3 ms·
> But the claim is disingenuous when used as an argument against DRM. Deprived of the ability to use browser plugins, protected content distributors are not, in
by MatthewPhillips 13y ago
> But the claim is disingenuous when used as an argument against DRM. Deprived of the ability to use browser plugins, protected content distributors are not, in general, switching to unprotected media. Instead, they're switching away from the Web entirely. Want to send DRM-protected video to an iPhone? "There's an app for that." Native applications on iOS, Android, Windows Phone, and Windows 8, can all implement DRM, with some platforms, such as Android and Windows 8, even offering various APIs and features to assist this.
> In other words, the alternative to using DRM in browser plugins on the Web is not "abandoning DRM;" it's "abandoning the Web."
This shows a lack of understanding of what makes the web great. There's really no difference between a native app and a EME backed DRM layer. The web isn't about the browser window that it resides it; it's about content rendering the same on every platform. A page using EME is not going to render the same on every platform.
This is the status quo, with development costs being shifted from media companies (who no longer have to write separate apps for every platform they care about) to the platform owners who have to implement an approved DRM scheme or get their own scheme approved.
- eridius 13y agoThis is pure bullshit. EME doesn't change how something is rendered, only whether certain content can be delivered at all. And we already have existing standards-backed cases where different platforms get different content (or no content at all). Coincidentally, it affects the exact same thing EME does: media rendering. I can deliver an H.264 video and be standards-compliant, yet rendering differently in Safari vs Chrome (because Chrome refuses to support H.264).
- azakai 13y ago> And we already have existing standards-backed cases where different platforms get different content (or no content at all). And that has been one of the biggest problems on the web, that we should reduce, not worsen.
- eridius 13y agoSadly, it appears impossible to reduce it, because the companies involved cannot come to a solution that works for everybody. So the two choices are 1) allow for this in the standard, or 2) throw your hands up in the air and not standardize it at all. We've already tried the "not standardize" route. It didn't work out very well.
- doublec 13y agoHave you got the wrong browser there? Chrome supports H.264 fine.