Comments on: Why Google Chrome Will Make the Web Worse Than Television

By: Petr J

Petr J — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:41:57 +0000

So renting a movie online (with Microsoft DRM) currently costs me about $2-3. Are you saying that movies will be *sold* for this kind of amount? If that will be the case, then I stand corrected. If not, then I am still interested in renting, regardless of how “outdated” this business model is.

By: aharoni

aharoni — Sat, 28 Jul 2012 05:39:29 +0000

Renting made sense when the physical carriers were popular. Preserving the idea of renting without the physical carriers is just a matter of preserving an outdated business model.

By: Petr J

Petr J — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 21:30:08 +0000

For all DRM haters, I don’t see how renting movies can work without DRM. The whole idea of renting is that it is for a limited period of time – i.e a *restriction*, no? Sure, when buying movies, I’d like to have them without DRM, but for renting? What’s the big deal? I am tired of the fact that in my country, you need a Windows machine with Microsoft DRM to rent a movie online. Please let me rent movies from my Mac!

By: aharoni

aharoni — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 10:53:29 +0000

Only partially :)

For the most part YouTube works without Flash if you enable HTML5. Some videos still require Flash, but i’m sure that they will move to HTML5 in the near future.

By: Avalon

Avalon — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 04:58:15 +0000

“with YouTube working without it just as well”

excuse me? Are you dreaming?

By: Keith Bowes

Keith Bowes — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 02:09:53 +0000

I like television. Just lying back and snuggling to a marathon of “Star Trek: The Next Generation”, “Psych”, or something on a cold winter day. It’s certainly more comfortable than watching it on a computer. But eh, to each his own.

By: jrbrusseau

jrbrusseau — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 23:53:33 +0000

I’m also against any DRM being fundamental to using the web. The problem is it already is. Flash is required by several video sites and they almost all take advantage of DRM because it allows them a high level of control over their service and yes I’m talking of video sharing sites here.

It’s clear why Google and Microsoft proposed this. They want to eliminate of the need for Flash a quickly as possible. Also, I’m sure Google and Netflix want to make build HTML5 websites that have content from big media companies

Are you sure Mozilla won’t just jump on this too? Because I remember reading a blog post by Robert O’Callahan claiming that we need something like this while in the comments Asa Dotzler went on defending DRM:
http://robert.ocallahan.org/2011/11/html-video-drm.html

By: AV

AV — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 22:25:38 +0000

I don’t know why is bad THAT drm, but some kind of drm is necessary to extinguish flash, even some mozillians I think recognize that. Now there is a big opportunity, if some kind of “good” DRM is proposed on W3C and implemented quickly there will be only that to play media on browsers across platform. One site could even require another scheme or plugin but then it would be more difficult to made it available to everyone than to use the standard W3C one. And so we will have the media available without too much problem and the distributors will be happy. It’s probably a dream though…

By: ik_5

ik_5 — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 22:00:10 +0000

You posted this post prior to me (I also planned to create similar post).

Like I wrote on /. where I first read it, the design is not hard to break. It actually does not protect anything.
If a browser contain a certificate for decrypting information, what prevent me to write a “sniffer” that also use that certificate and hijack the content ?

Then, you’ll have a cat and mouse game between everyone. Governments will try to create laws to prevent it (like that’s what will stop things), and again there will be new technology that will suppose to fix this, and yet again – you are unable to protect things …

Also Mozilla, will be unable to participate with such thing. Because in order for you to open the code, you will make things open to others to use.

It’s time that people will understand, that owning content like today, is not a real thing, but an appearance.

Instead of trying to fight the human spirit of willing to share things, they need to learn how to live with it imho.

By: Svalebror

Svalebror — Sun, 26 Feb 2012 21:46:41 +0000

As it were, Mozilla is dependent on the money Google pays to be the default search in Firefox, which in itself is a form of advertising revenue, and also by extension makes you dependent on the ad revenue of Google. Keep up the good work, but get off your high horse.