9 ms·

As Google was one of the main enablers of DRM on the web[1], this is hardly surprising. Basically without Google colluding with NetFlix, we would still have a D

As Google was one of the main enablers of DRM on the web[1], this is hardly surprising. Basically without Google colluding with NetFlix, we would still have a DRM-free web-standard. Remember that next time you start up Chrome. You helped Google do this. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5#Digital_rights_management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5#Digital_rights_managemen...

oblio 10y ago
Is having non-standard DRM-enablers really any better? There is a real need for DRM, people and companies are asking for it, it's not going away.
- chimeracoder 10y ago
  Yes. It forces the costs of supporting DRM primarily onto those who want to use it, rather than primarily on the browser vendors. As it stands, it is now legally impossible to create a fully standard-compliant web browser without paying licensing fees. That's a huge problem.
  - derefr 10y ago
    That's a separate issue, though; you could (at least theoretically) have a fully patent-unencumbered DRM standard.
    - IshKebab 10y ago
      It's not about patents. It's about closed source blobs. Sure you can write an open source DRM module but good luck getting Netflix to support that.
      - derefr 10y ago
        I was responding specifically to the point the GP post made about licensing fees. What I meant was that there's no reason that there couldn't be a form of DRM that wouldn't require "licensing" in order to use it. It would indeed still have to be a closed-source binary blob—because, like you said, Netflix wouldn't accept anything less—but it could be a freely-redistributable closed-source blob, that any browser would be legally in the clear to include without seeking out a licensing arrangement. Re: "it's not about patents"—while other IP laws (e.g. copyright) determine whether you have the right to just redistribute a copy of the DRM blob, patents determine whether you can reverse-engineer the original blob to make your own blob with the same ABI that embeds the same keying material, or whether that's also illegal. Patents, thus, are the ultimate difference between a blob you have to pay to license, and one you don't.
        vetinari 10y ago
        Why would anybody make closed source, freely distributable blob in the first place? Making zero money from it, but assuming responsibility for support (both client and server side) AND legal responsibility when hacked? Plus doing business development, in order to gain acceptance at all? I'm afraid you are asking for unicorns there.
        matt4077 10y ago
        Have you heard of this thing called Flash? Or Adobe Acrobat? Silverlight? MS Edge? Uber (the app, and incidentally actually/metaphorically Unicorn)? Google Maps? Netflix for iOS?
        vetinari 10y ago
        Flash is not free. Flash Player is. Flash is actually for-money product. Adobe Acrobat is also for-money product. You probably meant Adobe Reader, which is similarly positioned to Acrobat like Flash Player to Flash. Silverlight was and Edge is a way for Microsoft to prove value of the Windows platform, and in case of Silverlight, also of Microsoft developer tools. Isn't Uber, the app, a way to sell services? Doesn't Netflix for iOS sell Netflix subscriptions? Isn't Google Maps, together with all Google apps, a way to keep people online, use Google Search... and provide Google audience for ads? Neither of these would be true for a free DRM. Just like Flash player was financed by selling Flash, Reader by selling Acrobat, Silverlight by selling Visual Studio, Edge by selling Windows, Uber and Netflix by selling services, Google apps by selling ads - what would you be selling in order to provide freely embeddable DRM binary? And tangent question, how would you build your brand?
        matt4077 10y ago
        I'd be giving away the client for my streaming service.
        charlesdm 10y ago
        I've done some work on this last year -- it's possible to integrate with the Widevine PPAPI component (DRM library) included in Google Chrome to support decoding Netflix videos in any type of app. Not legal to distribute though, I think.
  - colde 10y ago
    Sorry, but that is simply not correct. You can implement a fully standard-compliant web browser by just implementing the ClearKey option. That has no patents associated with it. It is likely a much better issue that H.264 is the dominant video standard used, and that requires paying licensing fees.
- a_imho 10y ago
  people ... are asking for it where? No sarcasm, genuinely interested
  - coldtea 10y ago
    Content creators are people, and some are asking for it.
    - a_imho 10y ago
      Technically you are right, I read it as in consumers are asking for it.
- vetinari 10y ago
  Let's make an intellectual exercise. What would happen, if these companies would not get what they are asking for? - Would the companies go back to distributing disc? Hardly. - Would they make their own clients? Probably yes. And the difference wrt today situation would be what? 1) The browsers and standards would remain clean - unlike today. 2) Only supported devices and platforms would be able to play videos - Just like today. 3) If you wanted to play DMRed video, you would have launch separate application. In my eyes, that's acceptable price to pay for 1)
