The EME spec draft has been published almost unchanged, even though it has known significant flaws, e.g. most of the spec is non-normative and it's been acknowledged (without a fix) that the key diagram is factually incorrect (shows that the browser is trusted).

It seems like corporate interests within W3C are much stronger than W3C's integrity.

I suspect it even goes farther than Google and Netflix using their market share and influence to pass the spec — they've probably been blackmailed by MPAA & co. that would pull the plug on Netflix and Google Play if they didn't do what they've been told to.

Huh? I think it is more complex than that.

Larry Page still failed to do a single thing to stop it (that I know of) and he is probably the single person with the most power to oppose this.

While the corporate players involved may just happen to have interests that might align somewhat in this case, Mozilla has made its fair share of mistakes that have driven people away from Firefox. A browser with fewer users results in less influence for its creator and users, obviously.

Phoenix, Firebird and Firefox before version 4 were generally excellent releases. This was back when Mozilla innovated and put out offerings that benefited users. These versions truly made people better off, and much of Firefox's rapid adoption was due to direct word-of-mouth recommendation.

Then around Firefox 4, they decided to imitate Chrome, rather than leading the way. The release schedule changes caused broken add-ons for a very long time. This drove people away. They've also repeatedly made harmful UI changes, to the point where Firefox today is almost visually identical to Chrome. This has driven more people away. Meanwhile, there has only been minimal progress when it comes to improving the performance of Firefox, and reducing its memory usage. This, too, has driven more people away to browsers that manage to perform better, with fewer resources. (Spare us the are-we-fast-yet-style benchmarks that just don't seem to match the actual browsing experience.)

Nobody but Mozilla themselves made Mozilla act in such a manner. Nobody but Mozilla themselves are responsible for driving away so many Firefox users.

And so here we are today, with Firefox at perhaps 15% to 20% of the browser market, if even that. This is a far cry from their peak, when they were above 30%. They no longer offer an appealing product, which causes a decrease in the number of people using it, which directly results in the unfortunate lack of influence that we're seeing in this case.

Whether their choices to 'be more like Chrome' were appropriate responses or not you can debate, but dating their loss of influence or market share to after they decided to 'imitate Chrome' is a mistaken timeline.

Personally, I'd say their loss of market to share from Chrome came from a few things:

* Google's ability to promote Chrome was huge, since so many people look at google every day. This is huge, and perhaps we could just stop there, but...

* Firefox had become bloated and slow and a bit crashy. It's just true. Google had the resources to write a high-quality new browser (which is pretty huge), and their browser was really really fast and really really stable compared to FF. (It is no longer so stark a difference, cause FF has much improved on speed and stability, and Chrome, as it continued to be developed got the inevitable bloat and bugs that software does. Although Google writes pretty good software, and Chrome is no exception).

* FF just wasn't innovating much anymore in features, for users or developers. There wasn't a lot of (non-ideological) reason to use it, if something else came along. Developers matter because they influence other users (in part by designing their sites with certain browsers as their main testing environment), and developers aren't influenced as much by the fact that google.com tells them to download Chrome. But I think FF lost significant dev market/mindshare to Chrome too, in part because Chrome's dev tools were way better than FF's at that time.

Now, if Mozilla made the right or wrong choices to try and recover, we can argue (I think overall they've made a lot of the right choices for the hand they were dealt), but at the point they changed to be 'more like Chrome', it was a reaction to already having lost a huge amount of market share. If they had kept on the course they were on, I think they'd have lost even more by now.

I don't think that the timing is all that relevant, though. This has been a gradual process over several years now.

The main point is that it wasn't so much what the other browsers and their vendors did that reduced Mozilla's influence, but rather that it was what Mozilla did (or didn't) do that has resulted in Firefox's decline.

Mozilla stopped leading, and instead decided to follow Chrome. While doing this, they've bungled major Firefox features, ranging from automatic upgrades to the UI design, time and time again. They've neglected to sufficiently resolve long-standing resource usage problems. They've ignored feedback from disappointed Firefox users for years now. They've ignored that this direction obviously isn't helping to prevent users from leaving Firefox, while at the same time it's driving a lot of users away, and furthermore it isn't really bringing in any new users.

In my opinion, Mozilla has been its own worst enemy these past several years. They've inflicted more harm on their own cause than any external opponent or competitor could have ever hoped to do.

Don't fall for the smokescreen.

Add to that Youtube being able to now use EME to stop downloader extensions and get more streaming deals and it helps explains why Google pushed Netflix support on Chromebooks as one of the first real world implementations of EME.

