I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me • Hacker News Board

Re: I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me

#191

Post by TeMPOraL » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 4:23 PM UTC

jhasse wrote: post #144

tiraniddo wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, blame the movie studios, record labels etc. They're the one which require asinine DRM support for web browsers. Google/Microsoft/Apple/Adobe want to support media content, but to do so requires towing the line with the media companies otherwise they refuse to license the content (at least in HD+). Having worked with various DRM teams I know that they have to treat their code as if its the most secret code in the…

> No, blame the movie studios, record labels etc. They're the one which require asinine DRM support for web browsers. Google/Microsoft/Apple/Adobe want to support media content, but to do so requires towing the line with the media companies otherwise they refuse to license the content (at least in HD+). Let's say Google, Microsoft and Apple announce that they will be removing any DRM from their browsers on 2020-01-01…

Media companies would rejoice. Since such a coordinated move from Google, Microsoft and Apple would destroy streaming for everyone indiscriminately, it would re-level the playing field and enable everyone to start competing anew. Disney, HBO and others would fork Chromium and add DRM support back, then market the shit out of it. They'd start signing deals with phone and TV manufacturers to get their DRM back, each preferably in a way that excludes the others. There'd be a lot of churn as whole media space gets re-balkanized, but that's all good, since churn means they make money.

A lot of smaller companies would die, and a lot of users would suffer - but none of the parties involved actually cares about the users; we're just a natural resource to be stripmined.

Re: I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me

#192

Post by wolfgke » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 4:24 PM UTC

clarkmoody wrote: post #155

jhasse wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, blame the movie studios, record labels etc. They're the one which require asinine DRM support for web browsers. Google/Microsoft/Apple/Adobe want to support media content, but to do so requires towing the line with the media companies otherwise they refuse to license the content (at least in HD+). Let's say Google, Microsoft and Apple announce that they will be removing any DRM from their browsers on 2020-01-01…

This is the correct solution. The big tech companies control the distribution channels. Currently, they bend to the requirements of large content producers. If they leaned the other way, toward open source and DRM-free distribution, the producers would have no choice but to comply. Of course, content producers could run back to the state for more protection (as they always do) and get legislation forcing browser make…

> Of course, content producers could run back to the state for more protection (as they always do) and get legislation forcing browser makers to comply.

Implementations of such forced-by-court features tend to be buggy. ;-) The implementation bugs might differ in subtle ways in each new browser release. ;-)

Re: I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me

#193

Post by TeMPOraL » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 4:24 PM UTC

psadauskas wrote: post #163

gloflo wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except the lock is remotely controlled by your adversary. And your house also belongs to them. According to your analogy.

And if you bought something from them, they're permitted to come in and take it away from you whenever they want.

You never bought it in the first place. The Adversary doesn't sell things anymore, it only rents them out.

Re: I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me

#194

Post by theprotocol » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 4:24 PM UTC

rjmunro wrote: post #164

jhasse wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, blame the movie studios, record labels etc. They're the one which require asinine DRM support for web browsers. Google/Microsoft/Apple/Adobe want to support media content, but to do so requires towing the line with the media companies otherwise they refuse to license the content (at least in HD+). Let's say Google, Microsoft and Apple announce that they will be removing any DRM from their browsers on 2020-01-01…

Simple: You'd have to install a plugin or a separate special app to watch video, like the bad old days of RealPlayer.

This is the most plausible outcome. Netflix wouldn't just leave that money on the table and the most obvious thing to do would be to provide the support they want from browsers themselves.

Users follow use cases and would not be averse to spending 30 seconds installing something in order to watch their favorite content.

There's also sort of a game theory situation with the removal of DRM, as it would be a competitive advantage being the only one that supports it.

Re: I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me

#195

Post by mikeryan » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 4:25 PM UTC

gcb0 wrote: post #19

let's address the elephant in the room. Google got the authority from everyone here who accepted chrome and IE DRM by default, to the point that even Firefox was forced to give in, so you all could be sedated by Netflix and other DRMed content.

I'm not sure it's an elephant.

I work in this space and I think the EME path has been a fairly elegant solution for a lot of what was preventing us from being able to use HTML5 video, including DRM but also live streaming and its ilk with HLS/Dash and being able to quickly implement new codecs and transports. Having to fall back to a flash player was never ideal.

If you want to make an argument that DRM is bad, or, maybe more relevant, ineffective I'm not sure I'd argue with you. However I think the solution we have in place has made the video ecosystem in the browser better and did it quickly.

The issue here is about commercial use of a product and while we can blame Google as the owners of Widevine this really doesn't have anything to do with Chrome - outside of the fact that the author was able to quickly create his own browser based on open source components upon which Chrome was based.

Re: I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me

#196

Post by jhasse » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 4:25 PM UTC

geofft wrote: post #172

jhasse wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Download and sandbox the Widevine binary blob the same way that Firefox does. Done. Mozilla has a license to redistribute the binary. You can't simply do that (legally).

Did Metastream ask for a license to redistribute the binary? We don't know anything about the conversation with Widevine other than that they wrote, "I'm sorry but we're not supporting an open source solution like this". They clearly are supporting an open source solution like Firefox. So what is the difference, and can Metastream be less "like this" and more like Firefox?

I would guess, that they fear, that Metastream could implement a feature, where only one of the users has paid for the content and streams it to his peers.

Re: I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me

#197

Post by rcxdude » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 4:25 PM UTC

toyg wrote: post #153

Egraveline wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So did Firefox have to ask permission from google? Or do they just do it without asking? Sorry I don’t know much about this.

I suspect the issue is that Firefox uses Widevine in a straightforward manner (play the content to one browser), whereas OP’s scenario needs some sort of additional insight in what the plugin is doing.

No, the issue is entirely that firefox has market share and any given alternative browser project does not.

Re: I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me

#198

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 4:26 PM UTC

shawnz wrote: post #89

Google is being blatantly anticompetitive here and it's definitely not fair to OP. But as an aside, I actually would prefer this functionality to be provided by a browser extension rather than a separate app, like the OP describes at the end of the article. Please pursue this option! I think it would be much more convenient than having to launch a separate app, even if the functionality is reduced.

[deleted]

Re: I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me

#199

Post by est31 » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 4:26 PM UTC

jhasse wrote: post #144

tiraniddo wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, blame the movie studios, record labels etc. They're the one which require asinine DRM support for web browsers. Google/Microsoft/Apple/Adobe want to support media content, but to do so requires towing the line with the media companies otherwise they refuse to license the content (at least in HD+). Having worked with various DRM teams I know that they have to treat their code as if its the most secret code in the…

> No, blame the movie studios, record labels etc. They're the one which require asinine DRM support for web browsers. Google/Microsoft/Apple/Adobe want to support media content, but to do so requires towing the line with the media companies otherwise they refuse to license the content (at least in HD+). Let's say Google, Microsoft and Apple announce that they will be removing any DRM from their browsers on 2020-01-01…

Antitrust complaints / lawsuits?

Re: I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me

#200

Post by rcxdude » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 4:26 PM UTC

Egraveline wrote: post #129

kllrnohj wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firefox uses Google's Widevine for DRM content: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-drm "Firefox downloads and enables the Google Widevine CDM by default to give users a smooth experience on sites that require DRM."

So did Firefox have to ask permission from google? Or do they just do it without asking? Sorry I don’t know much about this.

Firefox does need cooperation from widevine for their solution to work.