4 ms·
Look, if they want to make a plugin that understands their DRM scheme or some standalone app that's basically just a scaled down browser with support for a <drm
by joshAg 12y ago
Look, if they want to make a plugin that understands their DRM scheme or some standalone app that's basically just a scaled down browser with support for a <drm_video> tag, they can tilt at that windmill all fucking day for all I care.
But I still need a <video> tag that works like an <img> tag in that there's at least I format supported by all major broswer venders that works for that tag, that lets me easily save the video for offline viewing, and is completely unencumbered by patents or licensing issues, so anyone else can make a browser supporting it. If that means I have to use a tag called <supercalifragilisticexpialidocious> instead of <video>, I don't really care. I need that functionality. The web needs that functionality.
- asadotzler 12y agoYou have that functionality thanks to the <video> tag and H.264 and AAC in MP4. That seems to meet all of your requirements. Am I missing the problem? EME and DRM are not required to make that work in Firefox, IE, and Chrome.
- joshAg 12y agoH.264 requires a per user license fee paid to MPEG LA until 2027 when the patent runs out: http://www.zdnet.com/article/a-closer-look-at-the-costs-and-fine-print-of-h-264-licenses/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/a-closer-look-at-the-costs-and-... AAC also requires a per unit license for anyone who manufacturers or developers of a codec: http://www.vialicensing.com/licensing/aac-fees.aspx http://www.vialicensing.com/licensing/aac-fees.aspx So no, neither of them meet the 3 requirements I laid out.
- pkulak 12y agoThat's exactly what they did. Except it works in every browser and every producer doesn't have to build their own custom solution.