Sure, we don't want any single entity--including ourselves--to monopolize the foundations of the Web. To allow that would diminish the Web's power as a democratized public resource.
Google was the only vendor that supported NaCl or the Filesystem APIs, and WebSQL similarly failed to gain traction outside of WebKit and Presto. If we were wrong in our assessments of those proposals, we weren't alone. And that's what killed them.
FWIW, I don't believe Google was pushing a patent encumbered web, or H.264. Their VP8/VP9,VP10 funding speaks for itself.
No one wants a monopoly in the browser space, and it seems like Mozilla has some other bone to pick with Google. As stated before, developers and web users come before Mozilla's philosophy, and many of the objections to Google's proposals don't seem to further that mission. Maybe some of it is in Mozilla's self preservation interests, I don't really know. But a lot of Google outrage seems feigned, and contrary to developer and user interest.
If you haven't noticed, most devs here haven't raised any technical objections, instead seem pleased with the offering, that's a hint in itself
But let's not kid ourselves: Mozilla hasn't been able to unilaterally kill things for years. We finally caved on H.264 in 2014, acceding to a patent-encumbered Web: https://andreasgal.com/2014/10/14/openh264-now-in-firefox/ The following year, we reluctantly added DRM to Firefox: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2015/05/12/update-on-digital-r....
Google was the only vendor that supported NaCl or the Filesystem APIs, and WebSQL similarly failed to gain traction outside of WebKit and Presto. If we were wrong in our assessments of those proposals, we weren't alone. And that's what killed them.