I quite like the existing distinction between video and interactivity. I like that videos are static and non interactive. I like to be able to sit back and absorb the content without distraction.
In some cases, you may want to offer the viewer further information to link out to.
In some cases, though, the web content is woven directly into the video area. Consider a full screen Google Map, for instance, or an image. With Popcorn, we're exploring new and different ways of telling stories.
-Brett Gaylor, Director, Mozilla Popcorn
But, when I think about the implementation, I cringe. I don't want video with more info popping-up.
TV is not better because there is a running feed of "breaking news" or a running stock ticker. In the same regard, I don't more info popping up during video.
In terms of info popping up, how is it any different than embedding the info in the video? It's the same concept except now the info is actionable. The use cases aren't as broad as encompassing all video (yet anyway), however in many situations where videos are used, it seems like a very clear improvement to me.
I could be wrong (and am curious what you have to say) however your line of thinking sounds like fundamental resistance to the innovation present here, ie. combining concepts/ideas to produce something that would be superior in specific cases that disrupt previously separate and clear ideas/concepts in your mind. Meaning the potential really isn't being understood.
There are so many use cases -- for example, for any learning environment, the ability to interact with the lesson to achieve instant and dynamic feedback is an incredibly useful feature in terms of ability to improve learning outcomes.