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

Google Chrome Arrives on ARM64 Linux, Widevine DRM Included

omgubuntu.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 50 posts

Re: Google Chrome Arrives on ARM64 Linux, Widevine DRM Included

#41

Post by qingcharles »

gruez wrote: post #3
azalemeth wrote: post #2

I still think that EME were a mistake for web standards to implement. I disable them by default and yet see widevine requests as part of analytics, the occasional bot captcha, and other inappropriate locations all the time. I really just wish the whole thing would bog off - its anti consumer and approving the standard was I think a really foolish mistake. At least Firefox has an "off" button. Would that it was off by…

>its anti consumer and approving the standard was I think a really foolish mistake. The alternative is that Netflix et. al can't be played on firefox and you need to install chrome just to watch it, which weakens firefox's market share even more.

All the DRM does is mean that pirates have to record the screen at worst and suffer a slight ding from the double-compression.

Except all the DRMs are broken judging by all the items labeled "WEB-DL" online, which appears to be a download of the original unencrypted stream.

So, really, the DRM does nothing except piss off legitimate consumers.

Re: Google Chrome Arrives on ARM64 Linux, Widevine DRM Included

#43

Post by Orphis »

sfink wrote: post #39
Orphis wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of websites will "work" because they added Firefox workarounds. But to a Chromium or Safari user, it might as well be called a "degraded" mode. A lot of video-conferencing websites work that way as Firefox has had a lot of issues keeping up with the WebRTC standard evolution that power them for example.

A lot of video-conferencing websites work that way because Chrome shipped a pre-standardization form ("Plan B") of WebRTC, it got a lot of uptake, and then they refused to unship it when the final standard came out with an alternative way of doing the same thing. It took a decade to finally give in and unship the nonstandard path. https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/IY2am... https://webrtchacks.com…

Plan-B hasn't been relevant in a very long time and Unified Plan has been in a good working shape (and used by Google Meet) for many years. Firefox has lacked many critical APIs from Unified-Plan that developer cared about for a very very long time such as everything related to simulcast and get/setParameters or codec control which are very basic and where implemented in Chromium back in 2018. Firefox didn't have them in 2024 still in working shape. So you can't really blame that long delay on Chrome or on the other APIs it shipped early.

As for the other APIs you mention, developers had wanted those shipped then, so developers got them. The risks are evaluated, but in the end, the client is king. If the standardization process is slowed down because of nitpicking and procedural mishap and not able to work with the needs of the users, it's a problem. It took years for them to be standardized while being heavily used by experts everywhere in the first version. Shipping early is also part of the standardization process where it goes to trial and it is evaluated by users, so it's not surprising to have a complex API implemented first to gather feedback. Without such feedback, none of it would have been implemented or standardized the right way. It's implementation experience that is crucial for WebRTC's domain space.

WebRTC is a live API, it's changing all the time, especially with all those expert APIs. It's not unexpected. But years long delays don't serve anyone except for late implementers that then have the newer version done and can complain that someone else is not compliant and their version is "better". No, you're just super late at implementing a live API.

That's why Firefox has been having issues with WebRTC for a long time. Having the ICE server validation WPT passing is great, but that's only an edge error case, it's not what is passed by applications in working shape or what developers need.

Re: Google Chrome Arrives on ARM64 Linux, Widevine DRM Included

#45

Post by drnick1 »

Mindwipe wrote: post #20
jchw wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simple: allow those users to be lost to preserve the product. The entire Internet is not Netflix. Most Netflix users today don't even use their laptops or desktops for Netflix: they use it on their TVs, phones, video game consoles. Firefox is a bad way to use Netflix anyways. It doesn't support high resolutions because it has limited Widevine support anyways. It doesn't support Widevine l1 and never has. So... It is…

> It doesn't support Widevine l1 and never has. Firefox supports Widevine Level 1 on Windows 11 devices with the requisite hardware and has for a year or so. Not many providers other than Netflix support it still, but it does.

> Firefox supports Widevine Level 1 on Windows 11 devices with the requisite hardware and has for a year or so.

I am not familiar with the way Widevine works, but if that is true, there must be a way to hack that support into the Linux version. After all, the code is there and it should be possible to spoof hardware identifiers or whatever is needed to run Widevine on an open platform.

Re: Google Chrome Arrives on ARM64 Linux, Widevine DRM Included

#46

Post by jchw »

gruez wrote: post #38
jchw wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But what does "having principles" translate to? Focusing on the EME issue, how many people are going to be like "humpf, firefox added EME so I'm going to use chrome instead!"? Is that small slice of the user base even worth keeping? If they're going to be incensed by random issues like this, they're probably not worth the trouble to cater to, or maybe they'll just flip flop between chrome and firefox (depending on…

> it's that people stop caring to install Firefox because there's no clear reason to keep using it. Who's going to switch to chrome (or not install firefox, next time they install a browser), even though that also has DRM, and unlike firefox's EME implementation, can't be disabled and is even more invasive? Either they care about DRM/EME and therefore they'll choose the least bad option, or it's all posturing.

