10 ms·

Quoting Netflix, from the article: We expect premium video on the web to continue to shift away from using proprietary plugin technologies to using these new

Quoting Netflix, from the article: We expect premium video on the web to continue to shift away from using proprietary plugin technologies to using these new Premium Video Extensions. Quoting the article: According to Netflix, Microsoft made this possible by implementing three features in its still-unfinished IE11: The Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) using Microsoft PlayReady DRM. Netflix is using some doublespeak here. Yes, Silverlight was a "proprietary plugin", but they've just shifted to using proprietary DRM with proprietary extensions to HTML5. They got rid of the plugin--great! But they've replaced one proprietary experience with another.

makomk 13y ago
In fact, they've replaced one proprietary experience with an even more proprietary one. Silverlight was available on more than one browser and OS; this is Windows-only and IE11-only. I believe Netflix are already using EME on Chromebooks but they have a different, totally incompatible DRM scheme (Google's Widevine).
- tmzt 13y ago
  But even so, the DRM system was not available cross-platform. Something like Moonlight could process the data but could not play back encrypted video using the Microsoft DRM system. Each platform will offer a different DRM implementation, but there would be only one HTML5 player and would use the same API on all systems. I assume that they will continue to use Silverlight on Windows prior to IE11.
jiggy2011 13y ago
They will still be rendering the interface and probably the video with standard HTML5 components, in fact even the DRM - Browser mechanism is standardized. It's just that the DRM code itself may be proprietary. So this is still a step forward.
- lukeschlather 13y ago
  Theoretically one piece of it is now cross-platform, however the core functionality only works on one platform, and actually seems explicitly engineered to be incompatible with the Ubuntu computer I have hooked up to the TV in my living room. This is a pretty disappointing move, since I'm pretty sure Netflix will never run on that computer, and Netflix doesn't care.
- mtgx 13y ago
  In what way is it a step forward? Okay, they can now use default video codecs in their proprietary plugin, instead of the same codec being used in Flash. So does that make it anymore cross-platform than Flash was? And now instead of having "one" monolithic proprietary plugin, it's now more "decentralized" and you'll have to use "many" such proprietary plugins from Netflix, from Hulu, from Amazon, and many others, that may or may not be cross-platform. Why is the news only about IE (11 even). Does it work in Chrome and Firefox, too?
  - makomk 13y ago
    Well, the good news is that as an end-user you'll probably only have one monolithic proprietary chunk of code that's even conveniently integrated into your web browser. The bad news is that you'll have to hope that all the DRMed video sites you're using support the proprietary scheme your particular browser and platform use. In this case, it's Microsoft's PlayReady DRM. Also, the codec used is actually part of the proprietary blob, and there are no requirements as to which codecs or containers a particular DRM scheme supports, so in theory every DRM scheme could require a different, incompatible proprietary codec and they'd still all be 100% standards compliant.
    - jlgreco 13y ago
      There is also no reason to think that these binary blobs will be built for platforms that the video providers have not given two shits about in the past. Anyone who is supporting this stuff because they think it will get them Netflix on a GNU/Linux desktop (not ChromeOS or Android) is crazy. That's not what this does, and they don't care about supporting us.
