31–40 of 330 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cost of building a Linux client should be zero. It's not because they want to have their proprietary DRM/spyware restricting what you can do. Ever heard the phrase "piracy is a better service", Disney? Edit: Cost should be negligible. You should build for web/browser standards, not the OS.
Why would the cost of supporting an additional platform ever be zero?
I'm pretty sure Disney is optimizing for the majority of their audience who use Windows, OSX, iOS etc, not developers/hackers who run desktop Linux. I'm curious about Android though.
Optimizing how?
Linux doesn't have a large enough number of users for their consumer-focused video streaming service at this time.
They'll probably move down-market after nailing the experience on the first few platforms.
side note - I love the number of comments about piracy as the other option, as if Disney is reading this page - or cares much about a small market (linux consumer-users)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looks like this is more of "requiring widevine level 2/3", their player and DRM should work with Linux Firefox and Chrome with minimal changes. > Disney+ OTOH seems to have the drm features kranked up to maximum draconian settings
So you figure maybe a week before it's all on bittorrent anyway?
But on the other hand, I suspect that they have run the numbers, and there is so little potential value supporting Linux that it isn't worth the hassle. DRM might just be a convenient excuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cost of building a Linux client should be zero. It's not because they want to have their proprietary DRM/spyware restricting what you can do. Ever heard the phrase "piracy is a better service", Disney? Edit: Cost should be negligible. You should build for web/browser standards, not the OS.
Why would the cost of supporting an additional platform ever be zero?
And yet 4K webrips of recent Netflix shows are readily available on torrent sites.
I don't understand who these higher levels of DRM are trying to target. They obviously don't stop the serious pirates from ripping and sharing the content with everyone. Yet the lower levels are "good enough" to stop average users from trivially downloading and keeping the file, like you might do with an plain, embedded MP4 file.
Is Disney+ expected to work fully before launch date? Isn't in 'testing' right now as described by the author? Why is everything expected to be perfect while still in testing? From this text, it sounds like Disney is actively working on the issue. The product has not launched yet. I'm not sure what the problem is. Aside from a faster initial customer support response (for a product that isn't even out!) would could D…
The thing is, as they cover in their post, there’s nothing to “fix.” It isn’t broken. The error is actually that it refuses to run without a higher security level than many platforms support.
The post is just... not very good and full of factual errors.
Nit, since this confused me when I was looking for more context: for whatever reason, Widevine security levels are ordered in decreasing security (whereas the article has them backwards). Widevine on Linux only supports L3, which means that there's no guarantee that any processing is done inside the CPU's trusted execution environment. Which, uh, reads as "no security guarantee" to me.
BitTorrented video has no security guarantee either.
But it is just DRM incompatibilities with linux. Kind of a bummer. On a side note: prime also stopped working for me on mint+firefox. Still works with chrome though.