3 ms·

> As such, I would at least prefer for most of the tech / architecture to be based on HTML5 stuff instead of closed plugins like Flash, Silverlight, Widevine an

> As such, I would at least prefer for most of the tech / architecture to be based on HTML5 stuff instead of closed plugins like Flash, Silverlight, Widevine and so on. It's not really based on open stuff. EME isn't DRM, it provides a way to talk to a DRM service (probably a hardware DRM in most cases). They are creating a false-sense of "open standards" when this thing still won't work in Linux and most not-locked-down platforms.

Daiz 14y ago
Yeah, that's the impression I've got as well, which is why I don't ultimately like EME. It would be a slight improvement compared to the current situation (since you could at least move stuff like video playback to HTML5), but would probably just make the situation of "closed binary blob DRM" more persistent and thus worse in the long run.
bzbarsky 14y ago
It provides a way for script to talk to a DRM service. Assuming the browser has a way to talk to one already. It doesn't do anything towards providing a way for _browsers_ to talk to DRM services; that's up to the browser manufacturers to license or whatnot.
eridius 14y ago
Unfortunately, this sort of problem is basically unsolvable for Linux (and other such "open" platforms). Either you get a proprietary blob that implements a protection scheme, or you simply don't get the functionality being promised. Objecting to efforts to make the situation better for HTML5 experiences on other platforms because it won't work on Linux is, honestly, pretty selfish. It can't work on Linux, so you're basically saying since it can't work for you, it shouldn't work for anyone else too. And that's just dragging down the state of the web to the lowest common denominator.
- summerdown2 14y ago
  > And that's just dragging down the state of the web to the lowest common denominator. Or up to the state of most openness?
  - eridius 14y ago
    Leaving out functionality because Linux can't support it isn't dragging anything up.

Daiz 14y ago

Yeah, that's the impression I've got as well, which is why I don't ultimately like EME. It would be a slight improvement compared to the current situation (since you could at least move stuff like video playback to HTML5), but would probably just make the situation of "closed binary blob DRM" more persistent and thus worse in the long run.

bzbarsky 14y ago

It provides a way for script to talk to a DRM service. Assuming the browser has a way to talk to one already. It doesn't do anything towards providing a way for _browsers_ to talk to DRM services; that's up to the browser manufacturers to license or whatnot.

eridius 14y ago

Unfortunately, this sort of problem is basically unsolvable for Linux (and other such "open" platforms). Either you get a proprietary blob that implements a protection scheme, or you simply don't get the functionality being promised. Objecting to efforts to make the situation better for HTML5 experiences on other platforms because it won't work on Linux is, honestly, pretty selfish. It can't work on Linux, so you're basically saying since it can't work for you, it shouldn't work for anyone else too. And that's just dragging down the state of the web to the lowest common denominator.

summerdown2 14y ago
> And that's just dragging down the state of the web to the lowest common denominator. Or up to the state of most openness?
- eridius 14y ago
  Leaving out functionality because Linux can't support it isn't dragging anything up.