3 ms·

Why can't HTML5 be relevant without Netflix? Most gamers use Steam, not WebGL, and the internet hasn't fallen apart. People can survive using Roku/FireTV/Appl

by byuu 10y ago

Why can't HTML5 be relevant without Netflix? Most gamers use Steam, not WebGL, and the internet hasn't fallen apart. People can survive using Roku/FireTV/AppleTV/PS4/XB3/standalone PC app for their streaming movie services. And if Google and Mozilla would allow people to keep installing third-party plugins like Flash, then they could do that to watch Netflix inside their browser. If you become your enemy to defeat him, then you've already lost whatever it was you were fighting for.

gsnedders 10y ago
The difference between games and video is there's precedent for video: Netflix, e.g., has been on the web since 2007, games never really have. Videos moving away from the web would be far more noticeable to the average user than games continuing to not be on the web. There's good reasons to kill plugins: their security policies are almost always weaker than browsers and many security attacks on browsers and networks have used them. EME, even in plugin form, is in many ways better in this regard, as you can put it in sandboxes with fewer privileges.
- byuu 10y ago
  Removing the web client of Netflix would hurt them a lot more than it'd hurt Google and Mozilla. I really don't believe that without EME, Netflix would abandon their web client. They'd just keep using Flash, which I am fine with, since I don't use their web player anyway. But of course, Google wants EME, so naturally they're going to push for forcing out Flash. > EME, even in plugin form, is in many ways better in this regard, as you can put it in sandboxes with fewer privileges. I can't imagine anything you could sandbox in EME that you couldn't sandbox in an external plugin system designed accordingly. EME itself are plugins. Just don't ship them with the browser and enabled by default. That would do a lot to stop the smaller sites from trying to use EME on their content. Furthermore, EME brings in the DMCA, and the W3C won't make any strong claims about requiring researchers to be able to publish vulnerabilities.
  - gsnedders 10y ago
    > But of course, Google wants EME, so naturally they're going to push for forcing out Flash. AIUI, the larger reason for wanting EME is to kill Flash and other plugins. > I can't imagine anything you could sandbox in EME that you couldn't sandbox in an external plugin system designed accordingly. EME itself are plugins. Just don't ship them with the browser and enabled by default. That would do a lot to stop the smaller sites from trying to use EME on their content. Flash needs access to many, many more OS-level features than any EME plugin does, as a result of its functionality being a superset of any EME plugin (okay, theoretically an EME plugin could use them all, but there's no evidence of any trying to do so). An EME plugin doesn't: need access to any web cam/microphone (or other devices), unrestricted filesystem access, etc. All of those are things that Flash can do. Flash not shipping by default didn't exactly stop smaller sites from relying on it, though; once a small number of big sites rely on it and it has the installed userbase it's a relatively weak argument. > Furthermore, EME brings in the DMCA, and the W3C won't make any strong claims about requiring researchers to be able to publish vulnerabilities. Oh, I'm not claiming EME is good, but I think it's worthwhile understanding its benefits relative to the historic status quo if you want to argue against it. (I also have concerns about only worrying about the DMCA: other jurisdictions have similar laws around DRM and I don't think we should allow only those in the US to do security work on browsers.)
    - byuu 10y ago
