10 ms·
HTML5 Video at Netflix
- dpcx 14y agoInteresting; but with nothing to test, it seems like vaporware.
- brianbreslin 14y agoSo Silverlight is getting EOL in 8 years. Will they keep updating it with new versions til then?
- andrewguenther 14y agoMy understanding is that it has already been axed. Microsoft supports product versions for 10 years after their official release. You can expect to see bug fixes, but no new versions.
- IThoughtYouGNU 14y agoRight, it has been axed. I support an application reliant on Silverlight for some rendering stuff and it has been axed on the Microsoft side, but some people still use it in their products, unfortunately.
- danjones 14y agoIt's great to see Netflix pushing for HTML 5 media encryption, it's one of the things the orignal spec for these elements lacked. Once it becomes standard across the browsers we'll hopefully see more media publishers come onboard supporting HTML 5.
- wmf 14y agoBecause EME makes the DRM pluggable, it's never going to be standard across browsers. Different browsers will have incompatible DRM plugins.
- notatoad 14y agoAs i understand it, it's a standard API that the browser exposes to external processes. The browser doesn't have any DRM plugins, just EME. the decryption happens outside the browser, and any decryption modules installed on the system will be available to all browsers.
- wmf 14y agoYou can say it any way you want, but Apple devices will only support FairPlay (which will not be available on any non-Apple platform) and I would expect Chrome OS to only support Widevine. There will not be interoperability.
- likeclockwork 14y agoAnd frankly, I don't want any of that crap on my machine.
- ihsw 14y agoIt's a binary blob loaded on-demand with hardware access, what's the worst that could happen?
- hsivonen 14y agoNo, EME is an API that the browser exposes to site-supplied JavaScript code. The JavaScript code uses EME to talk with a Content Decryption Module (CDM) whose exact characteristics (including the protocol you talk with it; EME sees byte buffers) is unspecified and out of the scope of the EME spec. The interface between the browser and the CDM is not being standardized. The CDM is basically a new kind of proprietary component that exposes a CDM-specific protocol to the Web and that is annexed to the side of the browser. You should not assume the distribution model to be the same as with traditional plug-ins: E.g. in the case of Chrome OS, the CDM comes from Google itself.
- apendleton 14y agoWriting a technical article about the standards process around web DRM without even obliquely addressing any of the criticism of it seems like a strange choice to me. Almost everything in this article was already publicly known; what I'd like to have seen was an actual rebuttal of the criticisms of, among others, Ian Hickson, so as to move the standards conversation forward.
- duaneb 14y agoI don't think it's in their interest to even acknowledge there's an issue.
- apendleton 14y agoProbably not, but then why say anything at all? The omission is conspicuous.
- laumars 14y agoCompanies like Netflix are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They'd sooner do away with DRM as it adds significant cost and complexity yet only serves to inconvenience their users. However they're forced into using DRM by the content owners who argue that such measure are required to protect their content. This is why their position on DRM is often left unspoken, they can't publicly discredit because they need the studios on their side. But equally it's hard to address the criticisms if they also agree with such criticisms. So it's easier to just avoid being drawn into the argument to begin with.
- DrJokepu 14y agoIf what you say is true, since they have started producing their own content (House of Cards), maybe they could experimentally distribute those shows (or at least some episodes) without DRM and use the results as a proof to convince studios that DRM is unnecessary and pointless.
- threedaymonk 14y ago
- dman 14y ago"We will remove this last remaining browser plugin as soon as WebCrypto is available directly in the Chrome browser. At that point, we can begin testing our new HTML5 video player on Windows and OS X." - What do they have against linux?
- flyt 14y agoProbably nothing, except statistically nobody uses Linux on the desktop, so it's not a priority.
- gnoway 14y agoMaybe not on the desktop, but there are plenty of people using it as a media center OS. Enough that someone went to the trouble of rolling a custom Wine distribution to get Silverlight + Firefox accessing Netflix. At this point it's just kind of silly to exclude Linux, especially when all the heavy lifting is already done; Chrome OS _is_ Linux, and I believe the Roku devices are Linux-based as well. The reasons Netflix might have to exclude Linux are not unique to Netflix, but somehow Amazon and Hulu - both Flash-based, of course - manage to support these customers.
- MatthewPhillips 14y agoI think in the short term Chrome will be a prereq to watch Netflix (fallback to Silverlight in other browsers). In the long term DRM requirements are going to change and hardware-level DRM is going to be mandatory. Speculation.
- mindstab 14y agoFrom Valve's Steam stats Linux has been between 2-2.5% in its first opening few months where as OSX is only 3.5%. If a Mac port is assumed, one might wonder if that should be extended to Linux. and it's not impossible we'll see Linux over take Mac on Steam this year as it stabilizes, gets more games and more people sign up.
- dman 14y agoYou should try xbmcbuntu on a htpc sometime.
- Laremere 14y agoI honestly don't understand DRM in html specs. Most people use open source browsers. To crack the "DRM" all you would need to do is open up the source code and slightly modify it. DRM only works when either the client side code hasn't been cracked or when the server side requires clients to log in. The first is impossible with open source, and the second is already a part of html.
