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

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

#211

Post by jhasse » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 4:32 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #191

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…

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 pr…

Just as the only browser with DRM would have a huge advantage in that scenario, the one streaming service without DRM would have, too. I honestly think Netflix would take that chance for their own content.

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

#212

Post by bad_user » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 4:33 PM UTC

theprotocol wrote: post #194

rjmunro wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

All Netflix movies are on PirateBay already, in spite of their DRM. I’ve seen movies pop up on PirateBay the day they are released. They wouldn’t leave any money on the table.

People paying for Netflix are paying for convenience. That wouldn’t change in absence of DRM.

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

#213

Post by whatusername » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 4:33 PM UTC

geofft wrote: post #166

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making the user experience of DRM worse is better because then fewer people will use it. If the platforms all made it so that you have to solder a new chip into your phone before you can play DRM content, there would be a lot less DRM. The argument that platforms have to do this for competitive reasons is doublethink. If the experience is worse and that will cause customers to flee, how is it that they would only fle…

> If the platforms all made it so that you have to solder a new chip into your phone before you can play DRM content, there would be a lot less DRM. I mean, yes, but why would they do that? > Wouldn't that create a huge market opportunity for new DRM-free studios, who would then out-compete the traditional ones by being available on all platforms instead of only on Insecure Expensive Proprietary Slow Cableco Platform…

Is that a reference to the travesty of a wheel of time pilot episode? https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4450372/

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

#214

Post by apostacy » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 4:33 PM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #53

mmastrac wrote: post #12

The blame for this sits squarely on the w3c for their efforts in trying to replace flash by letting the content companies dictate standards for encrypted playback. If they had held fast, we could have forced the companies to do their key management in something like WebAssembly and avoided this gatekeeping mess.

Blame Google and Microsoft. They were the people who created the specification, and pushed for it, when Netflix came begging for a solution to their DRM conundrum. Even if the W3C hadn't approved it, that's two of the big four browser vendors who are committing to implementing it anyways, which is enough to guarantee a de facto standard anyways.

I blame the OSS community that rolled out the red carpet for DRM. They are the only ones who really had a choice to make. I frankly don't blame the corporations pushing this, because they have been trying the whole time.

And they did it for the worst reasons. Vanity and pride. The corporations pushing DRM are merely motivated by greed.

But the players in the OSS community that opened the door for DRM were TERRIFIED of being labeled as "obsolete" or losing pretend "market share". They refused to take a stand against DRM, if it meant losing any users. Just look at the discussion thread where Mozilla decided to support DRM.

The arguments in favor of DRM by the OSS community are always the same: - We need to support terrible DRM because it is popular (and being numerically popular is super important). - We need to compromise against our users because if we don't then we won't have any leverage (which we are conceding we don't have anyway) - "marketshare" - "integrated branding"(?)

None of this makes sense, because Google, Apple, and Microsoft have completely different goals with building for-profit forms.

People who speak in slimey business sales marketing speak are making decisions about the direction of OSS software. And these people are obsessed with cargo-culting the big commercial platforms.

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

#215

Post by AnthonyMouse » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 4:33 PM UTC

geofft wrote: post #166

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Making the user experience of DRM worse is better because then fewer people will use it. If the platforms all made it so that you have to solder a new chip into your phone before you can play DRM content, there would be a lot less DRM. The argument that platforms have to do this for competitive reasons is doublethink. If the experience is worse and that will cause customers to flee, how is it that they would only fle…

> If the platforms all made it so that you have to solder a new chip into your phone before you can play DRM content, there would be a lot less DRM. I mean, yes, but why would they do that? > Wouldn't that create a huge market opportunity for new DRM-free studios, who would then out-compete the traditional ones by being available on all platforms instead of only on Insecure Expensive Proprietary Slow Cableco Platform…

> I mean, yes, but why would they do that?

So that they're not beholden to adversarial corporations.

> You're assuming that content is fungible. If I want to watch Game of Thrones, I want to watch Game of Thrones, not "Winter Dragon," and "Winter Dragon" being DRM-free won't incentivize me to watch it.

Except that it is fungible, it's just not universally fungible.

The reason Winter Dragon isn't fungible with Game of Thrones is that you don't like it as much. You'd rather watch Game of Thrones. But there are thousands of shows, and out of those there are hundreds you might want to watch, yet there is only time to watch dozens or fewer.