  - charlesdm 10y ago
    Not sure I agree on this. I don't think DRM is great (hate it, actually), but I do understand why the content companies would want it. If I were a content owner I would want to use some sort of DRM system as well, even if it's easy to circumvent. Does it really matter whether DRM is enabled in Chrome? It has to do with ease of use more than anything. I don't like it, but I don't see how not including EME is good for the end user, if the alternative is having to install a secondary app. You should want the whole process to be as frictionless as possible, even if that means giving up "amazing code quality" or "a beautiful standard". You can have great code and a crappy app. I don't think the world needs more crappy apps with great code.
    - vetinari 10y ago
      Sure they want it, if I were content owner I would probably want it too. From my POV, DRM enabled Chrome matters. It matters, because - it makes browsers that do not include DRM uncompetetive (especially those who have another business model or do not have bizdev capabilities of Google, Microsoft or Apple). - it taints the standards and, - sets the expectations or baseline for having the DRM available. If the alternative would be to install a secondary app, things would be more obvious: - that there is a price in developing, maintaining and supporting DRM, - that price would have to be paid for those who wish the DRM, - having DRM available would not be seen as automatic, - you could not use bizdev capabilities in DRM to be able to push your browser - i.e., only Edge supports Netflix in FullHD (Chrome only in 720p). Yes, the official excuse is that Edge supports DRM X and Chrome only DRM Y, but in the end, it is only a business deal that DRM X is deemed acceptable for FHD and DRM Y is not.
- schiffern 10y ago
  > Is having non-standard DRM-enablers really any better? There is a real need for DRM, people and companies are asking for it, it's not going away. >it's not going away "Powerful people are forcing it on everyone, therefore it's good." Sorry, not buying it.
- pornel 10y ago
  Note that there is no standard for the DRM itself. You can't play Netflix using W3C's specs. The EME standard is only a JS API for launching arbitrary and deliberately non-standard DMCA-protected Content Decryption Modules (which are like plug-ins, but bundled with the browser). In this regard EME is even more closed and less standardized than Flash and Silverlight were. The de-facto NPAPI was at least known and could be used by anyone. Now the CDM API is a vendor-specific DMCA-protected secret.
  - charlesdm 10y ago
    But, unlike Flash and Silverlight, they actually work well out of the box in for example Chrome and Safari. That's a first. If the alternative is installing a secondary app, I'll take embedded DRM any day of the week.
    - pornel 10y ago
      We've traded freedom for convenience here. You used to be able to integrate playback with any browser you like. Now you can only watch Netflix in browsers that have a contract with a Netflix-approved CDM vendor. Netflix now has both legal and technical means to control what browsers are allowed to do, and they can prevent you from using an open-source browser to avoid it.
      - charlesdm 10y ago
        We sure did. But for that same reason I often prefer using a commercial product with a limited functionality subset vs an open source equivalent which supports literally every feature imaginable. Convenience. It just works for what I need it to do.
- ouid 10y ago
  DRM is physically impossible. In order to enjoy content, at some point in the delivery chain, it must be decoded to a human readable format. There may be a desire for DRM, but there is also a desire for time travel.
  - manigandham 10y ago
    Very little in this world is based on absolutes. It's all about the relative costs of one thing vs another.
  - jhbadger 10y ago
    Locks are physically impossible by exactly the same argument. In order to enter cars and homes, at some point doors must be opened. The fact that people have managed to circumvent locks hasn't made them any less desirable -- the mere act of making it difficult, if not impossible to circumvent has value.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - ouid 10y ago
      This assertion is just wrong. It's wrong in at least 4 ways, but I'm only going to give one, because I think you should be working this out on your own. The reason people don't take advantage of the time when my door is open is because of the active security measures at that point. In particular, I am present, I represent a reasonable amount of security just by being present, and the law is also present. The reason that theft is rare is because theft is illegal, and confrontational, not because theft is hard.
      - jhbadger 10y ago
        People who want to burglar somebody's car or home are generally smart enough to wait until there isn't anybody in them, so I'm not sure what presence has to do with the issue. It's kind of beside the point of the analogy anyway. The point is if you can open a locked door with a valid key, a skilled person can get past the lock with their lockpicking tools, much as hackers can get through DRM. But in both cases, casual unauthorized access is prevented.
