4 ms·
I would say yes, the web is large imagined as being an open, free, compatible, interoperable etc. App stores etc have never been put forwards as open, free, sh
by rurounijones 13y ago
I would say yes, the web is large imagined as being an open, free, compatible, interoperable etc.
App stores etc have never been put forwards as open, free, sharing, compatible etc.
By shoe-horning black-box, most likely ill supported (in terms of os compability) proprietary DRM packages into the "open" web they are trying to have their cake and eat it too. "We use simple web browsers etc! (small print: xyz plugins required)"
If you want that kind of DRM infested, proprietary stuff then by all means get a desktop / mobile app. Stop trying to infest the "Free and open web".
flash was bad enough but at the time there was a good reason for it. There is not now.
- jiggy2011 13y agoI'm not sure what the definition of an "open" web is here. The web has always supported paywalls and distribution of proprietary software via the SaaS model. This proposal does not make DRM part of the web any more than internet explorer makes windows a part of the web.
- tzs 13y ago> I would say yes, the web is large imagined as being an open, free, compatible, interoperable etc. The web you imagine has not existed for a long time, if it even ever existed. HTTP has from a very early stage, for instance, supported restricting access to resources to authenticated users, so that people could put non-open, non-free, non-shared things on the web.
- jordonwii 13y agoSo people dislike DRM simply because it conflicts with their fantastical dream of an "open web"? And whether the platform it's on claims to be open or not? Just because the standard is there doesn't mean you have to use it or websites that make use of it. If I want to enjoy incredible amounts of content for a low price with a side of DRM, then let me. You can go use flash/silverlight/<insert other plugin name here> on another site.