Nobody can actually watch all of the shows they might want to watch. Letting "lack of DRM" be the thing that chooses between the ones of equal desirability to you is as good a way of pruning the list as any.

> Furthermore, development of media content is expensive and requires a bunch of up-front capital / investment. So while there is a market opportunity, it isn't obvious that taking advantage of it without connections to the existing industry is a profitable strategy.

Who says it has to be someone without connections to the existing industry? New independent studios form all the time as existing talent strikes out on their own. All it takes is for one of them to prove the market before everybody is doing it.

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

#216

Post by est31 » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 4:35 PM UTC

gloflo wrote: post #118

sabujp wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DRM are like locks on a house, just keeps honest people out

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

Sounds familiar. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19536991

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

#217

Post by pnw_hazor » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 4:35 PM UTC

wolfgke wrote: post #45

mmastrac wrote: post #12

The blame for this sits squarely on the w3c for their efforts in trying to replace flash by letting the content companies dictate standards for encrypted playback. If they had held fast, we could have forced the companies to do their key management in something like WebAssembly and avoided this gatekeeping mess.

> The blame for this sits squarely on the w3c for their efforts in trying to replace flash by letting the content companies dictate standards for encrypted playback. The blame for this sits squarely on the users for their tolerance of malware (which DRM is) in the browsers that they use.

I blame the people that work at Google.

But, hey I hear the money is good.

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

#218

Post by jhasse » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 4:36 PM UTC

est31 wrote: post #199

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…

Antitrust complaints / lawsuits?

Good point. I wonder if that would apply though.

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

#219

Post by EpicEng » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 4:36 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #188

EpicEng wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like saying the blame for pollution caused by burning coal lies squarely on the shoulders of anyone who uses electricity. Decisions are made, 99% of people have no clue what's going, and it's unreasonable to expect them to.

Consumers must take some of the blame surely? If there's nothing but coal powered electricity generation then vote to change it. If the company you buy electric from uses more coal than others, then change company. IMO ordinary members of the public take more responsibility in that because it's relatively straightforward to understand: buy your electric from renewable generation and get less negative environmental im…

The comment I responded to was quite clear about placing "all" of the blame on consumers, but sure; we all share some responsibility. The problem is that placing the blame on consumers will get you precisely nowhere.

>If there's nothing but coal powered electricity generation then vote to change it.

Most people are struggling just to get by. Expecting their votes to be driven by large, complex issues which on their surface do not seem to impact their lives directly or immediately (or actually don't at all) is wishful thinking. The vast majority of people don't understand these issues to begin with.

>If the company you buy electric from uses more coal than others, then change company

Where do you live where you have competing electrical companies? Of you're proposing that they spend money on e.g. solar or electric cars, well... I think you're a bit out of touch with the general populace. We don't live in a world where paycheck to paycheck workers can afford such things. It has to be cheap and easy or you're just not going to get anywhere. Same goes for something like DRM; until it causes huge problems with the way most people consume content, well, they won't care, and complaining about that is a waste of energy.

Problems like these require smaller groups of dedicated and informed individuals to help make change and educate others. It does actually work. The US has much better environmental policy than it did 50 years ago and people are more informed now then they we're then. It's just slow, and tech related issues are relatively new.

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

#220

Post by kbenson » Tue, Apr 02, 2019, 4:36 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #185

kbenson wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just the age old discussion of whether it's better to capitulate in small ways so you can steer a group away from bad behavior/decisions later or to make a stand on principle to draw attention to the current bad decisions. As much as some people like to say one is better than the other, I think the answer is always "it depends". Unfortunately, it depends not only on the relative power and momentum behind the…

Except that there was no such trade off here. If they refuse to approve DRM and then some browsers unwisely implement it anyway, having their approval makes it worse, not better. The browsers doing the wrong thing can claim to be following a standard, even though the standard is useless garbage because the entire point of having a standard is so that anyone can implement it, which in this case they still can't.

The trade off is in relevancy. If the standards body doesn't force a confrontation it knows it can't win, then it retains some power that it can throw behind or against future proposals. If the major browsers have already decided to completely ignore them and create their own consensus, there's that much less reason to listen to them next time. Not only has a precedent been set, but coordination on features outside the control may have already been somewhat standardized behind the scenes (beyond what they already do), making it easier next time.

The downside is as you say that the browsers can point to the standard as for why they implemented it, but that's why it's a trade off, and not cut and dry (IMO)