3 ms·

They could easily have implemented a better more secure plugin without having to corrupt W3C standards with DRM.

cpeterso 11y ago
The EME DRM specification was authored by Microsoft, Google, and Netflix. Now that the other major browsers like Chrome, Edge, IE, and Safari implement EME and it is used by major content providers like Netflix, Amazon, HBO, and Canal+, Mozilla is backed into a corner. Not that long ago, Mozilla tried to challenge H.264 on the Web. The Chrome team agreed to drop H.264 too, but they didn't keep their word and, without a public explanation, kept supporting H.264. When cat videos encoded in H.264 don't work in Firefox but work in Chrome, users switch to Chrome and may never come back. And now when video services people pay money for work in Chrome but not Firefox, users switch to Chrome and, again, may never come back. http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/html-video-codec-support-in-chrome.html http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/html-video-codec-support-in... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2093219 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2093219
- pdkl95 11y ago
  > Not that long ago, Mozilla tried to challenge H.264 on the Web. Ahh, hubris. They thought they could force the industry's hand with their market share... which was already starting to decline. By focusing on H.264 (and promoting Theora!), they succeeded in keeping Flash around as websites decided letting Firefox users stay with flash was easier and cheaper than listening to Mozilla's demands regarding <video>. Sometimes I hate bring right[1]... What they should have done is dodge the problem by leaving the question of codec to the OS. Instead, Mozilla decided to drive users away. Which was also the obvious end result[2]. I understand (and support) making ideological decisions, but it's also important to pick you battles. [1] http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1597850&cid=31643970 http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1597850&cid=31643970 ("Endymion"/UID=12815 on /. is me) [2] http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1597850&cid=31644218 http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1597850&cid=31644218
  - cpeterso 11y ago
    I agree that H.264 was not a fight that could be won, considering existing H.264 content and mobile devices' hardware support. But I'm sure the situation seemed more hopeful when 40% of the browser market (30% Firefox plus 10% Chrome, at the time) would drop H.264, especially when Google also owned YouTube and On2 Technologies (VP8). Dodging the problem by leaving the codec support to the OS would fragment cross-platform compatibility if websites stuck with a Windows-only codec. Today, Firefox does use H.264, AAC, and MP3 decoders from the OS, but AFAIU doesn't expose any other OS codecs to web content. Do you think the current situation with EME DRM is "H.264 all over again"? At least now, we can sandbox the DRM bits and dump NPAPI plugins. EME and CENC commoditize DRM, separating content encoding and DRM. Content providers don't need to reencode their video library to add support for new DRM systems.
    - pdkl95 11y ago
      > fragment cross-platform compatibility No, it wouldn't have, in the long run. H.264 was chosen by the hardware manufacturers (phones, video cameras, etc), and the software world would have fallen in line. As they did. Besides, any temporary problems could have been handled by a fix provided by not-Mozilla, just like how DVD support was enabled in many distros (by downloading libdvdcss from France). > drop H.264 Believed the hardware industry would reverse years of designs based around H.264 is magical thinking. Software follows what the hardware supports (you are not going to get everybody to re-encode their cat videos). Anybody that believed that the browser market could trump the mobile phone market is showing they don't understand how de facto standards work. When Mozilla was arguing against H.264 5 years ago, they were already several years too late. Screaming at the tide to turn back doesn't actually work, even if your intentions are good. > VP8 ...was future technology. Once it was actually released by Google with the WebM container it became a relevant option (which was a good idea to support in addition to H.264 that was already very commonly used. The nonsense before Google released VP8 was merely wishful thinking. Much like how solar power advocates like to include "future improvments" in their claims, claims that H.264 was not needed usually suggested using VP8 while it was still vaporware. > Today, Firefox does use H.264, AAC, and MP3 decoders from the OS Which proves it is possible, and could have been done 5 years earlier to kill off Flash. > but AFAIU doesn't expose any other OS codecs to web content. They shouldn't, in general. Adding another list that can be probed for browser identification wold be a terrible idea. > Do you think the current situation with EME DRM is "H.264 all over again"? I think Mozilla is responsible for EME being completely accepted. Before announcing EME support, it was still possible to argue that EME was not supported by all browsers, an admittedly small reason for websites to not use EME. With Mozilla abandoning their mission (specifically principles #2, #6, and #7) to chase market share and become a Chrome clone, a major battle in the War On General Purpose Computing has been lost. If Mozilla cared about the future of an open internet in the slightest, they wouldn't support any form of DRM, with no exceptions. THAT is the place a principled stand should have been taken, not video codecs. Instead, Mozilla has chosen to let others pick the battlefield. The claim was that this was necessary to safe their market share. Well, that didn't work[1]. Now that Mozilla has given up the fight against DRM, the problem will spread. The ebook industry already wants EME-like support. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Usage_share_of_web_browsers_%28Source_StatCounter%29.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Usage_sh...
acdha 11y ago
You say “easily” – what was your plan for getting the web to move from Flash video playback to something else? The W3C choice to standardize the mechanism for requesting DRM but not the actual system seems to be about as good as we could hope for without a magic want to get content owners to stop requiring DRM.

