4 ms·

Browser makers have plenty leverage. A Firefox user watching Netflix will, and this is a tautology, be worse off if they cannot continue doing so. That may lead

Browser makers have plenty leverage. A Firefox user watching Netflix will, and this is a tautology, be worse off if they cannot continue doing so. That may lead to people switching to other browsers more often than dropping Netflix subscriptions, but the costs for Netflix wouldn't be 0, and may even be substantial considering the population of people using Firefox is self-selected to those placing a high value on openness. If Chrome were to ship without DRM, Netflix would cave faster than you can say "thepiratebay". See what happened to flash when it wasn't supported on the iPhone. There are millions of archived predictions of Apple's demised in forums such as this, but even though they had 20% of the market at peak, they easily killed flash. Unfortunately, Google has an interest in DRM for its own sake. This may serve as a welcome reminder that the awesome job they have done with Chrome is a result of an alignment of interest between them and the web community: they need the open web to compete against iOS and the closed Facebook ecosystem. That situation may not last forever. I'm quite happy to have had RMS and other true-believing ascetic martyrs shaping the techno-centric fantasy world we're living in. If your defeatist attitude had prevailed in the early years, we'd all be writing VBScript to animate the spinning gif on homepage.doc – yes, Microsoft once tried to push .doc to replace .html. I also think the music industry has proven quite clearly that you'll have a lot more success with carrots than sticks. I honestly don't know what benefit they think they're getting from DRM, considering all their material somehow ends in a .torrent anyway.

tptacek 10y ago
Not only is it not true that Netflix would cave if they didn't have native browser support, but we know it's not true, because Netflix for years relied on plugins to deliver over browsers. Meanwhile, every year that passes, browsers have less leverage as more Netflix subscribers get their content either on set-top boxes or mobile devices (where Netflix has total end-to-end control), and fewer are stuck with browsers.
- danso 10y ago
  Have to say that this mirrors my experience. Netflix as an app is ubiquitous -- it's on virtually every electronic device I have, from smart TV to Chromecast to phone to tablet to Wii U and PS4. I believe I have Flash specifically updated and enabled for Netflix (or one of the video services, HBO maybe?). If Netflix required a specialized Mac OS X, I probably would install it. I imagine browsers have less leverage when it comes to the average non-technically inclined user.
- onli 10y ago
  Netflix would not have the option anymore to use plugins now. They are gone, and browser would not bring them back just for Netflix.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    In which case Netflix would simply make available a "native" application for Windows and OS X, like Slack does, and everybody loses (except Netflix). Proof: this is exactly what Amazon does with Kindle content.
    - Nexxxeh 10y ago
      Netflix already have a Native Windows app. I don't know if it's still the case, but it was the only way to get 5.1 audio on PC. The app and Edge are the only two PC 4k viewing options. And both require a Kaby Lake CPU.
- syshum 10y ago
  >> because Netflix for years relied on plugins to deliver over browsers. They still do, you have to have the Widevine PLUGIN and the Open H264 PLUGIN to play content on netflix It is a pure myth that eme does not have plugins >browsers have less leverage as more Netflix subscribers get their content either on set-top boxes or mobile devices (where Netflix has total end-to-end control), and fewer are stuck with browsers. I am fine with that, I would rather have that than an HTML5 standard that requires binary plugins to work. I would rather have that then the risk EME brings to extent beyond video content to start having entire pages plugin bases, fonts DRM encumbered, and 100's of other consequences to this move that are coming
  - tptacek 10y ago
    I agree that it's a myth that EME doesn't have plugins. What EME does is reduce the scope of those plugins. HTML5 does not require binary plugins in order to work.
    - syshum 10y ago
      >>HTML5 does not require binary plugins in order to work. Yet... EME opens the door, and only the Naive believe EME will start and stop at Video Content. There are already requests for ebooks,and fonts. Images and and even web content itself is not far behind >I agree that it's a myth that EME doesn't have plugins. What EME does is reduce the scope of those plugins. Yes and no, if you buy in to the "perfect sandbox" myth then sure, but to believe CDM's are secure is laughable. There are too many hooks into the hardware, there as to be in order to bypass the user, for it to actually be secure. No the security is more protecting the CDM from the user, not protecting the user from the CDM
