Some people call that "responding to user feedback". It sucks that you don't agree with their decision, but trying to paint Mozilla in a bad light for listening to their users' demands is preposterous.
Yes. And I am saying that it's preposterous because they did what any organization (and I mean any, this applies to companies, nonprofits, governments, etc) should be doing -- listening to their users.
Their beliefs are great and all, but at the end of the day they are providing a product for the end user, so if their users are "bitching" that they want Netflix and other EME services available on Firefox, then the right choice is to make the user happy if possible.
What about former users... because that who the most vocal people where, Chrome Traitors that do not value freedom, privacy or security.
Their actual users were demanding they not do it, they not Embrace Web Extensions, they not Force install Adware on every system, they Not make Privacy Invading features opt-out instead of Opt-In. They not Embrace the destruction of the Open Web....
We, the actual Firefox user base, were given a big middle finger by Mozilla and instead they went on a sorry excuse for a begging marketing ploy to beg user to return to their new Chrome Clone
Any organization cares about their userbase as a whole. There's no distinctions. No "former users", "traitors", or "actual Firefox user base". Just "users". Because once you get past a certain number of users, you need to start looking at decisions statistically.
If 70% of users want Netflix, and the other 30% want privacy, then Mozilla is going to look at the 70%. Because that's what makes sense from any sort of organizational planning. You're not going to try to appease a tiny minority (and yes, privacy-conscious individuals are very much in the minority in the world. We may be in a bubble here on HN, but the common person is not going to give two shits about the privacy concerns we may have) when you can appease far more users by doing the opposite.
You've made it clear you are biased in this argument. Maybe try taking a step back and looking at the issue more objectively, or from the other perspective.
I am being very objective, The Mozilla Foundation is a Non profit tax free organization that gets that tax free status because they are suppose to be following their stated goal of the organization not to be popular
Mozilla Foundation has a Tax Free Status in order to promote the Open Web
They are no longer honoring that goal, as such they should lose their Tax Free status, the should stop calling themselves a Foundation, they should stop fraudulently holding themselves out as being For Privacy and the Open web
if they want to make a Insecure, Privacy Invading Browser, that is perfectly fine. Google and MS already do that
They need to be honest about it and not hold themselves out to be something they are not
They do not fight for the open web, they do not fight for user privacy, they do not support the goals stated in the the Mozilla Manifesto. Thus it should be removed and Mozilla Foundation should be dissolved into the Mozilla Corporation a for profit software vendor making a Commercial Web Browser
You taking the stance that Mozilla is no different than Google, MS or other Commercial Software Vendors. That they are a software company looking to make the best software for their customers..
Mozilla does not have customers, Mozilla is not and should not be a commercial entity, Mozilla is a Charitable Foundation with a set of goals they are violating
Then they caved and now we have DRM in the standard.. sad days