3 ms·

The alternative is forcing media companies to adapt to market demand. Instead we're forcing developers and users to adapt to media company demand. That's worse

by avaer 9y ago

The alternative is forcing media companies to adapt to market demand. Instead we're forcing developers and users to adapt to media company demand. That's worse than letting crappy proprietary plugins continue to die a deserved death.

acdha 9y ago
> The alternative is forcing media companies to adapt to market demand. Citation needed that there's market demand. A couple decades in, as far as I can tell the average consumer is all too happy with the current setup, which is why there's been so little effective opposition. > Instead we're forcing developers and users to adapt to media company demand. Developers … of browsers, who were the ones who backed this proposal so they could stop having to support the performance and security problems of plugins. If you're just developing a website which doesn't sell restricted content, your life doesn't change in any way. If you do, well, the contract terms haven't changed – the only difference is that you don't need to maintain a second development and hosting environment for Flash/Silverlight. As for the user experience, the only change from that perspective is that things have gotten easier. Most users have never had unrestricted commercial video so all they're losing is the need to install a plugin or pay someone to remove malware from their PC when they forget to update that plugin. Plus the fans don't stay on constantly when playing >480p like they did with Flash. I don't like DRM but if hyperbolic rhetoric was going to solve this problem that would have happened a decade or two earlier.
dasil003 9y ago
You don't know what you're talking about. Studios would rather kill streaming on PCs entirely, and force streaming to happen on approved devices than give up DRM, and they have the market clout to do just that. Bottom line is they have the content people want so they do what they want, browser makers have no leverage to play activist in this situation.

by avaer 9y ago

acdha 9y ago

> The alternative is forcing media companies to adapt to market demand. Citation needed that there's market demand. A couple decades in, as far as I can tell the average consumer is all too happy with the current setup, which is why there's been so little effective opposition. > Instead we're forcing developers and users to adapt to media company demand. Developers … of browsers, who were the ones who backed this proposal so they could stop having to support the performance and security problems of plugins. If you're just developing a website which doesn't sell restricted content, your life doesn't change in any way. If you do, well, the contract terms haven't changed – the only difference is that you don't need to maintain a second development and hosting environment for Flash/Silverlight. As for the user experience, the only change from that perspective is that things have gotten easier. Most users have never had unrestricted commercial video so all they're losing is the need to install a plugin or pay someone to remove malware from their PC when they forget to update that plugin. Plus the fans don't stay on constantly when playing >480p like they did with Flash. I don't like DRM but if hyperbolic rhetoric was going to solve this problem that would have happened a decade or two earlier.

dasil003 9y ago

You don't know what you're talking about. Studios would rather kill streaming on PCs entirely, and force streaming to happen on approved devices than give up DRM, and they have the market clout to do just that. Bottom line is they have the content people want so they do what they want, browser makers have no leverage to play activist in this situation.