A lot of this probably correlates with my having become something of a cord cutter. It's hard to get worked up over concerns that someone might be threatening my "right" to disposable content that I've decided I don't need, usually don't want, and tend to think of as having a net negative impact on my quality of life. Perhaps it's my jaded brand of libertarianism showing: I'm inclined to say that media companies have just as much a right to make it hard for me to give them money as I have a right to continue not giving them money. Ironically enough, we're actually working toward a common cause.

(edit: A response would be more edifying than a drive-by downvote, y'all.)

The big catch is that it's an uneven equation because it's illegal to circumvent DRM due to the DMCA. If users could legally undo the DRM, I think you'd have a valid point: media companies are free to use whatever DRM they wish, and end-users and circumvent it if they are able. It would create an arms race which I believe the media companies would quickly lose. Instead, there's no legal weight in favor of the media companies, with no one standing up for end users' rights.

To put it in language that's less easily interpreted as being pro-DRM: If HBO wants to use digital rights management to sink Game of Thrones into a cultural black hole, I'm more than happy to oblige them on that one.

But this freedom is bounded in that it comes with a cost. If you don't consume their output then there is a segment of popular culture which you are excluded from... the social distance between you and friends and family are increased. It might be a black hole from your perspective, but lots and lots of the people around you are opting-in.

There are ways around this— there are many more things that its possible to have in common with others, and its possible to leverage your ignorance to create conversation— I'd rather hear a summary of a TV series from a friend than see the series. But it isn't as simple or free of a choice as you seem to be making it out to be.

Believe it or not, that prospect doesn't actually depress me.

But how will you know? You can't judge the content if you haven't seen it..

Perhaps I lose out on some serendipity, but it's worth it so I don't feel like I've wasted my time.

Which brings us back around to the point about DRM. There's so much I can consume where my rights as an owner are respected that I don't often feel the need to bother with anything else. Hell, I can even get Game of Thrones on DVD if its that important to my social life.

And he didn't say he wouldn't enjoy it, he said he doesn't enjoy talking about it. Probably because he hasn't seen it. But the idea that one's under some obligation to see it in order to engage in conversation probably means one needs new friends.

It's an interesting observation imo, you should watch the entire thing because when it starts out it doesn't seem as if it's relevant to this conversation.

having said that, I haven't watched television or cable in probably a good 15 years. If I find a show I really enjoy, I'll purchase the DVD/Blue-Ray and watch the entire thing mostly ad-free. And I prefer it that way.

In the case of any DRM though, it just so happens that not using their services is probably the only reasonable solution. So you're spot-on in that regard. The very existence of DRM is proof that these companies are on life support anyway.

I'm curios about your use of the term "scary". First of all, is the assumption that ebooks are a more valid form of information transmission or artistic expression than video? If it's purely a question of information, then I'd argue that ebook DRM is largely irrelevant because the Internet has surpassed books as the primary information delivery tool (see: Wikipedia). [side note: I think it's curious that as our access to some content has become more restricted, are access to other content has exploded. A person would never have had access to something like the Wikipedia outside a library 20 years ago, now you can get it on your phone wherever you are].

And it's not like print books have gone away, nor like they will in the near future. Indeed, publishers are desperate to continue to sell them to you because they have more control over the distribution chain. This applies to video as well, for that matter.

Then they DRM'd the music, and I did not speak out— Because I have a nice vinyl collection.

Then they DRM'd the ebooks, and I did not speak out— Because I still use public libraries.

Then they DRM'd the news, and I did not speak out— Because I don't read the news.

Then they DRM'd me.

That would therefore mean that all bad things must be stopped with full force, because "First they $VERBd the $GROUP[i], and I did not speak out" would apply for the union of VERBs, GROUPs, and possible {i}s.

E.g. in this case you literally end with "Then they DRM'd me". Are you seriously trying to claim that the end state of Mozilla supporting EME is that DRM is used to physically hurt people?

Of course not. That last line is clearly meant to be absurd. I wanted break the slippery slope argument.

What I was trying to do was poke fun at the idea that DRM is okay as long it doesn't affect you directly. You should speak out against DRM, not because it is a slippery slope, but because it is wrong and it hurts people. The reason I think you should speak out against interning socialists is because it is wrong, not because of the slippery slope that it entails.

I have yet to meet anyone who disagrees with the theory of evolution through natural selection who actually understands it well. Security, privacy, and cryptography are complicated subjects where the most potent effects are often epiphenomena. I don't have studies to back me up, but my impression from talking to most non technical people, is that they have only a hazy idea of what is involved.

Might be you, might be me. Either way, contradictions are still false.

And here I thought postmodernism was dead.

Really? I hate to be the elitist asshole, but if people don't understand that making bits uncopyable is not in the realm of reality, then I would argue they don't understand basic facts. See Schneier's commentary on "making water not wet" and copy protection, eg https://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0108.html#7

It is easy to outlaw it, though.