- brigade 14y agoWhich indeed is why the implementations aren't going to be open source. The last I saw of the design, the intention was to put the entirety of decryption, decode, and display into a binary browser plugin and the HTML5 parts were only the bare minimum needed to push encrypted data to said plugin.
- azakai 14y agoYes, this is precisely the idea of the second of the three technologies mentioned (encrypted media extensions) - let HTML5 video interface with a separate opaque binary plugin that implements DRM. Of course such binary plugins will be browser- and OS-specific, so this is going to result in a lot of problems, and goes against the spirit of the web.
- MatthewPhillips 14y agoThe DRM doesn't happen in the browser, it happens either in the OS or on a hardware component. Encrypted Media Extension just provides a way to communication with the DRM component. It's up to the web page to choose what type of DRM they accept. Expect most to require DRM on the hardware. This means "premium" video is going to be fragmented. Big companies like Apple, Samsung, Microsoft will get it, open source operating systems and DIY devices will not.
- laumars 14y ago> This means "premium" video is going to be fragmented. Big companies like Apple, Samsung, Microsoft will get it, open source operating systems and DIY devices will not. People said the same about DVD and bluray DRM, yet they've been cracked and open source drivers distributed. Though it's sad that it ever had to come to that.
- rogerbinns 14y agoPresumably they are going to require proprietary native code running in the browser? If pure open source could actually play the streams then the DRM is pointless.
- MatthewPhillips 14y agoYes, your HaikuOS box won't be able to watch Netflix, unfortunately.
- threedaymonk 14y agoI suspect you're just trying to be a smartarse, but it hides an important point. It's not that HaikuOS can't watch Netflix, but that in the platform-specific DRM world, no new system that comes along can ever be a viable desktop without the blessing of the media establishment, and that this has the effect of entrenching existing players, especially those with money and connections. The corollary of that is that keeping illicit distribution going might be a good bet for a diverse computing future.
- MatthewPhillips 14y agoYou suspect wrong, I want the web to work the same no matter how I access it. I'm saddened at the likely future you point out.
- threedaymonk 14y agoMy apologies! In that case, I join you in sadness.
- mattyohe 14y agoWhat surprises me about this is that Microsoft is actually going to support Silverlight through 10/12/2021.
- stormbrew 14y agoStandard practice. It's really limited support. The Eeebox's video decoding hardware I bought just a few months ago isn't supported by silverlight and probably never will be, which makes watching HD streams on netflix nearly impossible. That's just going to get worse.
- mtgx 14y agoDoes it work in Linux?
- joenathan 14y agoLinux is only a kernel. The blog post says it runs on ChromeOS witch utilizes a Linux kernel.
- mtgx 14y agoI wouldn't assume so quickly that because it works on Chromebooks, it can work on Linux. Google uses a certain type of DRM for Chromebooks, and they've collaborated with Netflix for this.
- dj2stein9 14y agoI think if your intention is to encrypt your video content then you really have no business being on the web in the first place. Just build a native app and do whatever you want, and stop trying to bend open standards to be compatible with your business.
- whatsup 14y ago@djstein9, agree but seems like encryption is demanded by Hollywood, in time Hollywood and others (e.g., people who believe in patents) will see the stupidity of trying to block content, but this seems like a bridge to that path.
- jonknee 14y agoThey're are many legit reasons to encrypt video (CCTV, video chats, etc). The web is the platform of the near future, I'd rather support this stuff natively than need multiple closed source desktop or mobile apps.
- dannyobrien 14y agothis isn't about encrypting it to prevent others from seeing it. It's about encrypting it so the viewer can't control it.
- __david__ 14y agoEncryption != DRM. All of that stuff you can do now with SSL. No one cares about video streams over SSL. It's what happens after the SSL layer that matters.
- JeremyBanks 14y agoIndeed, but you're not going far enough. I never buy from any website that uses HTTPS! The idiots running them don't appreciate the open way the web is meant to be used.
- rayiner 14y agoOr, people get to use the web however they want without rigid "open everything" extremism. Netflix is the best business model on the internet right now: you pay them $X a month, get great content, everyone gets paid. DRM makes that possible. I find it far preferable to the advertising/spyware-based monetization model, which seems to be the only other viable business model for content on the internet. The internet standards should be flexible enough to accommodate both and let consumers choose.
- benburleson 14y agoWhat exactly is Netflix trying to prevent by using DRM? It seems like people are happy to pay for a Netflix subscription, even more if they could stream on Linux.
- MichaelGG 14y agoThey are probably trying to prevent breaking their contracts with the content providers, which, somehow, think DRM actually hinders things. We'll see how quickly the new Netflix-only Arrested Development ends up on The Pirate Bay. I have a Netflix subscription, but sometimes I still prefer to torrent. I can force HD, I can load proper subtitles (ones without all caps), I can fix audio or video issues (levels).
