Re: What would we have to demonstrate to change your mind?

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 11, 2013, at 2:24 AM, Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com> wrote:

> On 2013/06/11 03:07, Mark Watson wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@fastmail.fm>
>> wrote:
>
>> We would need to agree on what the likely alternatives are. I think
>> there are three likely outcomes in the absence of a W3C standard:
>> (1) the status quo of installable native code plugins persists
>
>
> How does EME address this ? So far from what I gather, EME does not make CDMs magically compatible with every system that is EME ready. For example, would every CDM automatically be compatible with every OS + browser (considering the browser does support EME and the user accepts to install the CDM) ?

No.

>
> I might be missing something here, but so far it appears the EME does nothing to solve the "Flash" issue. Flash doesn't work on iphones, EME doesn't make all CDMs run on *BSD/ARM.

The expectation is that, since a CDM is *much* smaller in scope than
an entire application environment like Flash and Silverlight, then
porting to and supporting a new platform will be cheaper. Given the
competitive incentive for CDM vendors to support as many platforms as
possible, there will likely be more platform support. But, no, I doubt
there will be a CDM that 'every platform' supports. This would be one
of those 'perfect is the enemy of the good' scenarios.

>
> The only real way to address the plugin issue is if CDMs were designed in such a way that they are platform agnostic.

I expect they are at some level. The question is whether a platform
supports the necessary platform APIs and has the necessary hardware
capabilities and then whether the CDM vendor invests in porting,
testing and supporting that platform.

...Mark
>
>
>
> --
> Emmanuel Revah
> http://manurevah.com
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2013 14:10:09 UTC