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- vacri 10y ago
  So the response becomes "so what?". Oh no, proprietary videos will move to proprietary apps, and free videos would remain in the browser. People aren't going to stop using browsers for everything else just because they watch youtube vids on the youtube app. Browsers just aren't going to suffer if proprietary videos move elsewhere - it doesn't matter whether Netflix caves or not. It's not like the rest of the world-wide-web that doesn't rely on DRM'd electronic files is going to follow suit and leave the browser.
scarface74 10y ago
Well. Look what happened when Apple refused to support Flash. Did Netflix all the sudden support HTML 5 H.264 video in the browser in a cross platform way? No. They wrote a proprietary app for iOS. Would more people have been served if Netflix could have had a standard that worked across all browsers that would have allowed Android users to use Netflix 9 months sooner? Firefox users were already viewing Netflix with a Silverlight plug in. Would you rather be stuck with an MS solution or one with input from various companies. As far as the music industry getting rid of DRM it had nothing to do with "carrot vs. sticks." The real history: 2003: itunes was introduced with DRMd music that only worked with the iPod. late 2006: other companies tried to sell drmd music but since it didn't work with the iPod, none of them could gain traction. Early 2007: the music industry asked Apple to license FairPlay. Apple refused. As an alternative, Jobs said that if the music industry would license their music without DRM, any music sold anywhere would be compatible with any player. His "Thoughts on Music" essay giving this alternative was widely publicized in 2007 (https://www.google.com/amp/readwrite.com/2007/02/06/steve_jobs_music_drm/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/readwrite.com/2007/02/06/steve_jo...) and was on the front page of Apple.com The music industry wanted variable priced music, the ability to bundle songs, a cut of every iPod sold, and a deposit to insure against losses due to privacy. Apple refused all of those conditions. To both decrease Apple's dominance in the market and to increase the competition, the music industry allowed all of Apple's competitors who would bow to their demands to offer DRM free music. Apple was only able to sell DRM free music by EMI and independent labels and they weren't allowed to sell music at all over cellular for the then new iPhone. 2008: Apple and the music industry came to terms and Apple started selling DRM free music. The only reason the music industry allowed DRM free music was to decrease Apple's dominance.
Silhouette 10y ago
That may lead to people switching to other browsers more often than dropping Netflix subscriptions, but the costs for Netflix wouldn't be 0 Maybe not, but since they already provide their content via various apps anyway, it's hardly a leap to them providing a dedicated, proprietary player on other platforms as well. If Chrome were to ship without DRM, Netflix would cave faster than you can say "thepiratebay". See what happened to flash when it wasn't supported on the iPhone. Flash continued to be the dominant platform for online video for several more years, major sites didn't work on Apple devices, and competitors literally ran campaigns with lines like "See the whole Internet"? I'm not sure you're making the point you intended to here. If your defeatist attitude had prevailed in the early years, we'd all be writing VBScript to animate the spinning gif on homepage.doc – yes, Microsoft once tried to push .doc to replace .html. This is just silly. At no point in the history of the Web, from its earliest days growing out into public awareness, was there any serious prospect of anything like that happening. Whether we're really better off with JS having become the dominant front-end language is a different question, but I digress. I also think the music industry has proven quite clearly that you'll have a lot more success with carrots than sticks. The music industry can sell its primary content at sub-dollar prices and still make a reasonable profit. Almost no-one else can.
josteink 10y ago
> If Chrome were to ship without DRM, Netflix would cave faster than you can say "thepiratebay". True or not true, this is just not going to happen. Google was the single browser pushing DRM into the web-standards to begin with. They were the first to ship with this enabled. And Google already has a vested interest in DRM. They have their own media-services now, remember...

