4 ms·

They will only keep it up-to-date on those with enough market share. No Linux. Maybe Mac. For the slightly smaller players, on mobile, maybe only Iphone, or Iph

They will only keep it up-to-date on those with enough market share. No Linux. Maybe Mac. For the slightly smaller players, on mobile, maybe only Iphone, or Iphone + Flagship Android.

beaconstudios 8y ago
which when added up provides a viable market segment for a company that does not insist on DRM. Especially as the mobile device market continues to fragment.
- pas 8y ago
  Mozilla decided that providing this feature serves their users better than not providing it. Especially that users can turn it off. ( https://mat.tl/disable-eme-in-chrome-and-firefox.html https://mat.tl/disable-eme-in-chrome-and-firefox.html ) Firefox was forced by Chrome, and Chrome in turn was probably forced by trying to remain a viable platform instead of Netflix et al. simply providing their own desktop apps. (Though I'm only guessing, if you have direct knowledge of the what and why, please do share.)
  - wolfgke 8y ago
    > Firefox was forced by Chrome, and Chrome in turn was probably forced by trying to remain a viable platform instead of Netflix et al. simply providing their own desktop apps. The kind of users who are not opposed against DRM already have lots of browsers to choose between. On the other hand, people who are will now feel deeply betrayed by the Mozilla Foundation.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      And then there are people like me, who are opposed to DRM, yet don't feel betrayed. If you're opposed to a browser that can be used by DRM modules, Firefox was already not an option, since it supported NPAPI, and therefore DRM as Flash, Silverlight, etc. If you were using Firefox, you were already accepting that compromise. EME is simply a continuation of the status quo.
    - pas 8y ago
      > will now feel deeply betrayed by the Mozilla Foundation. Was there an explicit or implicit covenant by Mozilla and those users?
      - wolfgke 8y ago
        > Was there an explicit or implicit covenant by Mozilla and those users? I believe Mozilla's clear stance on DRM in the past (and its clear differentiation against other browser vendors in this respect) is near to such an implicit covenant.
- shawnz 8y ago
  Why would the producers of the content choose to license it to DRM-free delivery services though? Unless you are suggesting that Desktop Linux users are a viable market segment for triple-A content producers themselves, which I doubt.
  - beaconstudios 8y ago
    I don't know the answer to that, but it's a market that startups could potentially capitalise on. It would also not just be desktop linux users, but anyone not using the top N web clients (where N is chosen by said media provider to provide the best cost/benefit to maintaining the DRM on those platforms).
spacehome 8y ago
Meh. They can do what they want, but that was the end of my donations to Firefox.

They will only keep it up-to-date on those with enough market share. No Linux. Maybe Mac. For the slightly smaller players, on mobile, maybe only Iphone, or Iphone + Flagship Android.

beaconstudios 8y ago

which when added up provides a viable market segment for a company that does not insist on DRM. Especially as the mobile device market continues to fragment.

pas 8y ago
Mozilla decided that providing this feature serves their users better than not providing it. Especially that users can turn it off. ( https://mat.tl/disable-eme-in-chrome-and-firefox.html https://mat.tl/disable-eme-in-chrome-and-firefox.html ) Firefox was forced by Chrome, and Chrome in turn was probably forced by trying to remain a viable platform instead of Netflix et al. simply providing their own desktop apps. (Though I'm only guessing, if you have direct knowledge of the what and why, please do share.)
- wolfgke 8y ago
  > Firefox was forced by Chrome, and Chrome in turn was probably forced by trying to remain a viable platform instead of Netflix et al. simply providing their own desktop apps. The kind of users who are not opposed against DRM already have lots of browsers to choose between. On the other hand, people who are will now feel deeply betrayed by the Mozilla Foundation.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    And then there are people like me, who are opposed to DRM, yet don't feel betrayed. If you're opposed to a browser that can be used by DRM modules, Firefox was already not an option, since it supported NPAPI, and therefore DRM as Flash, Silverlight, etc. If you were using Firefox, you were already accepting that compromise. EME is simply a continuation of the status quo.
  - pas 8y ago
    > will now feel deeply betrayed by the Mozilla Foundation. Was there an explicit or implicit covenant by Mozilla and those users?
    - wolfgke 8y ago
      > Was there an explicit or implicit covenant by Mozilla and those users? I believe Mozilla's clear stance on DRM in the past (and its clear differentiation against other browser vendors in this respect) is near to such an implicit covenant.
shawnz 8y ago
Why would the producers of the content choose to license it to DRM-free delivery services though? Unless you are suggesting that Desktop Linux users are a viable market segment for triple-A content producers themselves, which I doubt.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  I don't know the answer to that, but it's a market that startups could potentially capitalise on. It would also not just be desktop linux users, but anyone not using the top N web clients (where N is chosen by said media provider to provide the best cost/benefit to maintaining the DRM on those platforms).

spacehome 8y ago

Meh. They can do what they want, but that was the end of my donations to Firefox.