• accideath@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    They could, probably. My guess is, that it’s either a limitation of resources, the issue of licensing fees or Google‘s significant financial influence on Mozilla forcing them to make a worse browser than they potentially could. Similar to how Firefox does not support HDR (although, to my knowledge, there’s no licensing involved there).

    The biggest problem most people have with Mozilla is said influence by Google, making them not truly independent.

    • bitwaba@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      Google probably is putting pressure on Mozilla, but if the options are licensed HECV or open royalty-free AV1, the choice is pretty clear for a FOSS project.

      • accideath@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yes but: HEVC is the standard for UHD content for now, until AV1 gets much broader adoption. And judging from how long HEVC took to be as broadly available as h.264, it’ll still take a while for AV1 to be viable for most applications.

    • el_abuelo@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yeah I’m curious as to whether there’s not merit in taking the imperfect codebase and improving it.

    • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      If 50% of firefox users donated 2 dollars per year mozilla could work for people instead of Google or at least people AND google

      • accideath@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        The problem is, most user don’t want to pay. And every time mozilla tries to monetise differently they get community backlash…