3 ms·

They were dying for most uses, but not for DRM-based video streaming. Also, Flash did not die, just because Apple said so although that certainly had an impact

by quonn 12y ago

They were dying for most uses, but not for DRM-based video streaming. Also, Flash did not die, just because Apple said so although that certainly had an impact. It also died, because the web was getting better and better; because it was a proprietary tool not available to everyone; because it integrates poorly with the whole architecture of the web - e.g. dynamic generation on the server; because it had a bad reputation due to security and performance issues; and because a plugin, even if widespread, is still a dependency that you want to avoid.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago
> They were dying for most uses, but not for DRM-based video streaming. It is a tautology that DRM-based video streaming is going to use some kind of DRM. The point is that if several major platforms provide no support for any form of DRM then DRM will be removed from video streaming. The idea that video providers are going to give up a majority of their customers because their devices support no DRM is not reasonable. > Also, Flash did not die, just because Apple said so although that certainly had an impact. It also died, because the web was getting better and better; because it was a proprietary tool not available to everyone; because it integrates poorly with the whole architecture of the web - e.g. dynamic generation on the server; because it had a bad reputation due to security and performance issues; and because a plugin, even if widespread, is still a dependency that you want to avoid. I'm not sure what point you're making... that Flash sucks and died for multiple reasons? Granted. But it was still dying before EME existed and DRM wasn't enough to save it.
- mike_hearn 12y ago
  Lol, no. If every web browser said "no DRM in video, freedom or death!" then the movie studios would say ..... OK. We'll ask users to download an app instead. Or use Apple TV/Xbox/PlayStation to watch things rather than their browsers. And consumers would. End of story. Browser makers don't have some crippling monopoly power over how computers work that they can use to force submission on an entire industry (thank god). The idea that the movie industry will give up on something they view as a fundamental requirement for them to earn money, just because browser makers throw a hissy fit, is not reasonable. The movie industry will find a way because they believe their industry must, or else it will wither and die.
  - bigbugbag 12y ago
    Not sure what imaginary world you live in, but in the real world internet users just provide themselves for what the studios refuse to do, see piracy. Video on the web was a reality before flash came to be.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    > OK. We'll ask users to download an app instead. At which point they'll be losing customers. And if the operating system doesn't support apps with DRM, what then? Ask the user to buy a new device? > Or use Apple TV/Xbox/PlayStation to watch things rather than their browsers. At which point they'll be losing more customers. And if the dominant console is also something that doesn't support DRM, what then? > Browser makers don't have some crippling monopoly power over how computers work that they can use to force submission on an entire industry (thank god). No, but customers do. Which is why customers should choose browsers and operating systems that do what customers want. > The idea that the movie industry will give up on something they view as a fundamental requirement for them to earn money, just because browser makers throw a hissy fit, is not reasonable. The movie industry will find a way because they believe their industry must, or else it will wither and die. This is just meaningless rhetoric. It is possible to make money without DRM as proven by the fact that many people are doing it. Piracy does not exclude profitability as proven by the fact that there are more Disney movies on The Pirate Bay than there are in the Disney store and Disney is still making tons of money. The people who think the movie industry would disappear without DRM are idiots. The harder we make it for those idiots, the more share they'll lose to people who know better and the fewer idiots will remain. It's not even like this is a fight. It's just widespread misunderstanding. DRM is bad for the movie industry. It locks customers into closed platforms which put the companies that control those platforms between the studios and their customers. It causes viewers to derive less value from DRM-encumbered content, which causes them to consume it less often and not be willing to pay as much for it. It causes piracy to increase because it has zero effect on the experience of downloading from The Pirate Bay and a negative effect on the experience of paying customers. The studios have been sold a bill of goods.

by quonn 12y ago

AnthonyMouse 12y ago

> They were dying for most uses, but not for DRM-based video streaming. It is a tautology that DRM-based video streaming is going to use some kind of DRM. The point is that if several major platforms provide no support for any form of DRM then DRM will be removed from video streaming. The idea that video providers are going to give up a majority of their customers because their devices support no DRM is not reasonable. > Also, Flash did not die, just because Apple said so although that certainly had an impact. It also died, because the web was getting better and better; because it was a proprietary tool not available to everyone; because it integrates poorly with the whole architecture of the web - e.g. dynamic generation on the server; because it had a bad reputation due to security and performance issues; and because a plugin, even if widespread, is still a dependency that you want to avoid. I'm not sure what point you're making... that Flash sucks and died for multiple reasons? Granted. But it was still dying before EME existed and DRM wasn't enough to save it.

mike_hearn 12y ago
Lol, no. If every web browser said "no DRM in video, freedom or death!" then the movie studios would say ..... OK. We'll ask users to download an app instead. Or use Apple TV/Xbox/PlayStation to watch things rather than their browsers. And consumers would. End of story. Browser makers don't have some crippling monopoly power over how computers work that they can use to force submission on an entire industry (thank god). The idea that the movie industry will give up on something they view as a fundamental requirement for them to earn money, just because browser makers throw a hissy fit, is not reasonable. The movie industry will find a way because they believe their industry must, or else it will wither and die.
- bigbugbag 12y ago
  Not sure what imaginary world you live in, but in the real world internet users just provide themselves for what the studios refuse to do, see piracy. Video on the web was a reality before flash came to be.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  > OK. We'll ask users to download an app instead. At which point they'll be losing customers. And if the operating system doesn't support apps with DRM, what then? Ask the user to buy a new device? > Or use Apple TV/Xbox/PlayStation to watch things rather than their browsers. At which point they'll be losing more customers. And if the dominant console is also something that doesn't support DRM, what then? > Browser makers don't have some crippling monopoly power over how computers work that they can use to force submission on an entire industry (thank god). No, but customers do. Which is why customers should choose browsers and operating systems that do what customers want. > The idea that the movie industry will give up on something they view as a fundamental requirement for them to earn money, just because browser makers throw a hissy fit, is not reasonable. The movie industry will find a way because they believe their industry must, or else it will wither and die. This is just meaningless rhetoric. It is possible to make money without DRM as proven by the fact that many people are doing it. Piracy does not exclude profitability as proven by the fact that there are more Disney movies on The Pirate Bay than there are in the Disney store and Disney is still making tons of money. The people who think the movie industry would disappear without DRM are idiots. The harder we make it for those idiots, the more share they'll lose to people who know better and the fewer idiots will remain. It's not even like this is a fight. It's just widespread misunderstanding. DRM is bad for the movie industry. It locks customers into closed platforms which put the companies that control those platforms between the studios and their customers. It causes viewers to derive less value from DRM-encumbered content, which causes them to consume it less often and not be willing to pay as much for it. It causes piracy to increase because it has zero effect on the experience of downloading from The Pirate Bay and a negative effect on the experience of paying customers. The studios have been sold a bill of goods.