5 ms·

well, good riddance to flash, but Encrypted Media Extensions are definitly not an advantage, see for example https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/save-firefox

well, good riddance to flash, but Encrypted Media Extensions are definitly not an advantage, see for example https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/save-firefox https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/save-firefox

dingaling 10y ago
> but Encrypted Media Extensions are definitly not an advantage Yes, it is dishonest of Google to keep referring to 'the Open Web' when 'HTML5 video' is heading towards being simply an enabler for other proprietary plug-ins. The Open Web of binary blobs.
- jcranmer 10y ago
  I'm still waiting for Google Hangouts to actually use WebRTC and not require a plugin (or NaCl). Like they promised several years ago. Google has been really dishonest about their moves to the Open Web.
- fixermark 10y ago
  "Open Web" includes online commerce. It's still open even though people use HTTPS-encrypted data streams, for example.
  - supergreg 10y ago
    Browser makers don't need to get a certification to use HTTPS.
    - fixermark 10y ago
      No, but they do need to get a signed chain-of-trust certificate rooted to a certificate authority recognized by their clients' user agents. They also need a well-defined domain name that was registered through some domain-name registrar, somewhere. The notion that some parts of the web standard are pay-to-play is actually not new.
acdha 10y ago
EME is a huge advantage from a security perspective because it avoids pulling in a massive platform (Flash, Silverlight) just to play video. We can debate other aspects but from a security perspective moving to a small, tightly-scoped module is a big win and that's important when the cost of vulnerabilities is in the billions per year. It's also somewhat good for the web since both of those platforms are competitors and companies often reuse things they've already invested in. It is unequivocally bad that it poses a risk to Mozilla but the real problem isn't EME but rather the fact that all of the DRM opposition since the 90s has failed to move public opinion much. As long as customers happily pay for DRMed content and three of the major browsers are made by DRM vendors, the most likely alternative to Flash is a proprietary interface. The fact that EME is standardized at least gives the EFF better grounds for demanding consistent treatment.
- rocky1138 10y ago
  The only problem I have with supporting EME is that it closes the market for new browsers to enter because they need to get certification. What incentive do the current market players have for allowing new browsers access to EME?
- noir_lord 10y ago
  Leaving aside the ethical stuff what worries me most about EME is that it'll break my linux usage at as a desktop, with a few exceptions I currently have a web experience equal to (or better) than anything on Windows or MacOSX, binary blobs that may never make it to Linux are a concern.
  - acdha 10y ago
    Agreed — I don't see much chance for change in the general DRM debate but it would be nice if it at least hit the point of something like H.264 where there were standard terms available to anyone who wanted to implement it so a new player couldn't be frozen out. (Back in the day, we had a client who was working on a BeOS appliance. Plugins were a big deal since things like Flash were theoretically portable but Adobe wasn't going to talk with you for less than a certain dollar amount)

dingaling 10y ago

> but Encrypted Media Extensions are definitly not an advantage Yes, it is dishonest of Google to keep referring to 'the Open Web' when 'HTML5 video' is heading towards being simply an enabler for other proprietary plug-ins. The Open Web of binary blobs.

jcranmer 10y ago
I'm still waiting for Google Hangouts to actually use WebRTC and not require a plugin (or NaCl). Like they promised several years ago. Google has been really dishonest about their moves to the Open Web.
fixermark 10y ago
"Open Web" includes online commerce. It's still open even though people use HTTPS-encrypted data streams, for example.
- supergreg 10y ago
  Browser makers don't need to get a certification to use HTTPS.
  - fixermark 10y ago
    No, but they do need to get a signed chain-of-trust certificate rooted to a certificate authority recognized by their clients' user agents. They also need a well-defined domain name that was registered through some domain-name registrar, somewhere. The notion that some parts of the web standard are pay-to-play is actually not new.

acdha 10y ago

EME is a huge advantage from a security perspective because it avoids pulling in a massive platform (Flash, Silverlight) just to play video. We can debate other aspects but from a security perspective moving to a small, tightly-scoped module is a big win and that's important when the cost of vulnerabilities is in the billions per year. It's also somewhat good for the web since both of those platforms are competitors and companies often reuse things they've already invested in. It is unequivocally bad that it poses a risk to Mozilla but the real problem isn't EME but rather the fact that all of the DRM opposition since the 90s has failed to move public opinion much. As long as customers happily pay for DRMed content and three of the major browsers are made by DRM vendors, the most likely alternative to Flash is a proprietary interface. The fact that EME is standardized at least gives the EFF better grounds for demanding consistent treatment.

rocky1138 10y ago
The only problem I have with supporting EME is that it closes the market for new browsers to enter because they need to get certification. What incentive do the current market players have for allowing new browsers access to EME?
noir_lord 10y ago
Leaving aside the ethical stuff what worries me most about EME is that it'll break my linux usage at as a desktop, with a few exceptions I currently have a web experience equal to (or better) than anything on Windows or MacOSX, binary blobs that may never make it to Linux are a concern.
- acdha 10y ago
  Agreed — I don't see much chance for change in the general DRM debate but it would be nice if it at least hit the point of something like H.264 where there were standard terms available to anyone who wanted to implement it so a new player couldn't be frozen out. (Back in the day, we had a client who was working on a BeOS appliance. Plugins were a big deal since things like Flash were theoretically portable but Adobe wasn't going to talk with you for less than a certain dollar amount)