4 ms·

I wish a browser vendor would step up and say no to this. As in "we won't support a DRM future in the browser". Firefox, Chrome?

• mcherm 13y ago
  Mozilla (makers of Firefox) campaigned strongly against this in the W3C. But they haven't promised never to support DRM in their browser, and they are not likely to as it would marginalize their browser. What is more likely to happen is that they won't be able to pay the licensing fees for the DRM software and therefore won't include it, and then their browser will become marginalized. ("Firefox: the browser that can't view YouTube or Netflix.")
  • AnIrishDuck 13y ago
    For a preview of how this approach would turn out for Mozilla, look at the H.264/WebM debacle. Mozilla refused to implement H.264 for a long time, but after Google reneged on its promise to drop support, Mozilla finally caved to keep its userbase. I doubt they'd even try again, seeing as they've already seen this movie and know how it will end.
    • keeperofdakeys 13y ago
      The main reason Mozilla didn't add H264 was because of royalties, which they couldn't pay. I don't know how much ideology was also behind the decision. Their solution was to use the OS to decode H.264, bypassing the need to implement the codec, and pay royalties. So I'm not sure how much of it was "caving", and how much was finally implementing the solution.
• schoen 13y ago
  Chrome might be difficult because Google has already implemented it in ChromeOS and is a coauthor of the EME specification.