voltagex_ 10y ago
The alternative is not watching Netflix in Chrome.
byuu 10y ago
Firefox turning itself into a pale imitation of Chrome helped Google do this. It's not fair to put all the blame on Chrome users. I don't want to use Chrome, but I really don't want to use Chrome's ugly sister Firefox. I held out on Firefox 28, faking a later version in the user agent, as long as possible. Eventually too much of the web no longer worked, so I had to abandon ship. All major browser vendors are in a race to the bottom to remove as much flexibility and configurability as possible from their users. We can't win no matter which browser we use, so it's only going to keep getting worse.
- chii 10y ago
  when was the last time you used Firefox? it's pretty good these days.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - vetinari 10y ago
    The policies of ramming stuff down the throat in order to please a mythical user (and failing) are still at full swing at Mozilla. Now they are removing their strong advantage (extensions) in order to improve their weakness (perceived speed) at full speed. I fully expect them to succeed at first and fail at the second, bleeding users in the process.
  - byuu 10y ago
    Version 41. List of misfeatures off the top of my head, in rough order of annoyance: * Australis GUI (Chrome clone) [1] * Loss of tabs on bottom (Chrome has this issue too) [1] * Ads on home screen [2] * Forced integration of extensions I don't want (Hello, Pocket) [3] * Plans to kill XUL extensions and instead use awful Chrome extensions * Forced code signing to install extensions (Chrome has problems here too) * Support of EME, or DRM (Chrome has this issue, too) [4] * Bloated dropdown list of matched sites when typing in URL bar [5] * Removal of option to not keep download history [6] * Burying of countless options (like Javascript permissions) into about:config [1] I won't even be able to use Classic Theme Restorer once XUL extension support is removed. [2] I hear these may be gone now, but that it was ever implemented concerns me. I do not want adware in any software I use. [3] I hear Hello is gone, but Pocket is still there. [4] I don't care about Netflix. Mozilla betrayed their promise of an open web by caving on this front. [5] It used to take one line per match. Now it has this multi-line mess that takes up far more screen space to display the exact same amount of information. Oldbar extension restores this, but will break like Classic Theme Restorer soon. [6] unless I also turn off no browsing history. But I want browsing history. There used to even be an about:config option you could add (browser.download.retention) to restore this behavior, but they removed it. Overall, it's just the complete and utter disregard by the Firefox dev team for their user base. Every single issue I've mentioned has had lots of bug/feature requests, begging the developers for options to do things the old way. All of them shot down completely. If Firefox wants to keep turning itself into Chrome, then I might as well use Chrome. At least Chrome is faster and doesn't ship with Pocket.
gribbly 10y ago
>Basically without Google colluding with NetFlix, we would still have a DRM-free web-standard. >Remember that next time you start up Chrome. You helped Google do this. For some reason you left out Microsoft who was also part of that gang who lobbied for EME... next time you boot windows and load up Edge, remember you helped Microsoft do this... Of course the real demand for DRM comes from the content owners, aka Hollywood etc, who for some reason seem to think it has an effect on piracy, despite all the evidence to the contrary. What does seem to have an effect on piracy is to give customers decent offers, like the netflix model, a fixed affordable fee that gives you access to a great library of content when you want it.
- chii 10y ago
  > like the netflix model, a fixed affordable fee if it's affordable, that means they aren't maximizing value extraction! Think of the unpaid dollars the company could've been receiving, if they only can charge as high as the consumer can afford!
  - rz2k 10y ago
    They're charging consumers as much as they can. There was a backlash when they tried to raise rates. They ended up without enough revenue to get the same catalog from content owners that were increasingly wary. I'd pay a few dollars more if I could expect any movie I looked for to be available, but other consumers disagree so I can't. Some of the in house entertainment they produced in response is good though.
- josteink 10y ago
  > For some reason you left out Microsoft who was also part of that gang who lobbied for EME. I left them out seeing as at the time they had less than 1% market-share. They did not represent the muscle or deciding-factor which caused Netflix to proceed as they did. And I did clearly not isolate Google as the sole responsible party. I said they were "one of" the enablers. All in all, I think my comment holds up well. > next time you boot windows and load up Edge Which is why I don't use Edge either. That was easy.
- 10y ago

