5 ms·
I've been a Netflix customer for 8 years. I haven't paid for cable or satellite for most of those 8 years, and I've always tried my hardest to understand the d
by Zikes 13y ago
I've been a Netflix customer for 8 years. I haven't paid for cable or satellite for most of those 8 years, and I've always tried my hardest to understand the driving forces behind Netflix's decisions, such as raising prices to manage skyrocketing license costs, and segregating streaming and DVD services so that the DVD customers don't artificially inflate streaming numbers to negatively affect licensing contracts. I was even prepared to accept their dreadful choice to completely separate the streaming service into a wholly different company, though I was glad that they ultimately decided against it.
It was easy to see the economic reasoning behind many of those decisions, even though on the surface they seemed not to benefit the consumer.
Clearly, DRM is required in order for them to license the shows we want to watch. It's unfortunate, but it is something I am prepared to accept. What upsets me about this particular instance is that they are moving to make DRM a part of what are supposed to be the open standards of the web. It flies in the face of the principles upon which the internet was designed and built, and regardless of what technical hurdles it would help the company to overcome it is also very clearly an anti-consumer move, the scope of which reaches far beyond Netflix itself.
Maybe it's time I dusted off some of the books I've been meaning to read.
- Pxtl 13y agoExactly. If DRM is necessary for Netflix to function, that's fine... but then Netflix should not run through pure HTML, it should require a native binary program separate from HTML to run the Netflix video stream. Flash and Silverlight are bad programs, but they're better than corrupting the HTML standard itself.
- jiggy2011 13y agoTechnically it would require a separate binary program. The amendments to the spec define a way for the browser to communicate with such programs. So a non-DRM browser can still comply with this part of the standard.
- jlgreco 13y agoAn important thing to keep in mind however is that since this still requires a proprietary binary, this being included in the standard would not automagically get you Netflix support in Linux. Chrome supports Netflix on a Linux kernel right now. They only allow it to work in ChromeOS on authorized devices that are not "rooted". There are no technical hurdles to supporting Netflix on normal Linux distributions, it simply is not something that they are interested in doing. If you support this stuff being added to the standard because you want to watch Netflix on your MBP running Debian (or similar), then you are misguided.
- jiggy2011 13y agoI doubt it would make much different either way, they will add Linux support when there are hordes of people threatening to throw credit cards at them for it.
- jlgreco 13y ago(I have been using Linux as my primary desktop for over a decade now) So, never? They have "Linux" support: on ChromeOS, Android, Roku, and likely several TVs and other devices. The ChromeOS support in particular is relevant to "regular Linux" support. They just don't care, they don't have any real pressing reason to care, and frankly I don't think they ever will. The future of general consumer computers is in device/OS combos like Android and ChromeOS. When people flee Windows that is the sort of device they go to. If Ubuntu Phone or whatever it is called ever takes off, I wager it will only support Netflix as ChromeOS does: works in Ubuntu Phone but not if you are running Ubuntu Phone Edition on "unofficial" hardware.
- lukeschlather 13y agoIf people flee Windows they go to a Mac. Most people buying Android/ChromeOS devices are buying them to supplement, not replace, their PCs.
- 13y ago
- ihsw 13y ago> Clearly, DRM is required in order for them to license the shows we want to watch. This couldn't be further from the truth now more than ever. DRM is required in the sense that their contractual obligations require it, but the technological and social requirement is just not there. Why should the HTML standard be encumbered by something wholly unrelated? The copyright maximalists (including Netflix) need the web more than the web needs them.
- Zikes 13y agoContractual obligation is exactly what I meant.
- talmand 13y agoUm, I think you repeated the statement while trying to refute it. DRM is required for them to license the shows by their contractual obligations. The social requirement is there in that the market wants the product that has contractual obligations. To meet that demand requires a change in technology. I need the web to work the same way that Netflix needs it to work so that we may both benefit from it.
- ihsw 13y agoThat's specious reasoning. They can distribute as many browsers and apps as they want, but they shouldn't be able to influence the entirety of the HTML standard to fit their narrow business requirements.
- talmand 13y agoEntirety of the HTML standard? Who says they are? We're talking about one little part of the standard that has little to do with day-to-day HTML. Are you suggesting that Netflix is attempting to influence the future of the span element? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the suggestion is a unified approach to deal with plugins or extensions, not putting DRM inside HTML itself. If you oppose the idea of a plugin or extension then don't install it and don't use the service that they provide. A service that everyone who uses it voluntarily and willingly agreed to use it under the provider's terms.
- astalwick 13y agoWhat's the alternative? How do you get DRM into browsers that don't support plugins or extensions?
- wmf 13y agoDon't use the Web. Use a native app.
- stock_toaster 13y agonetflix has apps in: google play store, kindla app store, ios app store, windows app store... Maybe they should just go native on all platforms.
- ihsw 13y agoYou ask users to opt-into the process. DRM should never be opt-out.
- jlgreco 13y agoIf the browser doesn't support plugins or extensions, then this would not work either. This is basically nothing more than a standardized interface for plugins meant explicitly for DRM.
- tzs 13y ago> What upsets me about this particular instance is that they are moving to make DRM a part of what are supposed to be the open standards of the web They aren't making DRM part of the standard. They are making an interface to interact with DRM part of the web. Actually, its to interact with encrypted media, which is a superset of DRM. I expect there will be people using it for privacy when sharing media with friends and family.