5 ms·

This is assuming quite a few things: 1. We the people are completely unable to use the power of market forces to come up with an alternative and supplant the e

This is assuming quite a few things: 1. We the people are completely unable to use the power of market forces to come up with an alternative and supplant the established market leader 2. The government will regulate this in a way that is better than the alternative 3. That lobbying forces and the general corruption that is widespread in D.C. won't impact that in any negative way. 4. That big tech companies aren't experts in skirting regulations or that Google doesn't already have a plan B if something happened to one of their moats.

selfhoster11 5y ago
Re: point number 1 - market forces can't fix lack of DRM support in a browser made completely from scratch. Even Spotify, and sometimes news sites ask to enable EME now (which I refuse out of principle). A brand-new browser already got squashed by Google's refusal to allow Widevine modules to run on said browser, and if DRM becomes a commodity solution, it's goodbye to the open market of web browsers.
- dimitrios1 5y ago
  But you just said the crux if the issue: you refuse out of principle, but that doesn't mean others share your principles. Why did Google's refusal squash a brand new browser? Why was it even a factor? Did it have to be? Is there an alternative approach one could take to not need google's involvement to include a Widevine module in their said brand-new browser?
  - selfhoster11 5y ago
    My refusal to allow EME content is entirely my own decision, and irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make. My point was that DRM (EME) support is becoming an expectation, and you are outright locked out from certain EME schemes like Widevine unless you're a "blessed" browser (which you can't be, yet - by definition, you're too small to enter any meaningful communication with a large player, as the browser I mentioned found out). > Why did Google's refusal squash a brand new browser? Why was it even a factor? Did it have to be? Said browser (Metastream [0]) was meant to build a different experience for watching video streams together, potentially including DRM-ed sources. Widevine allegedly has a 70% market share, so the refusal really was a big deal and a deal-breaker for the intended vision of the browser. > Is there an alternative approach one could take to not need google's involvement to include a Widevine module in their said brand-new browser? What do you propose, beyond technical workarounds that can cease working at any time? I imagine that there may be a risk of invoking the DMCA or lawsuits, whether wrongful or not (might makes right after all, and Google has the deeper pockets here) The right way to do this is to engage into a DRM licensing process, which is a fundamentally business-based one. And when you're small and dealing with a stubborn large business, there's no right to appeal their decision. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19553941 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19553941
stjohnswarts 5y ago
Market forces generally cannot stop a monopoly without government interaction. It's simply too powerful. They either buy upstarts or sue them into destruction in court. The only other way is if technology has a huge shift and the monopoly can't keep up before an interloper comes in and disrupts. That doesn't look to be happening anytime soon. I only see "Web3" and "Metaverse" and neither of those really spark joy in most people.
- dimitrios1 5y ago
  Chrome does not even come close to meeting the definition of a monopoly. Google is not "unreasonably restraining competition" nor is it even selling its browser. Besides that point, you have to be keen to distinguish between a situation where there is just a clear market winner versus a company attempting to monopolize, e.g. do people just prefer to use Chrome at the end of the day? Most internet users today are aware of Microsoft's browser. Almost all millennials and under are additionally aware of Firefox. The definition of monopoly isn't just "people choose to use this product in lieu of others" but something closer to "people are forced to use this product in lieu of others" or "people have no other choice than to use this product"
  - sirwhinesalot 5y ago
    Google goes out of their way to make their websites only work well in Chrome (and Safari, somewhat). This killed the original non-chromium Edge. Not sure if it fits a monopoly definition but it is definitely not good behaviour.
    - stjohnswarts 5y ago
      A lot of people won't think outside of the box and see that the definition of monopoly has to evolve with the times. It's not the early 1900's any longer, big tech is redefining the way we need to address lots of things.
      - dimitrios1 5y ago
keithnz 5y ago
if you look at the stats in the US, chrome is slightly less than 50%, safari has a much bigger slice of the pie (with edge a wee bit more popular than the worldwide trend)

selfhoster11 5y ago

Re: point number 1 - market forces can't fix lack of DRM support in a browser made completely from scratch. Even Spotify, and sometimes news sites ask to enable EME now (which I refuse out of principle). A brand-new browser already got squashed by Google's refusal to allow Widevine modules to run on said browser, and if DRM becomes a commodity solution, it's goodbye to the open market of web browsers.

dimitrios1 5y ago
But you just said the crux if the issue: you refuse out of principle, but that doesn't mean others share your principles. Why did Google's refusal squash a brand new browser? Why was it even a factor? Did it have to be? Is there an alternative approach one could take to not need google's involvement to include a Widevine module in their said brand-new browser?
- selfhoster11 5y ago
  My refusal to allow EME content is entirely my own decision, and irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make. My point was that DRM (EME) support is becoming an expectation, and you are outright locked out from certain EME schemes like Widevine unless you're a "blessed" browser (which you can't be, yet - by definition, you're too small to enter any meaningful communication with a large player, as the browser I mentioned found out). > Why did Google's refusal squash a brand new browser? Why was it even a factor? Did it have to be? Said browser (Metastream [0]) was meant to build a different experience for watching video streams together, potentially including DRM-ed sources. Widevine allegedly has a 70% market share, so the refusal really was a big deal and a deal-breaker for the intended vision of the browser. > Is there an alternative approach one could take to not need google's involvement to include a Widevine module in their said brand-new browser? What do you propose, beyond technical workarounds that can cease working at any time? I imagine that there may be a risk of invoking the DMCA or lawsuits, whether wrongful or not (might makes right after all, and Google has the deeper pockets here) The right way to do this is to engage into a DRM licensing process, which is a fundamentally business-based one. And when you're small and dealing with a stubborn large business, there's no right to appeal their decision. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19553941 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19553941

stjohnswarts 5y ago

Market forces generally cannot stop a monopoly without government interaction. It's simply too powerful. They either buy upstarts or sue them into destruction in court. The only other way is if technology has a huge shift and the monopoly can't keep up before an interloper comes in and disrupts. That doesn't look to be happening anytime soon. I only see "Web3" and "Metaverse" and neither of those really spark joy in most people.

dimitrios1 5y ago
Chrome does not even come close to meeting the definition of a monopoly. Google is not "unreasonably restraining competition" nor is it even selling its browser. Besides that point, you have to be keen to distinguish between a situation where there is just a clear market winner versus a company attempting to monopolize, e.g. do people just prefer to use Chrome at the end of the day? Most internet users today are aware of Microsoft's browser. Almost all millennials and under are additionally aware of Firefox. The definition of monopoly isn't just "people choose to use this product in lieu of others" but something closer to "people are forced to use this product in lieu of others" or "people have no other choice than to use this product"
- sirwhinesalot 5y ago
  Google goes out of their way to make their websites only work well in Chrome (and Safari, somewhat). This killed the original non-chromium Edge. Not sure if it fits a monopoly definition but it is definitely not good behaviour.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    A lot of people won't think outside of the box and see that the definition of monopoly has to evolve with the times. It's not the early 1900's any longer, big tech is redefining the way we need to address lots of things.
    - dimitrios1 5y ago

keithnz 5y ago

if you look at the stats in the US, chrome is slightly less than 50%, safari has a much bigger slice of the pie (with edge a wee bit more popular than the worldwide trend)