Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me

blog.samuelmaddock.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 632 posts

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

#321

Post by ryanolsonx »

danShumway wrote: post #311
ktm5j wrote: post #253

I also find the title to be rather sensational.. "I tried creating a web browser" ^ "Google blocked me" implies that Google blocked them from creating a web browser.. which is not the case.

If a single company can effectively decide whether a bunch of 3rd party sites that they don't control work on your browser, how is that any different? Google is effectively deciding that anyone other than pre-approved browsers can't play Netflix content. If an ISP fully embraced the Net Neutrality repeal and started blocking video content, and someone posted on HN that ISPs were "blocking them from building a streami…

> In the same way, part of building a web browser is having the ability to render web content. If Google can block your custom browser from rendering content, then for all practical purposes they are blocking your ability to build a browser.

Eh.. in a way, but not really. It can still work as a web browser but a web site can still render however they'd like based on your user agent.

If I made a site today, I could add the same functionality if I wanted to. Since I own the site, that's my choice.

I completely agree that Google should _not_ block their content based on your custom web browser. That is evil.

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

#323

Post by jcoffland »

numbsafari wrote: post #285

> Waiting 4 months for a minimal response from a vendor with > such a large percentage of the market is unacceptable. Umm... expecting any kind of response from a vendor with such a large percentage of the market is... kinda arrogant. Who are you to demand any kind of response from anyone? Big project or small? You'd probably be less offended if you had a better sense of self awareness about the nature of your relati…

>> Waiting 4 months for a minimal response from a vendor with such a large percentage of the market is unacceptable.

> Umm... expecting any kind of response from a vendor with such a large percentage of the market is... kinda arrogant.

Are you suggesting we all bow obsequiously to the great corporation?

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

#324

Post by danShumway »

ryanolsonx wrote: post #321
danShumway wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a single company can effectively decide whether a bunch of 3rd party sites that they don't control work on your browser, how is that any different? Google is effectively deciding that anyone other than pre-approved browsers can't play Netflix content. If an ISP fully embraced the Net Neutrality repeal and started blocking video content, and someone posted on HN that ISPs were "blocking them from building a streami…

> In the same way, part of building a web browser is having the ability to render web content. If Google can block your custom browser from rendering content, then for all practical purposes they are blocking your ability to build a browser. Eh.. in a way, but not really. It can still work as a web browser but a web site can still render however they'd like based on your user agent. If I made a site today, I could ad…

I would still claim two differences on the user agent side of things:

First, any browser can report any user agent they want. There are a number of examples of browsers faking or changing user agents to get around sites that try to differentiate based on those strings.

Second, while any individual web site can implement logic based on the user agent, that's the sole choice of the web operator. By restricting Widevine access, Google is blocking rendering of content on other people's domains.

The non-ISP, in-browser analogy I would use would be if Google decided that in order to render an AMP page in your new browser, you first needed to get their permission. They're not just blocking their own content, they're blocking an entire category of technology.

It's also worth mentioning that even under the user agent analogy, if this headline was, "Google uses user agents to block Firefox from accessing Youtube", pretty much every person on HN would call that anti-competitive behavior worthy of regulation.

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

#325

Post by [deleted] »

tomxor wrote: post #250
sli wrote: post #239

> ...the creators of the open source browser Chrome, ... This assumption is a mistake the author is making. Chrome is, for all practical purposes, closed-source and proprietary. It's Chromium that is open-source. So far as I know, Chromium does not have Widevine included by default.

This is correct, I use chromium - netflix and amazon do not work... the rest of the web is perfectly fine though. It may have been a stupid decision for W£C to include DRM in the spec, but frankly the rest of the internet doesn't give a shit - As far as OSS is concerned it's another 3rd party blob like flash and not a true part of the web. As far as I can tell the author is trying to use this third party blob specifi…

[deleted]

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

#326

Post by deathanatos »

sli wrote: post #239

> ...the creators of the open source browser Chrome, ... This assumption is a mistake the author is making. Chrome is, for all practical purposes, closed-source and proprietary. It's Chromium that is open-source. So far as I know, Chromium does not have Widevine included by default.