People often don't bother chosing less bad options when they don't feel like they like either option very much, they instead choose the path of least resistance. It's one thing to put up with Firefox lagging behind when you think Mozilla is standing up for you, but it is a totally different story when they don't really seem to stand for anything. For a lot of people Chrome is the lowest path of resistance. It's often already there...

And frankly, they really don't seem to stand for a whole lot. Being a bit better than Google is possibly the lowest bar ever cleared.

Call it posturing, or whatever you want. Sentiment turned on Mozilla and sentiment matters, you can say whatever you want about why. For the record, I do not think implementing EME killed Firefox, I think it is just one poor Chrome-chasing choice among many that sealed its fate.

Re: Google Chrome Arrives on ARM64 Linux, Widevine DRM Included

#47

Post by afavour »

gruez wrote: post #3
azalemeth wrote: post #2

I still think that EME were a mistake for web standards to implement. I disable them by default and yet see widevine requests as part of analytics, the occasional bot captcha, and other inappropriate locations all the time. I really just wish the whole thing would bog off - its anti consumer and approving the standard was I think a really foolish mistake. At least Firefox has an "off" button. Would that it was off by…

>its anti consumer and approving the standard was I think a really foolish mistake. The alternative is that Netflix et. al can't be played on firefox and you need to install chrome just to watch it, which weakens firefox's market share even more.

I’d argue it’s worse than that, even: Netflix and the rest would make you download a native app.

Re: Google Chrome Arrives on ARM64 Linux, Widevine DRM Included

#48

Post by thisislife2 »

gruez wrote: post #34
thisislife2 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is a no brainer. Whenever someone accesses NetFlix on a Firefox with no EME, just display a page which has a short description explaining why Firefox doesn't support EME ( "EME is not included to protect your privacy as it allows websites to profile and identify you more easily" ) and provide a button to open Netflix either through a Netflix app or the pre-installed OS browser (Edge or Safari). Educate your…

>and provide a button to open Netflix either through a Netflix app or the pre-installed OS browser (Edge or Safari). Educate your users rather than treating everyone as dumb. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume the overwhelming majority of users are going to install the app or use chrome. The average internet user is someone who thinks facebook and tiktok is spying on them but uses those apps anyways. What makes…

What stand people take, or what people do, depends on how educated they are on the specific issue. Creating awareness is the first step.

> overwhelming majority of users are going to install the app or use chrome

If they are already using Firefox, why would they use Chrome? And if Firefox suggests OS default browser (like Edge or Safari) to watch NetFlix, why do assume someone who wishes to use Firefox, wouldn't return to Firefox and continue using it for their other browsing needs? (If it really bothers you that Firefox is suggesting Edge or Safari, another implementation can be to open popup that uses the Edge or Safari Webview in it - most users won't even realise that they aren't using Firefox).

> That's literally what EME is, with better sandboxing.

Yeah. So leave it to the user to determine if they want to install a particular plugin if they want to watch some content (which is how it was before). Let Netflix or Prime or Apple or Disney etc. etc. offer their own DRM plugins, which should be tied to their domains (i.e. work only with that particular domain). That's a much better way than bundling a DRM (spyware), created by BigTech, in the browser.

Re: Google Chrome Arrives on ARM64 Linux, Widevine DRM Included

#49

Post by netdevphoenix »

jchw wrote: post #36
gruez wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Maybe the next Mozilla will understand that having principles is not optional. But what does "having principles" translate to? Focusing on the EME issue, how many people are going to be like "humpf, firefox added EME so I'm going to use chrome instead!"? Is that small slice of the user base even worth keeping? If they're going to be incensed by random issues like this, they're probably not worth the trouble to cater…

> But what does "having principles" translate to? Focusing on the EME issue, how many people are going to be like "humpf, firefox added EME so I'm going to use chrome instead!"? Is that small slice of the user base even worth keeping? If they're going to be incensed by random issues like this, they're probably not worth the trouble to cater to, or maybe they'll just flip flop between chrome and firefox (depending on…

> Having no principles itself eventually loses you a small minority of users... and those were your core supporters and evangelists

If pleasing that minority doesn't help Firefox gain more users (looking at the numers, it sure hasn't), then what's the point of having core supporters and evangelists at the cost of your existence? Would you rather have a Chrome only existence where you are forced to have EME on and no adblock just because you don't want Firefox to do something you morally disapprove of?

Re: Google Chrome Arrives on ARM64 Linux, Widevine DRM Included

#50

Post by hulitu »

darkwater wrote: post #30
jchw wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can't pull it now because they don't have big enough marketshare. Gee I wonder why that didn't work out.

Surely not because they weren't pure enough. The browser market was always so big that pure alternatives were never with any advantage: on the contrary, they had more issue because they catered to a loud minority that can always push for a "you are not pure enough" narrative. Because who push for that just doesn't care (rightfully) to be mainstream. Thinking back at the actual history (and I lived it, having used Net…

Firefox shoot itself in the foot before Google take an aim at it. Mozilla decided to change the engine and the UI. Very smart move, indeed.
Post reply on HN