oblio 10y ago

Is having non-standard DRM-enablers really any better? There is a real need for DRM, people and companies are asking for it, it's not going away.

chimeracoder 10y ago
Yes. It forces the costs of supporting DRM primarily onto those who want to use it, rather than primarily on the browser vendors. As it stands, it is now legally impossible to create a fully standard-compliant web browser without paying licensing fees. That's a huge problem.
- derefr 10y ago
  That's a separate issue, though; you could (at least theoretically) have a fully patent-unencumbered DRM standard.
  - IshKebab 10y ago
    It's not about patents. It's about closed source blobs. Sure you can write an open source DRM module but good luck getting Netflix to support that.
    - derefr 10y ago
      I was responding specifically to the point the GP post made about licensing fees. What I meant was that there's no reason that there couldn't be a form of DRM that wouldn't require "licensing" in order to use it. It would indeed still have to be a closed-source binary blob—because, like you said, Netflix wouldn't accept anything less—but it could be a freely-redistributable closed-source blob, that any browser would be legally in the clear to include without seeking out a licensing arrangement. Re: "it's not about patents"—while other IP laws (e.g. copyright) determine whether you have the right to just redistribute a copy of the DRM blob, patents determine whether you can reverse-engineer the original blob to make your own blob with the same ABI that embeds the same keying material, or whether that's also illegal. Patents, thus, are the ultimate difference between a blob you have to pay to license, and one you don't.
      - vetinari 10y ago
        Why would anybody make closed source, freely distributable blob in the first place? Making zero money from it, but assuming responsibility for support (both client and server side) AND legal responsibility when hacked? Plus doing business development, in order to gain acceptance at all? I'm afraid you are asking for unicorns there.
        matt4077 10y ago
        Have you heard of this thing called Flash? Or Adobe Acrobat? Silverlight? MS Edge? Uber (the app, and incidentally actually/metaphorically Unicorn)? Google Maps? Netflix for iOS?
        vetinari 10y ago
        Flash is not free. Flash Player is. Flash is actually for-money product. Adobe Acrobat is also for-money product. You probably meant Adobe Reader, which is similarly positioned to Acrobat like Flash Player to Flash. Silverlight was and Edge is a way for Microsoft to prove value of the Windows platform, and in case of Silverlight, also of Microsoft developer tools. Isn't Uber, the app, a way to sell services? Doesn't Netflix for iOS sell Netflix subscriptions? Isn't Google Maps, together with all Google apps, a way to keep people online, use Google Search... and provide Google audience for ads? Neither of these would be true for a free DRM. Just like Flash player was financed by selling Flash, Reader by selling Acrobat, Silverlight by selling Visual Studio, Edge by selling Windows, Uber and Netflix by selling services, Google apps by selling ads - what would you be selling in order to provide freely embeddable DRM binary? And tangent question, how would you build your brand?
        matt4077 10y ago
        I'd be giving away the client for my streaming service.
        charlesdm 10y ago
        I've done some work on this last year -- it's possible to integrate with the Widevine PPAPI component (DRM library) included in Google Chrome to support decoding Netflix videos in any type of app. Not legal to distribute though, I think.
- colde 10y ago
  Sorry, but that is simply not correct. You can implement a fully standard-compliant web browser by just implementing the ClearKey option. That has no patents associated with it. It is likely a much better issue that H.264 is the dominant video standard used, and that requires paying licensing fees.
a_imho 10y ago
people ... are asking for it where? No sarcasm, genuinely interested
- coldtea 10y ago
  Content creators are people, and some are asking for it.
  - a_imho 10y ago
    Technically you are right, I read it as in consumers are asking for it.
vetinari 10y ago
Let's make an intellectual exercise. What would happen, if these companies would not get what they are asking for? - Would the companies go back to distributing disc? Hardly. - Would they make their own clients? Probably yes. And the difference wrt today situation would be what? 1) The browsers and standards would remain clean - unlike today. 2) Only supported devices and platforms would be able to play videos - Just like today. 3) If you wanted to play DMRed video, you would have launch separate application. In my eyes, that's acceptable price to pay for 1)
- charlesdm 10y ago