      - makomk 13y ago
        So far, Google's binary DRM blob isn't just restricted to ChromeOS either; it only runs on official Chromebooks running the official Google-provided image that haven't been rooted.
        13y ago
counterpointer 13y ago
I think Google has been first in implementing the proposed EME standard in HTML5 video. The ARM Chromebooks have been already using it to see Netflix video since a few months. Netflix can use Silverlight in IE11, but ARM Chromebooks don't have an alternative way of support and don't forget that Youtube doesn't like people easily downloading their videos like they do now. http://hothardware.com/News/Netflix-Backing-HTML5-But-Not-Without-DRM-In-Place/ http://hothardware.com/News/Netflix-Backing-HTML5-But-Not-Wi... And I think Chrome nightlies had the web DRM in place but were not enabled by default? Don't quote me on that. Anyway, I think Firefox will be forced follow Chrome and IE now to implement DRM in HTML5 video. Firefox does not have the market power it once had thanks to Chrome. Remember how the whole H.264 in HTML5 support thing played out for Firefox? They were on the side of not supporting it, and Google said it would remove it from Chrome, but that never happened, and Mozilla finally got tired of the effects of "Firefox doesn't support this site's video, let me use a browser that does" and added support. The same thing is pretty much guaranteed to happen with EME as sites start using EME to stream video and IE, Chrome and Safari add support.
thezilch 13y ago
"Continue to shift away" doesn't mean proprietary steps can't or shouldn't be taken nor does it mean there will never be proprietary parts behind the scenes. The API to these Extensions are trying to become stable and not proprietary [0]; do you have suggestions or time to contribute? If Netflix is made to simply talk to a ratified API, it is a big step forward from a non-standard API exposed by the likes of Silverlight. [0] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med...
- isomorphic 13y ago
  You are correct in asserting that the EME should become standardized, and that Netflix is participating in that process. I should not throw stones unless I'm willing to help. I admit to being conflicted about the philosophical need for such extensions--although I have no pragmatic objections. Netflix makes their coin by selling limited access to an artificially-restricted resource; the resource would probably not exist in its present form without the restrictions. However, as someone who lived through web development in the 1990s, my brain shut off after reading "away from using proprietary" followed by "Microsoft MarketingTerm".
  - thezilch 13y ago
    I think your feelings and assertions are valid, but I can't really blame Netflix here, which was my reaction, and I don't really think you meant to paint them in that light. I feel they are hamstrung between staying profitable and trying to court the dinosaurs that are content providers. It always strikes me as odd that it would appear the "internet crowd" would both like to abolish advertising (re: commercials) _and_ DRM (re: subscriptions). I don't know that Netflix or Steam exists without the later, and I much prefer the "price" I pay for that "burden" over the alternative(s?). And I have to say, it's hard for me to cast stones at MS for the innovations IE5 brought to market, in the late 90s. It's pretty crummy to subject MS to feelings that only manifested many years later and only because of things they didn't do -- continue supporting and innovating in the browser space. We're just pissed it was so good that people could hold onto it until pried from the cold, dead hands.
edwintorok 13y ago
Which is why DefectiveByDesign launched a campaign against them: http://www.defectivebydesign.org/cancelnetflix http://www.defectivebydesign.org/cancelnetflix