      > AIUI, the larger reason for wanting EME is to kill Flash and other plugins. EME is also a plugin. Specifically, it's the Widevine plugin. Only now it's installed by default on everyone's systems. And Chrome is already playing games and moving the setting from chrome://plugins to being buried under chrome://settings/content. That "it runs everywhere by default" will mean even smaller websites will start using it to strip user freedoms. Read the comments here: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=675596 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=675596 Website owners are chomping at the bit to stop people from being able to save offline content. > Flash needs access to many, many more OS-level features than any EME plugin does Then make EME plugins optional, and don't ship them by default with browsers, and don't make them officially part of the HTML5 spec. Just because something is 'inevitable' doesn't mean you have to embrace it, if it's a fundamentally bad thing. This is usually referred to as 'having principles.' > Flash not shipping by default didn't exactly stop smaller sites from relying on it, though But it has resulted in many sites using HTML5 video. Especially when Apple decided not to ship it on iOS. And right now, I can right-click and save those videos to my hard drive, which is just lovely for taking videos on the go with me.
guiambros 10y ago
> Most gamers use Steam, not WebGL, and the internet hasn't fallen apart. > People can survive using Roku/FireTV/AppleTV/PS4/XB3/standalone PC app for their streaming movie services. I don't understand the analogy, or what you're proposing here. Steam is a pile of proprietary code, full of DRM. AppleTV/XB/PS/etc are all proprietary binaries, equally full of ad-hoc DRM. So yes, the internet hasn't fallen apart because of this; companies found ways to deliver what users want, using their own closed and proprietary standards. The only thing in common here is the use of IP as a transport mechanism; everything else is a pile of proprietary crap. This means no modifications, no reverse engineering, no using this in an unauthorized device, etc. For the so-called "web", there are basically three options: 1) don't include anything in the standard, and let companies figure out individually how to deliver what users want, while still complying with their policies, and eventually reinventing the horrible experiences we had in the past [1] 2) embrace the app-ification of the web, with browsers becoming renderers of proprietary binaries -- just like the examples you mentioned: iOS, Android-based devices (FireTV, Roku), XB3, PS4, etc. With mobile driving the majority of the traffic, and WebAssembly as an emerging standard, one may argue that this is already here. or 3) take the red pill, embrace that DRM as a necessary evil, and at least create a reasonably unified experience for users, getting companies to play nicely in the sandbox and reducing the risk of shenanigans [2] From everything I read so far, Tim's effort is to avoid #1 and #2 from becoming reality. He's not in favor of DRM; he's against the "web" getting reduced to a pile of proprietary code running over IP and using HTML5 (internally) as the markup language. [1] http://boingboing.net/2008/09/26/walmart-shutting-dow.html http://boingboing.net/2008/09/26/walmart-shutting-dow.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...
- byuu 10y ago
  > Steam is a pile of proprietary code, full of DRM. AppleTV/XB/PS/etc are all proprietary binaries, equally full of ad-hoc DRM. Exactly. And it's not on the web. DRM can survive off the web. We can keep the web open. Or at least, we could have, until Tim Berners Lee et al sold us out. I have no interest in helping media companies implement a ubiquitous, single-solution DRM. Especially not at the cost of the open web. > he's against the "web" getting reduced to a pile of proprietary code running over IP and using HTML5 (internally) as the markup language. EME is the same effect. A pile of proprietary, closed-source, DMCA-protected code that without which you couldn't play your videos. It doesn't matter which piece you consider greater: addition is commutative. HTML5+DRM == DRM+HTML5.