  Not sure I agree on this. I don't think DRM is great (hate it, actually), but I do understand why the content companies would want it. If I were a content owner I would want to use some sort of DRM system as well, even if it's easy to circumvent. Does it really matter whether DRM is enabled in Chrome? It has to do with ease of use more than anything. I don't like it, but I don't see how not including EME is good for the end user, if the alternative is having to install a secondary app. You should want the whole process to be as frictionless as possible, even if that means giving up "amazing code quality" or "a beautiful standard". You can have great code and a crappy app. I don't think the world needs more crappy apps with great code.
  - vetinari 10y ago
    Sure they want it, if I were content owner I would probably want it too. From my POV, DRM enabled Chrome matters. It matters, because - it makes browsers that do not include DRM uncompetetive (especially those who have another business model or do not have bizdev capabilities of Google, Microsoft or Apple). - it taints the standards and, - sets the expectations or baseline for having the DRM available. If the alternative would be to install a secondary app, things would be more obvious: - that there is a price in developing, maintaining and supporting DRM, - that price would have to be paid for those who wish the DRM, - having DRM available would not be seen as automatic, - you could not use bizdev capabilities in DRM to be able to push your browser - i.e., only Edge supports Netflix in FullHD (Chrome only in 720p). Yes, the official excuse is that Edge supports DRM X and Chrome only DRM Y, but in the end, it is only a business deal that DRM X is deemed acceptable for FHD and DRM Y is not.
schiffern 10y ago
> Is having non-standard DRM-enablers really any better? There is a real need for DRM, people and companies are asking for it, it's not going away. >it's not going away "Powerful people are forcing it on everyone, therefore it's good." Sorry, not buying it.
pornel 10y ago
Note that there is no standard for the DRM itself. You can't play Netflix using W3C's specs. The EME standard is only a JS API for launching arbitrary and deliberately non-standard DMCA-protected Content Decryption Modules (which are like plug-ins, but bundled with the browser). In this regard EME is even more closed and less standardized than Flash and Silverlight were. The de-facto NPAPI was at least known and could be used by anyone. Now the CDM API is a vendor-specific DMCA-protected secret.
- charlesdm 10y ago
  But, unlike Flash and Silverlight, they actually work well out of the box in for example Chrome and Safari. That's a first. If the alternative is installing a secondary app, I'll take embedded DRM any day of the week.
  - pornel 10y ago
    We've traded freedom for convenience here. You used to be able to integrate playback with any browser you like. Now you can only watch Netflix in browsers that have a contract with a Netflix-approved CDM vendor. Netflix now has both legal and technical means to control what browsers are allowed to do, and they can prevent you from using an open-source browser to avoid it.
    - charlesdm 10y ago
      We sure did. But for that same reason I often prefer using a commercial product with a limited functionality subset vs an open source equivalent which supports literally every feature imaginable. Convenience. It just works for what I need it to do.
ouid 10y ago
DRM is physically impossible. In order to enjoy content, at some point in the delivery chain, it must be decoded to a human readable format. There may be a desire for DRM, but there is also a desire for time travel.
- manigandham 10y ago
  Very little in this world is based on absolutes. It's all about the relative costs of one thing vs another.
- jhbadger 10y ago
  Locks are physically impossible by exactly the same argument. In order to enter cars and homes, at some point doors must be opened. The fact that people have managed to circumvent locks hasn't made them any less desirable -- the mere act of making it difficult, if not impossible to circumvent has value.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - ouid 10y ago
    This assertion is just wrong. It's wrong in at least 4 ways, but I'm only going to give one, because I think you should be working this out on your own. The reason people don't take advantage of the time when my door is open is because of the active security measures at that point. In particular, I am present, I represent a reasonable amount of security just by being present, and the law is also present. The reason that theft is rare is because theft is illegal, and confrontational, not because theft is hard.
    - jhbadger 10y ago
      People who want to burglar somebody's car or home are generally smart enough to wait until there isn't anybody in them, so I'm not sure what presence has to do with the issue. It's kind of beside the point of the analogy anyway. The point is if you can open a locked door with a valid key, a skilled person can get past the lock with their lockpicking tools, much as hackers can get through DRM. But in both cases, casual unauthorized access is prevented.