tptacek 10y ago

Not only is it not true that Netflix would cave if they didn't have native browser support, but we know it's not true, because Netflix for years relied on plugins to deliver over browsers. Meanwhile, every year that passes, browsers have less leverage as more Netflix subscribers get their content either on set-top boxes or mobile devices (where Netflix has total end-to-end control), and fewer are stuck with browsers.

danso 10y ago
Have to say that this mirrors my experience. Netflix as an app is ubiquitous -- it's on virtually every electronic device I have, from smart TV to Chromecast to phone to tablet to Wii U and PS4. I believe I have Flash specifically updated and enabled for Netflix (or one of the video services, HBO maybe?). If Netflix required a specialized Mac OS X, I probably would install it. I imagine browsers have less leverage when it comes to the average non-technically inclined user.
onli 10y ago
Netflix would not have the option anymore to use plugins now. They are gone, and browser would not bring them back just for Netflix.
- tptacek 10y ago
  In which case Netflix would simply make available a "native" application for Windows and OS X, like Slack does, and everybody loses (except Netflix). Proof: this is exactly what Amazon does with Kindle content.
  - Nexxxeh 10y ago
    Netflix already have a Native Windows app. I don't know if it's still the case, but it was the only way to get 5.1 audio on PC. The app and Edge are the only two PC 4k viewing options. And both require a Kaby Lake CPU.
syshum 10y ago
>> because Netflix for years relied on plugins to deliver over browsers. They still do, you have to have the Widevine PLUGIN and the Open H264 PLUGIN to play content on netflix It is a pure myth that eme does not have plugins >browsers have less leverage as more Netflix subscribers get their content either on set-top boxes or mobile devices (where Netflix has total end-to-end control), and fewer are stuck with browsers. I am fine with that, I would rather have that than an HTML5 standard that requires binary plugins to work. I would rather have that then the risk EME brings to extent beyond video content to start having entire pages plugin bases, fonts DRM encumbered, and 100's of other consequences to this move that are coming
- tptacek 10y ago
  I agree that it's a myth that EME doesn't have plugins. What EME does is reduce the scope of those plugins. HTML5 does not require binary plugins in order to work.
  - syshum 10y ago
    >>HTML5 does not require binary plugins in order to work. Yet... EME opens the door, and only the Naive believe EME will start and stop at Video Content. There are already requests for ebooks,and fonts. Images and and even web content itself is not far behind >I agree that it's a myth that EME doesn't have plugins. What EME does is reduce the scope of those plugins. Yes and no, if you buy in to the "perfect sandbox" myth then sure, but to believe CDM's are secure is laughable. There are too many hooks into the hardware, there as to be in order to bypass the user, for it to actually be secure. No the security is more protecting the CDM from the user, not protecting the user from the CDM
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
vacri 10y ago
So the response becomes "so what?". Oh no, proprietary videos will move to proprietary apps, and free videos would remain in the browser. People aren't going to stop using browsers for everything else just because they watch youtube vids on the youtube app. Browsers just aren't going to suffer if proprietary videos move elsewhere - it doesn't matter whether Netflix caves or not. It's not like the rest of the world-wide-web that doesn't rely on DRM'd electronic files is going to follow suit and leave the browser.

scarface74 10y ago

Well. Look what happened when Apple refused to support Flash. Did Netflix all the sudden support HTML 5 H.264 video in the browser in a cross platform way? No. They wrote a proprietary app for iOS. Would more people have been served if Netflix could have had a standard that worked across all browsers that would have allowed Android users to use Netflix 9 months sooner? Firefox users were already viewing Netflix with a Silverlight plug in. Would you rather be stuck with an MS solution or one with input from various companies. As far as the music industry getting rid of DRM it had nothing to do with "carrot vs. sticks." The real history: 2003: itunes was introduced with DRMd music that only worked with the iPod. late 2006: other companies tried to sell drmd music but since it didn't work with the iPod, none of them could gain traction. Early 2007: the music industry asked Apple to license FairPlay. Apple refused. As an alternative, Jobs said that if the music industry would license their music without DRM, any music sold anywhere would be compatible with any player. His "Thoughts on Music" essay giving this alternative was widely publicized in 2007 (https://www.google.com/amp/readwrite.com/2007/02/06/steve_jobs_music_drm/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/readwrite.com/2007/02/06/steve_jo...) and was on the front page of Apple.com The music industry wanted variable priced music, the ability to bundle songs, a cut of every iPod sold, and a deposit to insure against losses due to privacy. Apple refused all of those conditions. To both decrease Apple's dominance in the market and to increase the competition, the music industry allowed all of Apple's competitors who would bow to their demands to offer DRM free music. Apple was only able to sell DRM free music by EMI and independent labels and they weren't allowed to sell music at all over cellular for the then new iPhone. 2008: Apple and the music industry came to terms and Apple started selling DRM free music. The only reason the music industry allowed DRM free music was to decrease Apple's dominance.

Silhouette 10y ago

That may lead to people switching to other browsers more often than dropping Netflix subscriptions, but the costs for Netflix wouldn't be 0 Maybe not, but since they already provide their content via various apps anyway, it's hardly a leap to them providing a dedicated, proprietary player on other platforms as well. If Chrome were to ship without DRM, Netflix would cave faster than you can say "thepiratebay". See what happened to flash when it wasn't supported on the iPhone. Flash continued to be the dominant platform for online video for several more years, major sites didn't work on Apple devices, and competitors literally ran campaigns with lines like "See the whole Internet"? I'm not sure you're making the point you intended to here. If your defeatist attitude had prevailed in the early years, we'd all be writing VBScript to animate the spinning gif on homepage.doc – yes, Microsoft once tried to push .doc to replace .html. This is just silly. At no point in the history of the Web, from its earliest days growing out into public awareness, was there any serious prospect of anything like that happening. Whether we're really better off with JS having become the dominant front-end language is a different question, but I digress. I also think the music industry has proven quite clearly that you'll have a lot more success with carrots than sticks. The music industry can sell its primary content at sub-dollar prices and still make a reasonable profit. Almost no-one else can.

josteink 10y ago

> If Chrome were to ship without DRM, Netflix would cave faster than you can say "thepiratebay". True or not true, this is just not going to happen. Google was the single browser pushing DRM into the web-standards to begin with. They were the first to ship with this enabled. And Google already has a vested interest in DRM. They have their own media-services now, remember...