Certainly. But look at the people here on HN, who do understand. How many have them have stopped using browsers and OSes that ship EME?

The people that would educate the "average" user, that doesn't yet understand, are HN-type people. But while there is lots of hatred for DRM in the comments here, there simply is not enough interest in actually fighting it. It we did want to fight it, we wouldn't use products with EME and we would get our non-techie friends to do the same.

I think if I tried to do this, I would have way fewer friends. I don't get invited to many parties to begin with.

Creating some form of standard around the use of DRM is the lesser of two evils when compared to the use of a multitude of proprietary decoders.

Today there are 2 decoders, Flash and Silverlight

with EME we are moving to a minimum of 4, and possibly a crap load more decoders... Adobe DRM, MS PlayReady, Apple FairPlay and Google Widevine.

How is that better?

Ohh and calling them extensions does not magically make them better than plugins.. they are still binary blobs running closed source code interfacing with the browser using an api. a plugin by another name is still a plugin

By switching to EME, you're switching out the Flash & Silverlight platforms for a set of closed binary blobs which take an encrypted stream from the browser and produce unencrypted video/audio for the browser to display instead of executing arbitrary code. Now, I'll admit I'm not terribly well versed on the issue, but to me that seems to increase user security, promotes the use of other open web standards over Flash/Silverlight and keeps the media companies happy. The only people losing out in this situation are those that find DRM conceptually abhorrent.

Sure it might have a slightly smaller attack surface because it does not have all the other flash "features" that are not really used any more, but do not fool yourself, it is still executing arbitrary code that is beyond your control, and any attempt to control what this code does could be considered a violation of DMCA.

It however in no way promotes the open web, I do not know where you get that from. This is the exact opposite of promoting the open web

As to who loses out, it is not just people that find DRM objectionable. Will Adobe DRM work on ARM for the various SBC system like the Raspberry pi? Doubtful.. Will there be a CMD for midori? Ice Weasel? or any of the other less popular browsers? Doubtful. With the Adobe CDM work well, and bug free with out killing system resources under Linux x86? Doubtful (it will probably work, just not well)

So we are back to a world where only "approved" platforms are allowed to use the web fully, this is direct opposition to W3C's stated mission.

If Adobe's CDM can run while completely sandboxed from network and file access, then what if it was implemented in asm.js? Then "CDM.js" could be portable across all browser platforms and architectures. I'm not sure how well Firefox's JIT would optimize obfuscated asm.js code generated from obfuscated C++ code. :)

Disclosure: I used to work on Adobe's Flash Player team and I now work at Mozilla, so I have many conflicting personal and professional biases. :)

I'll admit this isn't my area of expertise, but how would this be possible?

In the case of Adobe's CDM and Mozilla, this is one of the points that was explicitly negotiated: the CDM will be running in a sandbox.

That's the silly example used in all of the pro-EME propaganda, but the standard also allows content providers to demand an encrypted path all the way to the video card, IIRC, thus bypassing the browser's ability to save content, and exposing a potentially insecure video driver to the CDM blob.

So either it doesn't work by design, or it's a rootkit's wetdream since all hardware is designed to be able to lock me out.

The goal of making Joe-Average choose between the official channels or some malware laden underground site is a perfectly pragmatic one on the parts of the licensors. They don't need to block the ilicit copying completely to see a benefit...

Especially when the costs of their 'protection' are predominately externalized onto the users (in the form of restricted freedoms, closed software, spyware, etc).

> The goal of making Joe-Average choose between the official channels or some malware laden underground site is a perfectly pragmatic one on the parts of the licensors.

Uh... what? The problem with DRM from a practical standpoint is that the effective technical means serve as an impediment to Mr Joe Average using his computer for perfectly allowed purposes - including at times playing the game. (Look at any major game launch recently for thousands of upset players because the DRM servers are overloaded.)

Secondly, you presented a strawman, since there are lots of non-malware-laden copies available online.

I'm not really against DRM per se, if there were some magic solution. Nor am I arguing that partially effective security measures are meaningless. I'm arguing that having encryption protected computing channels which deny the user override (or inspection) access are dangerous (duh! they go on malware laden websites, as you point out), and that any DRM which doesn't use such hardware level (or even low-level software) is no more effective than just setting a metadata flag saying it's copyrighted.

I get why companies want DRM, but that doesn't mean that I think giving in to their wishes is a good idea, when it both creates worse computer security problems and fails to solve the problem at a technical level.

A lot of people pirate things precisely because DRM is such a hassle.

