Market share isn't immutable! Market share changes based on capabilities. I dropped IE for FF when I got a basic understanding of computers, I dropped FF when it became clear it was a memory hog, and now I kind of toggle between Chrome and FF. I think that, with killer features like breaking out of DRM, the market share could change.

> I think that, with killer features like breaking out of DRM, the market share could change.

That's not a killer feature to the market: I bet 99/100 people don't know what DRM is or what it stands for. They just care that they can watch videos or not.

For better or the worse the overwhelming majority of browser users don't know, care, or have any idea about how the internet is standardized, how DRM works, and why it matters to them.

I actually don't see how using the browser would provide any practical value. If you pay for a streaming service you might as well just watch the legit DRM'd version. If you're watching a pirate stream you might as well stream from a pirate who cracked the DRM on their side.

Of course for the worse. As usual worst things in the world come with a silent agreement of majority.

Ignorance != agreement

> I think that, with killer features like breaking out of DRM, the market share could change.

Indeed, that would kill Firefox once and for all.

Unless you value the fact that Firefox comes from an organisation which values the freedom of the user and are willing to tolerate a dip in quality (as perceived by the typical user, not a techie) compared to a product from an organisation which has far greater resources at its disposal, and unless a lot of other people are going to do the same, it'll never work.

I use Firefox and almost never use another browser but I'm afraid over time, it's share of the market will fall. This news makes me fear so even more. I do hope I am proven wrong though. I've seen one monopolist fall. I do hope I see many more.

Indeed. People who want nothing to do with DRM will want alternatives. Once DRM-integrated browsers are compromised at scale, more people will want alternatives.

> They have no market influence.

In other words you have no idea what you're talking about, and why should anything else you say be treated any differently?

If what the above says is true (Though Im not sure it is possible), and Mozilla can provide a way to display DRM content without adopting DRM standard, I would think that would increase its marketshare.

You nailed it.

The user cares about access to content. The user does not care about DRM. The user does not care about corporate interests. Ad blockers are proof of this. The user wants what they want, and the people who provide that to them with the fewest hassles are the ones who win.

Everyone needs to appreciate that "cost" is a gigantic hassle to most people, no matter how much money they have. The concept of owning their content is another big consideration for people, which is why we saw "rental" models for video streaming fail in the past compared to "ownership" models.