5 ms·
Just because we hate flash doesn't mean we should accept something worse to get rid of it. You think the DRM blob would be less slow, less buggy, less closed a
by idlewan 13y ago
Just because we hate flash doesn't mean we should accept something worse to get rid of it.
You think the DRM blob would be less slow, less buggy, less closed and less resource-hungry than flash is and has been? Think again.
- takluyver 13y agoWhy? The DRM blob has to do far less than Flash - it's not a whole runtime environment, it just decrypts a data stream and sends it to be rendered. There are very good reasons to think that that would be less slow, buggy and resource hungry. Though I agree that it would be no less closed.
- alkonaut 13y agoWhile I agree that it does seem like "less work" to just do the DRM bit, is it really likely that this plugin will really decrypt data, leaving a normal unprotected video stream for the browser to render? In that case, a browser implementation could just write the unencrypted video to disk or re-stream it over http to other clients, without even having to do a new transcoding/compression (which costs cpu power and reduces quality). The whole point of effective software video DRM is that the plugin must render the video to screen itself, and ideally in a way that doesn't let the attacker find the unencrypted stream in memory. Silverlight does this via PlayReady for example.