4 ms·
> Firefox's lack of DRM means its users are being disadvantaged. Firefox's lack of DRM would mean that users are being encouraged to used the services not encu
by pdkl95 13y ago
> Firefox's lack of DRM means its users are being disadvantaged.
Firefox's lack of DRM would mean that users are being encouraged to used the services not encumbered with this nonsense, instead of all gravitating to whichever DRM service is most popular.
Mozilla supporting DRM is a failure because of Metcalfe's Law[1]. By giving access to the network of people using DRM to their n users, they support that network by O(n^2) and make it that much harder to dislodge in the future.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law
- takluyver 13y agoI don't think Metcalfe's law applies here - people don't use encrypted HTML video as a communication network, it's mostly a channel from content producers to users. So its value only grows linearly with the number of users that can receive it. More importantly, though, content is more compelling than browsers, and browsers are easier to switch. If Firefox blocks its n users from receiving some content, some fraction of those will leave Firefox and get the content anyway, leaving Firefox with less strength to fight the next battle. In this case, it looks like that fraction would be pretty significant, and the impact on DRM not that great.