Re: The subject line is irrelevant these days

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@hsivonen.fi> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com> wrote:
>> > That's always going to be a business decision based on the costs and
>> > benefits of supporting an additional platform.
>>
>> That this is the case is part of the mismatch between EME and how W3C
>> specs normally are supposed to work and a source of a lot of grief.
>
> I understand. But it's the same with <object> and plugins (for all
> applications of those, not just DRM).

No, <object> and plug-ins are different from EME and CDMs. Indeed, the
DRM-related NPAPI plug-ins themselves are not independently
interoperable implementable. However, an NPAPI plug-in host for a
given operating system is independently interoperable implementable
and so far DRMs have actually been available for NPAPI. That is not to
say that things are all good with NPAPI plug-ins (there's a lot that's
wrong with them), but there *is* a difference compared to the EME
situation.

When a site like Netflix decides to use PlayReady via <object>,
Microsoft ships the PlayReady implementation inside an NPAPI plug-in
for free to users of versions of Windows that still receive security
patches (XP and up) and OS X. That means that any browser on Windows
all the way from and including XP and any browser on OS X can work
with Netflix by implementing NPAPI (32-bit NPAPI on OS X, but still).
Likewise, when a site like HBO Nordic decides to use pre-EME Widevine
via <object>, Google ships the NPAPI Widevine Media Optimizer for free
to users of any browser on Windows or OS X. This is not the case with
EME-flavored PlayReady or EME-flavored Widevine.

That is, with the NPAPI way of doing video DRM, browsers entering the
market may do so by implementing the host side of NPAPI and gain
compatibility with Netflix or HBO equal to other browsers on the same
OS without there having to be a business decision by the sites to
support a DRM that's coupled with an additional browser. (That doesn't
help *operating systems* entering the market, of course.)

EME may level the playing field for Tivoized devices for which
Silverlight isn't available, but it very much unlevels the playing
field for browsers on Windows and OS X (and even desktop Linux to the
extent there's content available to the Flash Player 10.2 level of
Adobe Access with Linux use not banned; I expect there exists some on
Voddler).

-- 
Henri Sivonen
hsivonen@hsivonen.fi
http://hsivonen.fi/

Received on Thursday, 24 October 2013 09:33:29 UTC