4 ms·

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 bra

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

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