Nice Frank Lutz-ian reterming of HTML5 video DRM extensions as "premium extensions".
Netflix ditches Silverlight with support for HTML5 video in IE11
41–50 of 145 posts
Re: Netflix ditches Silverlight with support for HTML5 video in IE11
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. There is no reason to think that things which did not work on Linux before will suddenly start working just because this API is being crammed into HTML5.
I'm not necessarily saying that Linux will ever be a high priority, but having to only provide a PlayReady Media Extension for a few browsers on Linux is a much more reasonable effort then providing the whole Silverlight or Flash runtime.
They would have no control over the rest of the stack. If netflix created a linux build of a DRM binary that worked with their service then it would become the tool of choice for everyone that wanted to rip/upload to usenet the latest Netflix exclusive content. Also they frankly just don't care about linux users.
If this were something that they were interested in having, they would have had Netflix on Chrome on 'regular GNU desktop' Linux months ago when it started working with Chrome on a Linux kernel with ChromeOS.
Re: Netflix ditches Silverlight with support for HTML5 video in IE11
#43Quoting Netflix, from the article: We expect premium video on the web to continue to shift away from using proprietary plugin technologies to using these new Premium Video Extensions. Quoting the article: According to Netflix, Microsoft made this possible by implementing three features in its still-unfinished IE11: The Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) using Microsoft PlayReady DRM. Netflix is using some doublespeak h…
"Continue to shift away" doesn't mean proprietary steps can't or shouldn't be taken nor does it mean there will never be proprietary parts behind the scenes. The API to these Extensions are trying to become stable and not proprietary [0]; do you have suggestions or time to contribute? If Netflix is made to simply talk to a ratified API, it is a big step forward from a non-standard API exposed by the likes of Silverli…
You are correct in asserting that the EME should become standardized, and that Netflix is participating in that process. I should not throw stones unless I'm willing to help.
I admit to being conflicted about the philosophical need for such extensions--although I have no pragmatic objections. Netflix makes their coin by selling limited access to an artificially-restricted resource; the resource would probably not exist in its present form without the restrictions.
However, as someone who lived through web development in the 1990s, my brain shut off after reading "away from using proprietary" followed by "Microsoft MarketingTerm".
Re: Netflix ditches Silverlight with support for HTML5 video in IE11
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. There is no reason to think that things which did not work on Linux before will suddenly start working just because this API is being crammed into HTML5.
I'm not necessarily saying that Linux will ever be a high priority, but having to only provide a PlayReady Media Extension for a few browsers on Linux is a much more reasonable effort then providing the whole Silverlight or Flash runtime.
Linux will never get a PlayReady Media Extension. Linux users control the kernel of the device. Even if hypothetically TPM technology or similar could be used to play video "securely" nevertheless (with hypothetical future tech), it would still be too great a risk to let it on to such a "compromised" system.
Re: Netflix ditches Silverlight with support for HTML5 video in IE11
#45Quoting Netflix, from the article: We expect premium video on the web to continue to shift away from using proprietary plugin technologies to using these new Premium Video Extensions. Quoting the article: According to Netflix, Microsoft made this possible by implementing three features in its still-unfinished IE11: The Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) using Microsoft PlayReady DRM. Netflix is using some doublespeak h…
They will still be rendering the interface and probably the video with standard HTML5 components, in fact even the DRM - Browser mechanism is standardized. It's just that the DRM code itself may be proprietary. So this is still a step forward.
Theoretically one piece of it is now cross-platform, however the core functionality only works on one platform, and actually seems explicitly engineered to be incompatible with the Ubuntu computer I have hooked up to the TV in my living room.
This is a pretty disappointing move, since I'm pretty sure Netflix will never run on that computer, and Netflix doesn't care.
Re: Netflix ditches Silverlight with support for HTML5 video in IE11
#46Nice Frank Lutz-ian reterming of HTML5 video DRM extensions as "premium extensions".
Netflix is indeed using some slippery and perhaps contradictory wording that has passed through at least one marketing filter.
Although we may interpret "premium" to connote "better", the usage meaning "something you have to pay" is accurate.
Perhaps we could take back the language and start referring to the extensions as "Media Fee Extensions"?
Re: Netflix ditches Silverlight with support for HTML5 video in IE11
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not necessarily saying that Linux will ever be a high priority, but having to only provide a PlayReady Media Extension for a few browsers on Linux is a much more reasonable effort then providing the whole Silverlight or Flash runtime.
They would have no control over the rest of the stack. If netflix created a linux build of a DRM binary that worked with their service then it would become the tool of choice for everyone that wanted to rip/upload to usenet the latest Netflix exclusive content. Also they frankly just don't care about linux users. If this were something that they were interested in having, they would have had Netflix on Chrome on 'reg…
Does it matter what tool or OS people use to get rid of the DRM?
Re: Netflix ditches Silverlight with support for HTML5 video in IE11
#48Netflix will be taking advantage of EMEs for HTML5 DRM in IE11. Microsoft has not confirmed IE11 will be supported in any OS other than Windows 8.1. Older versions of IE, including IE10 on Windows 7, will still require Silverlight, meaning it still will not die. If this is to be a nail in Silverlight's coffin, it's a very tiny one. Edit: Per freehunter's comment below, Microsoft has confirmed eventual IE11 support fo…
Many sites are reporting that Microsoft has confirmed IE11 support for Windows 7 [1]. The question is when, not if. [1] http://www.pcworld.com/article/2043129/internet-explorer-11-...
Is Microsoft really releasing a new version of IE with support for only 2 major (8.1, 8.2, etc are just service packs anyway) versions of Windows back?
I guess that's good for everyone, though, since it means IE won't have a huge market share anymore.
Re: Netflix ditches Silverlight with support for HTML5 video in IE11
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
They would have no control over the rest of the stack. If netflix created a linux build of a DRM binary that worked with their service then it would become the tool of choice for everyone that wanted to rip/upload to usenet the latest Netflix exclusive content. Also they frankly just don't care about linux users. If this were something that they were interested in having, they would have had Netflix on Chrome on 'reg…
Does it matter what tool or OS people use to get rid of the DRM?
Since DRM is all about making it inconvenient/difficult to delay the inevitable, yes.
They are not going to do anything that will only help a very fraction of their subscribers but would streamline, let alone automate, the ripping process.
Re: Netflix ditches Silverlight with support for HTML5 video in IE11
#50Nice Frank Lutz-ian reterming of HTML5 video DRM extensions as "premium extensions".
Netflix is indeed using some slippery and perhaps contradictory wording that has passed through at least one marketing filter. Although we may interpret "premium" to connote "better", the usage meaning "something you have to pay" is accurate. Perhaps we could take back the language and start referring to the extensions as "Media Fee Extensions"?
I think it has nothing to do with being paid - it's not like you pay for the plugin itself. Plus, they wouldn't want you to think about having to pay for it anyway.
I think in this case it's just a meaningless word introduced to make it sound better than the "proprietary plugins" like Silverlight and Flash. I think their alternatives were naming it like "Awesome Viewing Experience Extension" or "Netflix True HD Vision Extension", or something like that.
In each case they wouldn't mean what they normally mean, and would be used in a misleading way just to give you a "good feeling" about having DRM on the web.