3 ms·

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 distributi

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.
  - manigandham 10y ago
    > you could not use bizdev capabilities in DRM to be able to push your browser How is another browser different from a "secondary app"? It's the same thing.
gsnedders 10y ago
Or they'd continue to rely on Flash on platforms apart from iOS. Some of the motivation for EME is a power-play to kill Flash while replacing it with something browser vendors have control over (and therefore the exploit surface, quality of implementation, etc).
- vetinari 10y ago
  Relying on flash would be fine. The DRM-ed content would gain an image of being something obsolete, with association with Flash. It would be something to get rid of eventually. Meanwhile, with EME, it gets an image of modern, something to keep for the future.
herrkanin 10y ago
Rather, we would still be using Flash or Silverlight with its security risks. The current situation is imo better than what we had 5 years ago.
- vetinari 10y ago
  I have no problem having DRM associated with security risks... More people would think about it, whether they really need it and would question providers using it.
sangnoir 10y ago
> 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) It's a price I'd be willing to pay, but as a Linux user, one that I usually can't pay because few organizations care enough to write applications for Linux. Before it was supported by Chrome, If I wanted to watch Netflix, I had to use a brittle set up that involved Wine, a dodgy PPA, Silverlight, and a fake User-Agent string to pretend to be Windows. I jumped onto Chrome Canary to get Netflix support DRM at the earliest opportunity. I have no idea what I'd do today since Silverlight has been discontinued. I can understand why people wouldn't want to use Chrome with DRM, but I cannot understand why anyone would say it shouldn't exist/no-one else should use it. A sufficiently motivated person belonging to the first group could possibly create and maintain a patchset to keep Chromium DRM-free.
manigandham 10y ago
You are confusing rights management and licensing with its technical implementation. DRM will never go away. Licensing and access is a core part of distribution and even more important now with digital everywhere. It is far better to have a central standard and streamlined experience today rather than try to maintain a "clean API" which nobody cares about while continuing the terrible performance and security of external plugins.

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.
- manigandham 10y ago
  > you could not use bizdev capabilities in DRM to be able to push your browser How is another browser different from a "secondary app"? It's the same thing.

gsnedders 10y ago

Or they'd continue to rely on Flash on platforms apart from iOS. Some of the motivation for EME is a power-play to kill Flash while replacing it with something browser vendors have control over (and therefore the exploit surface, quality of implementation, etc).

vetinari 10y ago
Relying on flash would be fine. The DRM-ed content would gain an image of being something obsolete, with association with Flash. It would be something to get rid of eventually. Meanwhile, with EME, it gets an image of modern, something to keep for the future.

herrkanin 10y ago

Rather, we would still be using Flash or Silverlight with its security risks. The current situation is imo better than what we had 5 years ago.

vetinari 10y ago
I have no problem having DRM associated with security risks... More people would think about it, whether they really need it and would question providers using it.

sangnoir 10y ago

> 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) It's a price I'd be willing to pay, but as a Linux user, one that I usually can't pay because few organizations care enough to write applications for Linux. Before it was supported by Chrome, If I wanted to watch Netflix, I had to use a brittle set up that involved Wine, a dodgy PPA, Silverlight, and a fake User-Agent string to pretend to be Windows. I jumped onto Chrome Canary to get Netflix support DRM at the earliest opportunity. I have no idea what I'd do today since Silverlight has been discontinued. I can understand why people wouldn't want to use Chrome with DRM, but I cannot understand why anyone would say it shouldn't exist/no-one else should use it. A sufficiently motivated person belonging to the first group could possibly create and maintain a patchset to keep Chromium DRM-free.

manigandham 10y ago

You are confusing rights management and licensing with its technical implementation. DRM will never go away. Licensing and access is a core part of distribution and even more important now with digital everywhere. It is far better to have a central standard and streamlined experience today rather than try to maintain a "clean API" which nobody cares about while continuing the terrible performance and security of external plugins.