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.
The UXP and DRM dilemma
Forum rules
Please keep everything here strictly on-topic.
This board is meant for Pale Moon source code development related subjects only like code snippets, patches, specific bugs, git, the repositories, etc.
This is not for tech support! Please do not post tech support questions in the "Development" board!
Please make sure not to use this board for support questions. Please post issues with specific websites, extensions, etc. in the relevant boards for those topics.
Please keep things on-topic as this forum will be used for reference for Pale Moon development. Expect topics that aren't relevant as such to be moved or deleted.
Please keep everything here strictly on-topic.
This board is meant for Pale Moon source code development related subjects only like code snippets, patches, specific bugs, git, the repositories, etc.
This is not for tech support! Please do not post tech support questions in the "Development" board!
Please make sure not to use this board for support questions. Please post issues with specific websites, extensions, etc. in the relevant boards for those topics.
Please keep things on-topic as this forum will be used for reference for Pale Moon development. Expect topics that aren't relevant as such to be moved or deleted.
Re: The UXP and DRM dilemma
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite
Re: The UXP and DRM dilemma
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?
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?
Forked extensions :
● Add-ons Inspector ● Auto Text Link ● Copy As Plain Text ● Copy Hyperlink Text ● FireFTP button replacement ● gSearch Bar ● Navigation Bar Enhancer ● New Tab Links ● Number Tabs ● Print Preview Button and Keyboard Shortcut 2 ● Scrollbar Search Marker ● Simple Marker ● Tabs To Portfolio ● Update Alert ● Web Developer's Toolbox ● Zap Anything
Hint: If you expect a reply to your PM, allow replies...
Re: The UXP and DRM dilemma
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.
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.