The UXP and DRM dilemma

[Moonchild]

1. Our current implementation of Widevine is effectively defunct because we are not at API level 10. So "technically" it supports it but in practice it currently cannot be used.
As past implementation has shown (and I already touched on) it seems that whenever we are going to update to once again be API compatible, Google will likely decide to bump the API level again making our implementation incompatible.

2. Other alternatives only have it because Google allows it to be licensed for them. The capability is directly linked to the licensing Google enforces or allows. Tying in with the previous point, consider the browsers that currently have DRM: Google Chrome (Google owned), Firefox (Google funded), Waterfox (grey area but now owned by a colleague in the ad market). Does Chromium have DRM? I thought it did not because licensing.

3. Welcome to DRM monopoly. In-browser DRM is and will remain the sole propriety of Google because they have manoeuvred themselves into that monopoly position (they wrote MSE, they wrote EME and they dominated the W3C voting through over-representation when it was put up to a standards vote). We've waited to see if other players would enter the market after Adobe withdrew -- a curious decision actually. None have. So it's not just a matter of use, but also a matter of dependence. I also think the DRM question has been primarily fulfilled by the media bloc who wanted it (Google, Netflix, HBO) and the expected "wide use" would have already happened if it was going to, so this is much less of a compelling point in 2021.

4. You can see it like that but keeping a pretence of supporting something that we realistically can not achieve is worse than being transparent about it.

5. This is exactly why I asked this question and why I'm calling it a dilemma. I'm fine with keeping it in the platform as long as there is or can be a reasonable expectation that some application developer is going to need it (and will be given license by Google to do so... which seems unlikely looking at the way Metastream was treated -- a specific even electron-based application for the sole purpose of being a media delivery application being denied Widevine by Google). And to be fair that reasonable expectation does not seem to exist, but by all means, tell me otherwise and we can leave EME/DRM alone in the platform.

[Falna]

There were rumors a few months back about a potential antitrust investigation into Google's ownership of Chrome, which could result in them having to sell it: Feds may target Google’s Chrome browser for breakup

Not sure what the latest is, and lots of uncertainties, but a small possibility that the landscape may look different in a few years time?

[Tharthan]

Off-topic:
Unfortunately, Falna, that ended with a decision that the antitrust suit wouldn't go to court until September of 2023.

So until then, they are free to just do whatever they want and also to create plan B, Plan C, etc. for if they are broken up. They have the upper hand even in their potential breaking up.