3 ms·

> Am I missing something? Is this a case where an open standard Yes. The bit where this is an "open standard" to implement completely closed, non-standard plug

> Am I missing something? Is this a case where an open standard Yes. The bit where this is an "open standard" to implement completely closed, non-standard plugins, which cannot be implemented by reading the spec. With this "open standard" any browser or OS not blessed by Hollywood can't have a full web experience. And I take great issues with that.

maxerickson 10y ago
Another way to look at it is that Netflix isn't part of the web. I suppose that viewpoint admits that obstinance on the part of Firefox was not going to get Netflix to offer their service without DRM.
- cgearhart 10y ago
  Only insofar as Netflix was opting not to put their content on the web. Netflix was _not_ prevented from being on the web pre-DRM -- it's just that responsibility for meeting their requirements for access to content rested with them rather than browser developers. edit: not really sure how I messed up the original comment, which was an incoherent mess.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Huh? If a browser developer doesn't bother to implement an EME interface and get access to DRM components for their users, all that happens is that some sites don't work. It doesn't force any burden on the developer. I understand the argument about this making it harder to develop new browsers and so on, but eschewing EME probably wasn't going to prevent that from happening, it would just happen in flash or other closed code.
sandov 10y ago
Could we "fork the web" or something?. Someone could create a parallel stack of web standards that is fully free/open. For the most part it would be the same as the conventional web standard, but open source browser developers would have something to base their developments on, something like the "OpenWeb Stack". Sorry for my bad english.
- simplyluke 10y ago
  Could you? Absolutely. Would it be used widely? Unlikely.
- hsivonen 10y ago
  Uncheck the “Play DRM content” checkbox in Firefox, and you have your parallel stack right there. Does it still play Netflix that way? No.
cwyers 10y ago
I don't get it. You argue that not being able to visit Netflix "isn't the full experience," and so people won't choose a browser where they can't visit Netflix. So, because of this... all standards-compliant browsers should be unable to visit Netflix? So then why would anyone choose a standards-compliant browser?
- k_ 10y ago
  It is not "not being able to visit Netflix" which isn't the full web experience. Web-based DRM will spread to other services, maybe even to other things than video. I couldn't care less about Netflix, I never intended to use their services and never will, but this really is bad news for the web. Netflix on the web with a plugin was fine for me: people wanting to watch Netflix on their standards-compliant browser would need to install a proprietary plugin to do so, and would have done it (at least a great number would have, I guess). It was their choice to do so (the other one being not to watch Netflix in a browser, and yes it _is_ a choice). The difference (and it's big to me) was that it had _no_ impact on people not wanting to watch Netflix in their browser. These people did not have this proprietary code running in their browser and all the potential security issues coming with it. IMO the browsers should (and I don't actually know if they do or not atm, this is a thing I need to check soon) at the very least let people opt in or out of this. Of course if they opt out they wouldn't be able to use services like Netflix. And here comes the browser plugins world again... So much for killing flash (which was and still is a _great_ platform for small to medium web games).
  - cwyers 10y ago
    This again seems odd. Browsers shipped with Flash preinstalled, and EME in Firefox is a plugin. People are just tying themselves in knots to act like the status quo is a disaster.

maxerickson 10y ago

Another way to look at it is that Netflix isn't part of the web. I suppose that viewpoint admits that obstinance on the part of Firefox was not going to get Netflix to offer their service without DRM.

cgearhart 10y ago
Only insofar as Netflix was opting not to put their content on the web. Netflix was _not_ prevented from being on the web pre-DRM -- it's just that responsibility for meeting their requirements for access to content rested with them rather than browser developers. edit: not really sure how I messed up the original comment, which was an incoherent mess.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Huh? If a browser developer doesn't bother to implement an EME interface and get access to DRM components for their users, all that happens is that some sites don't work. It doesn't force any burden on the developer. I understand the argument about this making it harder to develop new browsers and so on, but eschewing EME probably wasn't going to prevent that from happening, it would just happen in flash or other closed code.

sandov 10y ago

Could we "fork the web" or something?. Someone could create a parallel stack of web standards that is fully free/open. For the most part it would be the same as the conventional web standard, but open source browser developers would have something to base their developments on, something like the "OpenWeb Stack". Sorry for my bad english.

simplyluke 10y ago
Could you? Absolutely. Would it be used widely? Unlikely.
hsivonen 10y ago
Uncheck the “Play DRM content” checkbox in Firefox, and you have your parallel stack right there. Does it still play Netflix that way? No.

cwyers 10y ago

I don't get it. You argue that not being able to visit Netflix "isn't the full experience," and so people won't choose a browser where they can't visit Netflix. So, because of this... all standards-compliant browsers should be unable to visit Netflix? So then why would anyone choose a standards-compliant browser?

k_ 10y ago
It is not "not being able to visit Netflix" which isn't the full web experience. Web-based DRM will spread to other services, maybe even to other things than video. I couldn't care less about Netflix, I never intended to use their services and never will, but this really is bad news for the web. Netflix on the web with a plugin was fine for me: people wanting to watch Netflix on their standards-compliant browser would need to install a proprietary plugin to do so, and would have done it (at least a great number would have, I guess). It was their choice to do so (the other one being not to watch Netflix in a browser, and yes it _is_ a choice). The difference (and it's big to me) was that it had _no_ impact on people not wanting to watch Netflix in their browser. These people did not have this proprietary code running in their browser and all the potential security issues coming with it. IMO the browsers should (and I don't actually know if they do or not atm, this is a thing I need to check soon) at the very least let people opt in or out of this. Of course if they opt out they wouldn't be able to use services like Netflix. And here comes the browser plugins world again... So much for killing flash (which was and still is a _great_ platform for small to medium web games).
- cwyers 10y ago
  This again seems odd. Browsers shipped with Flash preinstalled, and EME in Firefox is a plugin. People are just tying themselves in knots to act like the status quo is a disaster.