- gibybo 14y agoProbably about as quickly as the Netflix-only House of Cards ended up on The Pirate Bay: about 2 hours after its release.
- rayiner 14y agoAt equal quality?
- shitlord 14y agoI don't know what the original quality is, but for TV, there are usually 2 or 3 release formats (excluding webrips): standard quality (about half the height/width of 720p), 720p, and 1080p. The standard quality and 720p are usually posted a few minutes after the show airs, and the 1080p usually comes a long time later. Sometimes, episodes are even posted before the show airs in your region.
- rayiner 14y agoBut how are they doing the rips? Are they getting the original encoded stream, doing analog capture and reencoding, or what? If DRM forces them to do a less than perfect copy of the stream, that's a big win for the content producer.
- pvnick 14y agoHow feasible would it be, instead of encryption/decryption in the browser source code (which can be defeated easily), to do decryption and rendering in javascript, perhaps with emscripten + asm.js optimizations? That should provide a reasonable amount of security through obscurity.
- testbro 14y agoThe problem, as with any DRM scheme is that the plaintext is available somewhere. Figure out where the buffer is, read it via the JS console (or Pin if the browser won't cooperate) and you're done. Asm.js probably offers as much protection as a normal binary, although the niceties of the JS runtime might make developing patches to dump streams easier than in native code. I'd definitely say it's feasible, although I'm not sure it would add much beyond what Flash/Silverlight already provide.
- da_n 14y agoCan't the big media eco-system collaborate and develop a plug-in instead (open source, platform agnostic, an extension to HTML5 video etc)? I would rather download and install "HTML5 Premium Content Add-On" or have it pre-packaged in my browser/OS any day than have the internet itself be that much more opaque by design.
- wmf 14y agoiOS, Metro, and probably Chrome OS are not going to allow a new plugin.
- da_n 14y agoHow about Job's famous "Thoughts on Flash"[1] > we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript – all open standards. Not suggesting iOS would need to support it native or in Safari (though they might choose to), they would only need to allow developers permission to have it as a dependency in their app packages (Netflix.app, BBC.app, etc). it could just be a thin layer on top of HTML5 video element, just to support DRM delivery. Why is this less desirable than it being baked into the HTML spec itself, essentially breaking the open web? [1] http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/ http://www.apple.com/hotnews/thoughts-on-flash/
- pornel 14y agoBrowsers supporting all relevant W3C specs and all codecs still won't be able to play HTML5-based Netflix. Playback relies on Netflix's proprietary Content Decryption Module that they've given to Google to bake into ChromeOS. Netflix is replacing `<object>` + NPAPI plugin with `<video>` + Netflix CDM plugin. So their HTML5 player is as much standard as their HTML4 player was — it's merely a tag to launch a proprietary binary. Apple would have to license Netflix's CDM plugin and bake it into the iOS in the way that ensures it's usable only in ways approved by Netflix. There is no way to avoid that, and that's the whole point of EME spec that Netflix+Google+Microsoft pushed through W3C.
- ancarda 14y agoI wonder how long it will take for the DRM to be broken in HTML 5...
- k_bx 14y agoCan anyone please explain me the purpose of DRM used by Netflix? I mean, if you can see the movie, doesn't it mean you can screen-record it with pretty great quality? And it can be done with any of available programs out there. What's the point?
- ihsw 14y agoAppeasing the political class (RIAA/MPAA).
- shmerl 14y agoThey shouldn't be boasting, rather they should be ashamed about adding DRM to the HTML standard. And they present it as if it's a great achievement. Really unpleasant, if not even disgusting. And if someone here claims that Netflix don't really like it, but just oblige the crooked studios who push for DRM, what are they excited about then?
- bengillies 14y agoMaybe they're excited because it means that more people can use their service (and won't have to suffer the terrible experience of Silverlight). Just a thought.
- endianswap 14y agoBecause technical challenges are interesting in their own right, even if there is a larger political backdrop?
- shmerl 14y agoThey could say that, adding, that as a whole this is bad, and they'd rather not do it, but "no choice and etc." (no really?). But they didn't. I personally don't think that being excited about implementing an unethical thing is good.
- bm1362 14y agoI'm always pleased with Netflix- their product is good and so is their engineering. I'd consider them the ideal company to work for as much of their product is both cutting edge and customer facing. Looking at the open positions, I see no internships or entry-level positions in Engineering- anyone have any advice on landing a gig there?
- michaelrkn 14y agothey have a reputation for only hiring very senior-level engineers.
- nej 14y agoLinux support?
- pornel 14y agoOnly if Netflix chooses to port their HTML5 DRM plug-in (CDM) to Linux and makes the CDM API available to browser vendors (the W3C spec they wrote deliberately does not have this API documented). And this is unlikely, since Netflix and other cable companies stated they need strong DRM with OS and hardware support (which I presume is what they got in the closed version of ChromeOS).
- RyanMcGreal 14y agoI like how almost every single comment is a variation on "Netflix for Linux, please".
- lshemesh 14y agoPretty hilarious that almost all the comments on that page are related to native support in Linux.