RE: Netflix HTML5 player in IE 11 on Windows 8.1

Emmanuel Revah wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 

The other points, of course, is that no standard should be forced at gun-point, and not all standards will solve all problems. In fact, some standards might create problems. That doesn't make them any less of a standard. 

The goal is to not "not make a standard", but rather to make the best standard we can, accepting that it will never be perfect. Nothing is perfect.


> 
> > 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.

Feel free to keep believing the same hyperbole. As someone recently said, [... blah blah blah blah blah...]


> 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).

How is "will require more money" a standards problem? In business, you need to spend money to make money, and those companies that want to maximize their profit base will spend the money and invest to do so. What does cost have to do with creating a standard?


> 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.

Please, name those systems. I keep hearing this, and keep wondering which OSes, outside of Linux, are going to have an issue here? And even with Linux, the issue is not technical, its philosophical. Standards aren't philosophies, their standards.


> 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".

However... if the OS and/or architecture refuses to implement support based on moral philosophies, then the problem does not exist with the technology, but with the philosophy. That's a fair position to take, but that should not be *my* problem if I don't prescribe to that philosophical position.


> 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.

Once again, we have a conflict of interpretation: your "True Open Web" doesn't necessarily define my Open Web, and I'm OK with that. Seems you are the one that has a problem with my interpretation: why must I march in lockstep with you? Why must I accept your definition as the one true god..err... Open Web?


> 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.

If you really feel compelled to blame anyone, blame the millions of users out there that just want to be able to watch their movies on their devices. They care not about the philosophical battle you are waging here, and they will chose solutions that meet their needs - point finale. Even ardent Linux users install "mp3 players" on their system, and blissfully and happily go about their day. For them, it's not religion, for them, it's entertainment.

Blame the free market system that lets buyers and sellers enter into contracts where each participant gains something, and maybe looses something too, and each is looking to always get the better deal.

Standards cannot fix those problems. Standards simply allow those who choose to follow a path a pre-defined and well marked path. They do not impose "the only path", and anyone is free to use, or not use, standards. 

Many are trying to find a standardized solution that is as respectful, and as non-intrusive, as it can be to the concerns being raised here, while still delivering on a legitimate business requirement. Jumping up and down proclaiming that it is "wrong", or "bad", or "evil" will not stop that work. Insisting that this work is contrary to how the web MUST BE is a non-starter. This work is happening - help to guide it or get out of the way, but please, stop trying to insist that it cannot happen. It's happening now, that ship has sailed.

JF

Received on Friday, 28 June 2013 02:59:01 UTC