I use Chromium/Firefox and Widevine … sometimes works. For example, Chromium recently broke Widevine support; this was the Gentoo thread about it at the time, IIRC: https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1080874-start-0.html.

So, switched to Firefox. Firefox then also had it break on Debian/Gentoo: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1475260.

Chromium, and other FOSS browsers including Firefox, do support Widevine. It is a giant proprietary binary blob, yes, but there's support for it. (And yes, I wish everyone would adopt and obey the tenants of free software, but alas.)

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

#327

Post by TeMPOraL »

hrktb wrote: post #318
TeMPOraL wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The internet before streaming (when downloading postage stamp clips took 3 hours) was close to that described state, and people just exchanged burned CDRs right and left. Even elderly people were using and watching pirated stuff installed by their kids as they just couldn’t bother. No DRM support in major browsers would mean pirating becomes the #1 way to see anything again.

That is a realistic outcome.

Then again, the way media companies are balkanizing the streaming space, this could become (again) a reality soon anyway.

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

#328

Post by hluska »

numbsafari wrote: post #285

> Waiting 4 months for a minimal response from a vendor with > such a large percentage of the market is unacceptable. Umm... expecting any kind of response from a vendor with such a large percentage of the market is... kinda arrogant. Who are you to demand any kind of response from anyone? Big project or small? You'd probably be less offended if you had a better sense of self awareness about the nature of your relati…

I have a few points:

1. Why do you have to be so rude? Maybe this isn’t intentional, but your words are mocking and insulting. Do you actually think you could change someone’s mind spouting off like that? If so, you don’t understand humans. If not, that comment was a giant waste of time.

2. If the way you spoke to this person represents how you wish to conduct yourself, perhaps it would be wise to remove the ‘we’re hiring’ on your profile. I’m not looking, but if I was, I would avoid your company based on this comment.

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

#329

Post by Spivak »

danShumway wrote: post #319
numbsafari wrote: post #285

> Waiting 4 months for a minimal response from a vendor with > such a large percentage of the market is unacceptable. Umm... expecting any kind of response from a vendor with such a large percentage of the market is... kinda arrogant. Who are you to demand any kind of response from anyone? Big project or small? You'd probably be less offended if you had a better sense of self awareness about the nature of your relati…

It is a problem that they had to ask. This line of thought is exactly how companies take over open markets and kill them. Google proposes: A) "It's fine for DRM to be standardized, because anyone can just ask us to use implementations like Widevine." then follows up with B) "We can't possibly be expected to handle every single request that we're given! Give us a break, this is hard." If Google wants to be the web's g…

How does Firefox accomplish it? They (appear) to download the module on-demand.

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

#330

Post by geofft »

smaddock wrote: post #248
geofft wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Including the same signing model as castLabs suggests, where the default release is only for UAT and you need to sign production builds (which are only generated on your infra) to decrypt production content? Or did you want to allow downstream open-source users to decrypt production content? i.e., if they denied you, are there users of castLabs they would have allowed, and what's the distinction between you and them?

I'm not aware of Castlabs fork working without a production build [1]. I don't think there would be a way for open source users to be able to use a production signed release. Still waiting to hear back more from Widevine. [1] https://github.com/castlabs/electron-releases/issues/33#issu...

Right, I guess I'm asking what you mean by "open source users".

As far as I know, if you download a Firefox binary from firefox.org, you can use Widevine, and there's no source in that binary that's not open source, but the binary is signed in such a way that you can download the component. If you build Firefox on your own, Widevine won't work. Can you do the same thing with Metastream? Allow users of the Metastream binary from you to get Widevine, but not allow people who build it on their own to get the production EME codec? (I realize this is more frustrating for Metastream dev than Firefox dev because Metastream is primarily about playing videos, but it should still work.)

Or in other words, is Widevine permitting Firefox to do something they're not permitting you to do, or are you trying to be more open than Firefox?

(... That said, apparently Widevine works fine in e.g. Debian's build of Firefox? So what's different?)

Post reply on HN