Is this post coming from the past? It cites a table from diveintohtml that was made in 2011. Figures of h264 penetration also dating from 2011.
Things have changed since then: firefox has announced it would support h264. Opera has had versions supporting h264 but no longer does. Also, it fails to mention Google's agreement with MPEG-LA.
Finally, more than not giving anything new, it contains mistakes and confusions, the paragraph on Linux is terrible as it confuses containers and codecs, claims wrongfully that linux does not support h264 nor vp8 on the browser out of the box (all graphical linux browsers do support h264 or vp8, most support both). The only good thing to keep from this article is its title (oh and the update about firefox nightly).
Unlike VideoLAN, Mozilla has a big, obvious income stream for H.264 patent-holders to go after. Mozilla, quite reasonably, thinks they should spend that income advancing their mission rather than paying off patent holders (in a way that undermines it). They're also, again unlike VideoLAN, headquartered in a very, very software-patent-friendly jurisdiction.
Mozilla isn't refusing to ship H.264 because they lack "balls". They're refusing because there are serious practical constraints that get in the way.
Finally, more than not giving anything new, it contains mistakes and confusions, the paragraph on Linux is terrible as it confuses containers and codecs, claims wrongfully that linux does not support h264 nor vp8 on the browser out of the box (all graphical linux browsers do support h264 or vp8, most support both). The only good thing to keep from this article is its title (oh and the update about firefox nightly).