The EME DRM specification was authored by Microsoft, Google, and Netflix. Now that the other major browsers like Chrome, Edge, IE, and Safari implement EME and it is used by major content providers like Netflix, Amazon, HBO, and Canal+, Mozilla is backed into a corner. Not that long ago, Mozilla tried to challenge H.264 on the Web. The Chrome team agreed to drop H.264 too, but they didn't keep their word and, without a public explanation, kept supporting H.264. When cat videos encoded in H.264 don't work in Firefox but work in Chrome, users switch to Chrome and may never come back. And now when video services people pay money for work in Chrome but not Firefox, users switch to Chrome and, again, may never come back. http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/html-video-codec-support-in-chrome.html http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/html-video-codec-support-in... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2093219 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2093219

pdkl95 11y ago
> Not that long ago, Mozilla tried to challenge H.264 on the Web. Ahh, hubris. They thought they could force the industry's hand with their market share... which was already starting to decline. By focusing on H.264 (and promoting Theora!), they succeeded in keeping Flash around as websites decided letting Firefox users stay with flash was easier and cheaper than listening to Mozilla's demands regarding <video>. Sometimes I hate bring right[1]... What they should have done is dodge the problem by leaving the question of codec to the OS. Instead, Mozilla decided to drive users away. Which was also the obvious end result[2]. I understand (and support) making ideological decisions, but it's also important to pick you battles. [1] http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1597850&cid=31643970 http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1597850&cid=31643970 ("Endymion"/UID=12815 on /. is me) [2] http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1597850&cid=31644218 http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1597850&cid=31644218
- cpeterso 11y ago
  I agree that H.264 was not a fight that could be won, considering existing H.264 content and mobile devices' hardware support. But I'm sure the situation seemed more hopeful when 40% of the browser market (30% Firefox plus 10% Chrome, at the time) would drop H.264, especially when Google also owned YouTube and On2 Technologies (VP8). Dodging the problem by leaving the codec support to the OS would fragment cross-platform compatibility if websites stuck with a Windows-only codec. Today, Firefox does use H.264, AAC, and MP3 decoders from the OS, but AFAIU doesn't expose any other OS codecs to web content. Do you think the current situation with EME DRM is "H.264 all over again"? At least now, we can sandbox the DRM bits and dump NPAPI plugins. EME and CENC commoditize DRM, separating content encoding and DRM. Content providers don't need to reencode their video library to add support for new DRM systems.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    > fragment cross-platform compatibility No, it wouldn't have, in the long run. H.264 was chosen by the hardware manufacturers (phones, video cameras, etc), and the software world would have fallen in line. As they did. Besides, any temporary problems could have been handled by a fix provided by not-Mozilla, just like how DVD support was enabled in many distros (by downloading libdvdcss from France). > drop H.264 Believed the hardware industry would reverse years of designs based around H.264 is magical thinking. Software follows what the hardware supports (you are not going to get everybody to re-encode their cat videos). Anybody that believed that the browser market could trump the mobile phone market is showing they don't understand how de facto standards work. When Mozilla was arguing against H.264 5 years ago, they were already several years too late. Screaming at the tide to turn back doesn't actually work, even if your intentions are good. > VP8 ...was future technology. Once it was actually released by Google with the WebM container it became a relevant option (which was a good idea to support in addition to H.264 that was already very commonly used. The nonsense before Google released VP8 was merely wishful thinking. Much like how solar power advocates like to include "future improvments" in their claims, claims that H.264 was not needed usually suggested using VP8 while it was still vaporware. > Today, Firefox does use H.264, AAC, and MP3 decoders from the OS Which proves it is possible, and could have been done 5 years earlier to kill off Flash. > but AFAIU doesn't expose any other OS codecs to web content. They shouldn't, in general. Adding another list that can be probed for browser identification wold be a terrible idea. > Do you think the current situation with EME DRM is "H.264 all over again"? I think Mozilla is responsible for EME being completely accepted. Before announcing EME support, it was still possible to argue that EME was not supported by all browsers, an admittedly small reason for websites to not use EME. With Mozilla abandoning their mission (specifically principles #2, #6, and #7) to chase market share and become a Chrome clone, a major battle in the War On General Purpose Computing has been lost. If Mozilla cared about the future of an open internet in the slightest, they wouldn't support any form of DRM, with no exceptions. THAT is the place a principled stand should have been taken, not video codecs. Instead, Mozilla has chosen to let others pick the battlefield. The claim was that this was necessary to safe their market share. Well, that didn't work[1]. Now that Mozilla has given up the fight against DRM, the problem will spread. The ebook industry already wants EME-like support. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Usage_share_of_web_browsers_%28Source_StatCounter%29.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/Usage_sh...

acdha 11y ago

You say “easily” – what was your plan for getting the web to move from Flash video playback to something else? The W3C choice to standardize the mechanism for requesting DRM but not the actual system seems to be about as good as we could hope for without a magic want to get content owners to stop requiring DRM.