is technically a choice. They could choose to become increasingly irrelevant to the vast majority of users who want to be able to consume protected media. Their assessment is that becoming irrelevant serves no-one (not even you). You are welcome to disagree and launch an ideologically pure browser. David Singer Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
