- From: Emmanuel Revah <stsil@manurevah.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 02:39:17 +0200
- To: public-restrictedmedia@w3.org
On 2013/06/27 18:50, John Foliot wrote: > piranna@gmail.com wrote >> >> So, if Microsoft (or whatever) doesn't port their CDM to linux, what >> can we do? What solutions we can take? Blame Microsoft? Page owner? >> W3C? Ourselves for being using linux? >> >> How can we prevent to happen this? Very good question Piranna, because of course the idea of standards is to have a standard. > I truly believe this is the crux of the matter - I don't believe you > can > (and I certainly don't believe the W3C can). > > Private businesses (in a free society) should be allowed to make > business > decisions freely. [... blah blah blah blah blah...] > That might not be the answer you want to hear, but seeking to assign > "blame" > does nothing to further this discussion nor the technologies involved. Indeed it's not the answer Piranna is looking for, the right answer is that EME does not solve the compatibility issue. It does not solve the "Flash" or "Silverlight" problem. It only creates more mess. CDMs are plugins/addons. For the browser, that is what they are, a plugin that can talk to HQ and control the user's browser. For the users of the web, this means, same old same old, if the CDM is not developed for your system then too bad for you. It's possible that Microsoft will not care to port their CDM to Linux, however, it is probable that companies willing to reach out will use multiple CDMs for their content (will require more money). However, this still means that many systems will be excluded from the Open Web, even if users of these are willing to accept non-free controling software on their systems. If your OS and/or your architecture is not supported, then you can have a compliant browser on a modern system yet still be excluded from the "Open Web". EME breaks the concept of the true Open Web and replaces it with the Web of "it's better than Flash". It also adds the notion that approved hardware can be required. As for the blame: you can blame Microsoft, Google and Netflix. If it becomes a W3C standard, you can blame them too. Companies and consumers and the free market can make their own choices, true, but within the "Open Web" and with EME, it will be possible to publish 100% standard and still exclude compatible user agents (intentionally or not). There will be someone to blame for that, so I guess you could blame anyone who supports EME as a W3C standard. -- Emmanuel Revah http://manurevah.com
Received on Friday, 28 June 2013 00:39:46 UTC