makomk 13y ago

In fact, they've replaced one proprietary experience with an even more proprietary one. Silverlight was available on more than one browser and OS; this is Windows-only and IE11-only. I believe Netflix are already using EME on Chromebooks but they have a different, totally incompatible DRM scheme (Google's Widevine).

tmzt 13y ago
But even so, the DRM system was not available cross-platform. Something like Moonlight could process the data but could not play back encrypted video using the Microsoft DRM system. Each platform will offer a different DRM implementation, but there would be only one HTML5 player and would use the same API on all systems. I assume that they will continue to use Silverlight on Windows prior to IE11.

jiggy2011 13y ago

They will still be rendering the interface and probably the video with standard HTML5 components, in fact even the DRM - Browser mechanism is standardized. It's just that the DRM code itself may be proprietary. So this is still a step forward.

lukeschlather 13y ago
Theoretically one piece of it is now cross-platform, however the core functionality only works on one platform, and actually seems explicitly engineered to be incompatible with the Ubuntu computer I have hooked up to the TV in my living room. This is a pretty disappointing move, since I'm pretty sure Netflix will never run on that computer, and Netflix doesn't care.
mtgx 13y ago
In what way is it a step forward? Okay, they can now use default video codecs in their proprietary plugin, instead of the same codec being used in Flash. So does that make it anymore cross-platform than Flash was? And now instead of having "one" monolithic proprietary plugin, it's now more "decentralized" and you'll have to use "many" such proprietary plugins from Netflix, from Hulu, from Amazon, and many others, that may or may not be cross-platform. Why is the news only about IE (11 even). Does it work in Chrome and Firefox, too?
- makomk 13y ago
  Well, the good news is that as an end-user you'll probably only have one monolithic proprietary chunk of code that's even conveniently integrated into your web browser. The bad news is that you'll have to hope that all the DRMed video sites you're using support the proprietary scheme your particular browser and platform use. In this case, it's Microsoft's PlayReady DRM. Also, the codec used is actually part of the proprietary blob, and there are no requirements as to which codecs or containers a particular DRM scheme supports, so in theory every DRM scheme could require a different, incompatible proprietary codec and they'd still all be 100% standards compliant.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    There is also no reason to think that these binary blobs will be built for platforms that the video providers have not given two shits about in the past. Anyone who is supporting this stuff because they think it will get them Netflix on a GNU/Linux desktop (not ChromeOS or Android) is crazy. That's not what this does, and they don't care about supporting us.
    - makomk 13y ago
      So far, Google's binary DRM blob isn't just restricted to ChromeOS either; it only runs on official Chromebooks running the official Google-provided image that haven't been rooted.
      - 13y ago

counterpointer 13y ago

I think Google has been first in implementing the proposed EME standard in HTML5 video. The ARM Chromebooks have been already using it to see Netflix video since a few months. Netflix can use Silverlight in IE11, but ARM Chromebooks don't have an alternative way of support and don't forget that Youtube doesn't like people easily downloading their videos like they do now. http://hothardware.com/News/Netflix-Backing-HTML5-But-Not-Without-DRM-In-Place/ http://hothardware.com/News/Netflix-Backing-HTML5-But-Not-Wi... And I think Chrome nightlies had the web DRM in place but were not enabled by default? Don't quote me on that. Anyway, I think Firefox will be forced follow Chrome and IE now to implement DRM in HTML5 video. Firefox does not have the market power it once had thanks to Chrome. Remember how the whole H.264 in HTML5 support thing played out for Firefox? They were on the side of not supporting it, and Google said it would remove it from Chrome, but that never happened, and Mozilla finally got tired of the effects of "Firefox doesn't support this site's video, let me use a browser that does" and added support. The same thing is pretty much guaranteed to happen with EME as sites start using EME to stream video and IE, Chrome and Safari add support.

thezilch 13y ago

"Continue to shift away" doesn't mean proprietary steps can't or shouldn't be taken nor does it mean there will never be proprietary parts behind the scenes. The API to these Extensions are trying to become stable and not proprietary [0]; do you have suggestions or time to contribute? If Netflix is made to simply talk to a ratified API, it is a big step forward from a non-standard API exposed by the likes of Silverlight. [0] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-media/encrypted-media.html https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/html-media/raw-file/tip/encrypted-med...

isomorphic 13y ago
You are correct in asserting that the EME should become standardized, and that Netflix is participating in that process. I should not throw stones unless I'm willing to help. I admit to being conflicted about the philosophical need for such extensions--although I have no pragmatic objections. Netflix makes their coin by selling limited access to an artificially-restricted resource; the resource would probably not exist in its present form without the restrictions. However, as someone who lived through web development in the 1990s, my brain shut off after reading "away from using proprietary" followed by "Microsoft MarketingTerm".
- thezilch 13y ago
  I think your feelings and assertions are valid, but I can't really blame Netflix here, which was my reaction, and I don't really think you meant to paint them in that light. I feel they are hamstrung between staying profitable and trying to court the dinosaurs that are content providers. It always strikes me as odd that it would appear the "internet crowd" would both like to abolish advertising (re: commercials) _and_ DRM (re: subscriptions). I don't know that Netflix or Steam exists without the later, and I much prefer the "price" I pay for that "burden" over the alternative(s?). And I have to say, it's hard for me to cast stones at MS for the innovations IE5 brought to market, in the late 90s. It's pretty crummy to subject MS to feelings that only manifested many years later and only because of things they didn't do -- continue supporting and innovating in the browser space. We're just pissed it was so good that people could hold onto it until pried from the cold, dead hands.

edwintorok 13y ago

Which is why DefectiveByDesign launched a campaign against them: http://www.defectivebydesign.org/cancelnetflix http://www.defectivebydesign.org/cancelnetflix