by byuu 10y ago

gsnedders 10y ago

The difference between games and video is there's precedent for video: Netflix, e.g., has been on the web since 2007, games never really have. Videos moving away from the web would be far more noticeable to the average user than games continuing to not be on the web. There's good reasons to kill plugins: their security policies are almost always weaker than browsers and many security attacks on browsers and networks have used them. EME, even in plugin form, is in many ways better in this regard, as you can put it in sandboxes with fewer privileges.

byuu 10y ago
Removing the web client of Netflix would hurt them a lot more than it'd hurt Google and Mozilla. I really don't believe that without EME, Netflix would abandon their web client. They'd just keep using Flash, which I am fine with, since I don't use their web player anyway. But of course, Google wants EME, so naturally they're going to push for forcing out Flash. > EME, even in plugin form, is in many ways better in this regard, as you can put it in sandboxes with fewer privileges. I can't imagine anything you could sandbox in EME that you couldn't sandbox in an external plugin system designed accordingly. EME itself are plugins. Just don't ship them with the browser and enabled by default. That would do a lot to stop the smaller sites from trying to use EME on their content. Furthermore, EME brings in the DMCA, and the W3C won't make any strong claims about requiring researchers to be able to publish vulnerabilities.
- gsnedders 10y ago
  > But of course, Google wants EME, so naturally they're going to push for forcing out Flash. AIUI, the larger reason for wanting EME is to kill Flash and other plugins. > I can't imagine anything you could sandbox in EME that you couldn't sandbox in an external plugin system designed accordingly. EME itself are plugins. Just don't ship them with the browser and enabled by default. That would do a lot to stop the smaller sites from trying to use EME on their content. Flash needs access to many, many more OS-level features than any EME plugin does, as a result of its functionality being a superset of any EME plugin (okay, theoretically an EME plugin could use them all, but there's no evidence of any trying to do so). An EME plugin doesn't: need access to any web cam/microphone (or other devices), unrestricted filesystem access, etc. All of those are things that Flash can do. Flash not shipping by default didn't exactly stop smaller sites from relying on it, though; once a small number of big sites rely on it and it has the installed userbase it's a relatively weak argument. > Furthermore, EME brings in the DMCA, and the W3C won't make any strong claims about requiring researchers to be able to publish vulnerabilities. Oh, I'm not claiming EME is good, but I think it's worthwhile understanding its benefits relative to the historic status quo if you want to argue against it. (I also have concerns about only worrying about the DMCA: other jurisdictions have similar laws around DRM and I don't think we should allow only those in the US to do security work on browsers.)
  - byuu 10y ago
    > AIUI, the larger reason for wanting EME is to kill Flash and other plugins. EME is also a plugin. Specifically, it's the Widevine plugin. Only now it's installed by default on everyone's systems. And Chrome is already playing games and moving the setting from chrome://plugins to being buried under chrome://settings/content. That "it runs everywhere by default" will mean even smaller websites will start using it to strip user freedoms. Read the comments here: https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=675596 https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=675596 Website owners are chomping at the bit to stop people from being able to save offline content. > Flash needs access to many, many more OS-level features than any EME plugin does Then make EME plugins optional, and don't ship them by default with browsers, and don't make them officially part of the HTML5 spec. Just because something is 'inevitable' doesn't mean you have to embrace it, if it's a fundamentally bad thing. This is usually referred to as 'having principles.' > Flash not shipping by default didn't exactly stop smaller sites from relying on it, though But it has resulted in many sites using HTML5 video. Especially when Apple decided not to ship it on iOS. And right now, I can right-click and save those videos to my hard drive, which is just lovely for taking videos on the go with me.

guiambros 10y ago

> Most gamers use Steam, not WebGL, and the internet hasn't fallen apart. > People can survive using Roku/FireTV/AppleTV/PS4/XB3/standalone PC app for their streaming movie services. I don't understand the analogy, or what you're proposing here. Steam is a pile of proprietary code, full of DRM. AppleTV/XB/PS/etc are all proprietary binaries, equally full of ad-hoc DRM. So yes, the internet hasn't fallen apart because of this; companies found ways to deliver what users want, using their own closed and proprietary standards. The only thing in common here is the use of IP as a transport mechanism; everything else is a pile of proprietary crap. This means no modifications, no reverse engineering, no using this in an unauthorized device, etc. For the so-called "web", there are basically three options: 1) don't include anything in the standard, and let companies figure out individually how to deliver what users want, while still complying with their policies, and eventually reinventing the horrible experiences we had in the past [1] 2) embrace the app-ification of the web, with browsers becoming renderers of proprietary binaries -- just like the examples you mentioned: iOS, Android-based devices (FireTV, Roku), XB3, PS4, etc. With mobile driving the majority of the traffic, and WebAssembly as an emerging standard, one may argue that this is already here. or 3) take the red pill, embrace that DRM as a necessary evil, and at least create a reasonably unified experience for users, getting companies to play nicely in the sandbox and reducing the risk of shenanigans [2] From everything I read so far, Tim's effort is to avoid #1 and #2 from becoming reality. He's not in favor of DRM; he's against the "web" getting reduced to a pile of proprietary code running over IP and using HTML5 (internally) as the markup language. [1] http://boingboing.net/2008/09/26/walmart-shutting-dow.html http://boingboing.net/2008/09/26/walmart-shutting-dow.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootk...

byuu 10y ago
> Steam is a pile of proprietary code, full of DRM. AppleTV/XB/PS/etc are all proprietary binaries, equally full of ad-hoc DRM. Exactly. And it's not on the web. DRM can survive off the web. We can keep the web open. Or at least, we could have, until Tim Berners Lee et al sold us out. I have no interest in helping media companies implement a ubiquitous, single-solution DRM. Especially not at the cost of the open web. > he's against the "web" getting reduced to a pile of proprietary code running over IP and using HTML5 (internally) as the markup language. EME is the same effect. A pile of proprietary, closed-source, DMCA-protected code that without which you couldn't play your videos. It doesn't matter which piece you consider greater: addition is commutative. HTML5+DRM == DRM+HTML5.