How will Jolla Sailfish play these DRM'ed videos? They cannot. Unless they implement the Adobe DRM, too, which can only be implemented as a plugin, into these non-Google/Apple/MS solutions.

So now instead of just Adobe's flash , and a Silverlight that was dying anyway since Microsoft deprecated it, we'll have at least four different DRM platforms. Yay for the "HTML5 DRM"!

I have nothing against the media and proprietary software companies getting together to make a DRM standard. It would have precisely zero impact on my life, since I already avoid all forms of DRM.

I don't see what that has to do with Web standards though, since their goals are completely incompatible. EME shouldn't exist.

So if my company had average content that could reach 2 billion people against Mediaflix's 50m with closed silverlight, I'd still survive. Once I start making better content, Mediaflix is forced to do something or they'll slowly die.

Your company is called YouTube, and it's doing just fine.

Youtube without DRM was an advantage for a couple of hackers: They could download vids for offline viewing (iPod/iPad and p2p-sharing after takedown).

Youtube with DRM could change the game. The impact of a movie being pirated on Youtube is much more contained if users can't download it.

It's really only big media companies that are in the weird position of wanting many people to view their content but only under specific constraints.

How exactly and what's the point of Mozilla, if they aren't following through on their principles? If they do whatever Google and Microsoft do, then they are just as bad as them, and not something I can put my hopes in to protect an "open Internet". They proved that yesterday.

However, at least with Mozilla you get the benefit that the DRM piece is as contained as possible and you are not leaking information to the content providers. Something Mozilla fought for that neither Google nor Microsoft gave anything about.

Also, Mozilla doesn't brag about its mission. What does that even mean? That Mozilla is pointing out the difference between itself and the other players in the market? It's vital that people are aware of the fact that Mozilla is a mission driven organization. That is the reason d'etre of Firefox.

Really? Maybe that's just my perception, but I'd say their homepage is almost all about their mission and principles (and then about their products that are said to be driven by those). And their "about" page is the same. If that's not bragging - I'm not sure what bragging really is.

Then, their manifesto is very anti-DRM by nature, all promoting openness and end-user accessibility and control. So, it seems that they had already chosen their position and part of it was to abstain from the consumer restrictions.

Now, when their targets (bringing their products to everyone and promoting openness) started to seriously conflict with each other, it was clearly shown that the dark side is more seductive.

Mozilla have added an attack vector on users. They fought for the right to be the people adding the poison. That's not noble or unfortunate.

It means that there is no difference between Mozilla and the other "players in the market". Except that Mozilla are lying to themselves about it.

"We 98% stand by our principles but at the end of the day, if it is important enough, we will cave like we did before"

Is not an inspiring message.

Mozilla should stop the whole "We are Mozilla Doing good is part of our code", "Different by design" shtick because it is no longer true, they are now just another software house that makes a browser.

I wish they found an alternate source of cash that allowed them to get rid of those Google hypocrites.

Disclaimer: I work for the arrogant Google hypocrites.

We need software freedom to be healthy, not organizations that attack that health.

Many important battles are fought with multiple tactics and multiple loosely aligned parties with a common goal.

No board devised JavaScript.

> then you decide to implement Flash in the same inadequate language, then you go and make an agreement with the original creators of Flash for your EME/DRM implementation, because your implementation doesn't look like it is going to do too well.

EME has nothing to do with Shumway.

Shumway has everything to do with EME not on a technical level, but on a business level because a superior Flash replacement games developers and other content providers found more dependable than the original Flash would put them in a stronger bargaining position vis-a-vis the other majors.

Good technical execution is Mozilla's strongest bargaining chip and if they fail at that they make themselves less relevant.

Adobe's problem with Flash is that it is not open source and its bugs can't be tracked down.

An open source Flash replacement might as well be written in a faster language. It is the open source nature that matters, not the language it is implemented in.

Using JavaScript reduces memory safety problems, and interfacing with the Web APIs from JS is simpler than for C++.

Why does should the announcement of acquiescence to DRM have to mention Adobe? They could have announced that they have capitulated first, and they are sorting out the details later. Oh no, Adobe had to get a mention. Why are some redditors in such denial?

This is really about a deal between Mozilla and Adobe in which Adobe becomes the Mozilla preferred vendor for those who seek to use DRM in Firefox, for whatever Adobe offers in return. It isn't just an announcement of acquiescence to DRM. Quite a few content providers will have to be dealing with Adobe and Mozilla will probably get a share of the income stream. Denial is not a river in Egypt.

I am not concerned about what deals Mozilla does, but they will have to deliver technical superiority faster and better and make their browser the one developers recommend to their clients if they are to survive in the long term.

Instead, whe chose to talk abour EME when we were able to answer that crucial question.