> the alternative is a worse UX from a plethora of more hostile, wider reaching proprietary DRM implementations. But we're going to have a plethora of proprie

> the alternative is a worse UX from a plethora of more hostile, wider reaching proprietary DRM implementations. But we're going to have a plethora of proprietary DRM implementations, each self-important vendor writing their own plugin targeting the EME API. And end-users will still have to track-down the correct combination of architecture and OS for each plugin, except multipled now for every streaming-media vendor that they use. For example, look here at the most-deployed DRM plugin currently available: https://www.widevine.com/supported_platforms.html https://www.widevine.com/supported_platforms.html Nothing available for *BSD, Sailfish, FirefoxOS... whereas current users of those platforms at least have Flash. The W3C's argument is that without EME, DRM-protected media will move off the open web into its own app-silos. But that's exactly what will happen with EME, too, except the apps will be hosted within browsers. Wouldn't this be a good opportunity to draw the line with browsers-for-the-open-web and apps-for-secret-stuff?