3 ms·

Maybe, just _maybe_ that would have been a viable pressure point to favour non-DRM content* if we were all running Firefox. As it is, too many people decided t

Maybe, just _maybe_ that would have been a viable pressure point to favour non-DRM content* if we were all running Firefox. As it is, too many people decided they are OK with a google browser. The answer to: "It's cumbersome to use DRM" is to tell your consumers to use Chrome. * I find this highly questionable. We have an abundance of examples of media companies favouring DRM over user experience. Clearly they think a less smooth experience is a price worth paying.

bostik 9y ago
> abundance of examples of media companies favouring DRM over user experience. I don't think media companies particularly care about user experience. They care about control. Once you have a piece of content (which you didn't produce) in your hands, and an exclusive distribution contract to guarantee the content producer can't go elsewhere - you have a monopoly over the content in question. DRM is an abhorrent, if natural, extension of this control-freakery. After all, you don't want to provide consumers control over how they view YOUR[0] precious content. The ingrateful bastards might find a way to enjoy the content without going through the hoops you've carefully put in place. What good would a monopoly be? As the sole content distributor, the last thing you want is competition. 0: Nope, you still didn't produce it. Someone else did. But now you own it. EDIT: grammar fix in footnote