voltagex_ 10y ago

The alternative is not watching Netflix in Chrome.

byuu 10y ago

Firefox turning itself into a pale imitation of Chrome helped Google do this. It's not fair to put all the blame on Chrome users. I don't want to use Chrome, but I really don't want to use Chrome's ugly sister Firefox. I held out on Firefox 28, faking a later version in the user agent, as long as possible. Eventually too much of the web no longer worked, so I had to abandon ship. All major browser vendors are in a race to the bottom to remove as much flexibility and configurability as possible from their users. We can't win no matter which browser we use, so it's only going to keep getting worse.

chii 10y ago
when was the last time you used Firefox? it's pretty good these days.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- vetinari 10y ago
  The policies of ramming stuff down the throat in order to please a mythical user (and failing) are still at full swing at Mozilla. Now they are removing their strong advantage (extensions) in order to improve their weakness (perceived speed) at full speed. I fully expect them to succeed at first and fail at the second, bleeding users in the process.
- byuu 10y ago
  Version 41. List of misfeatures off the top of my head, in rough order of annoyance: * Australis GUI (Chrome clone) [1] * Loss of tabs on bottom (Chrome has this issue too) [1] * Ads on home screen [2] * Forced integration of extensions I don't want (Hello, Pocket) [3] * Plans to kill XUL extensions and instead use awful Chrome extensions * Forced code signing to install extensions (Chrome has problems here too) * Support of EME, or DRM (Chrome has this issue, too) [4] * Bloated dropdown list of matched sites when typing in URL bar [5] * Removal of option to not keep download history [6] * Burying of countless options (like Javascript permissions) into about:config [1] I won't even be able to use Classic Theme Restorer once XUL extension support is removed. [2] I hear these may be gone now, but that it was ever implemented concerns me. I do not want adware in any software I use. [3] I hear Hello is gone, but Pocket is still there. [4] I don't care about Netflix. Mozilla betrayed their promise of an open web by caving on this front. [5] It used to take one line per match. Now it has this multi-line mess that takes up far more screen space to display the exact same amount of information. Oldbar extension restores this, but will break like Classic Theme Restorer soon. [6] unless I also turn off no browsing history. But I want browsing history. There used to even be an about:config option you could add (browser.download.retention) to restore this behavior, but they removed it. Overall, it's just the complete and utter disregard by the Firefox dev team for their user base. Every single issue I've mentioned has had lots of bug/feature requests, begging the developers for options to do things the old way. All of them shot down completely. If Firefox wants to keep turning itself into Chrome, then I might as well use Chrome. At least Chrome is faster and doesn't ship with Pocket.

gribbly 10y ago

>Basically without Google colluding with NetFlix, we would still have a DRM-free web-standard. >Remember that next time you start up Chrome. You helped Google do this. For some reason you left out Microsoft who was also part of that gang who lobbied for EME... next time you boot windows and load up Edge, remember you helped Microsoft do this... Of course the real demand for DRM comes from the content owners, aka Hollywood etc, who for some reason seem to think it has an effect on piracy, despite all the evidence to the contrary. What does seem to have an effect on piracy is to give customers decent offers, like the netflix model, a fixed affordable fee that gives you access to a great library of content when you want it.

chii 10y ago
> like the netflix model, a fixed affordable fee if it's affordable, that means they aren't maximizing value extraction! Think of the unpaid dollars the company could've been receiving, if they only can charge as high as the consumer can afford!
- rz2k 10y ago
  They're charging consumers as much as they can. There was a backlash when they tried to raise rates. They ended up without enough revenue to get the same catalog from content owners that were increasingly wary. I'd pay a few dollars more if I could expect any movie I looked for to be available, but other consumers disagree so I can't. Some of the in house entertainment they produced in response is good though.
josteink 10y ago
> For some reason you left out Microsoft who was also part of that gang who lobbied for EME. I left them out seeing as at the time they had less than 1% market-share. They did not represent the muscle or deciding-factor which caused Netflix to proceed as they did. And I did clearly not isolate Google as the sole responsible party. I said they were "one of" the enablers. All in all, I think my comment holds up well. > next time you boot windows and load up Edge Which is why I don't use Edge either. That was easy.
10y ago