[bigfoot]

The saddest part of this story is that Netflix/Amazon/younameit will continue to ignore and block Linux users as the niche market they are -- even if a future Firefox or Chrome version comes with the new standardized DRM everyone asked for. Lose/lose situation.

[cpeterso]

Netflix works with EME on Chrome and Firefox. Netflix doesn't block Linux users. They just don't provide customer support for troubleshooting on Linux.

[flukus]

> Netflix doesn't block Linux users.

They don't block (anymore) they just offer a degraded experience, 720p resolution only. Piracy still offers a superior product.

[Buge]

That's not degraded only for Linux. The 720p limitation in Chrome and Firefox is also there for Windows and Mac.

[Aissen]

Not Win10 + Edge or on ChromeOS. This is due to the level of obfuscation of the keys (hardware-assisted vs software only).

[looklittlejohn]

I think we're splitting hairs here. The point cpeterso was trying to make is that while Netflix is a large company that advocated for EME, Netflix is also trying to cater to all audiences. And with their track record of open-sourceing lot she of their internal systems, I feel it's safe to say Netflix as a company isn't nearly as corrupt as some of the other advocates for EME.

[Aissen]

I wouldn't be so sure. As Netflix becomes a media giant (it's already bigger than many), they'll adopt their policy for DRM. If not, why don't you have less restrictions on "pure" Netflix Originals content ?

We'll see in the coming months if the Originals mean higher quality on Linux or not. I wouldn't bet on it.

[JepZ]

Btw. while Netflix was first in supporting Linux, Amazon allows at least 1080p in chrome.

[AnssiH]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the new "standardized DRM" is just EME which all major browsers, including Firefox and Chrome, already implement, and which has been used by e.g. Netflix for several years now.

And Netflix works on Linux on Chrome and Firefox already, using those APIs.

The actual Content Decryption Modules are not part of the standard, though. Firefox and Chrome use Google Widevine.

[richard_mcp]

Why would they do that? Are you assuming these companies will want to block Linux users out of some random, malicious spite?

[bigfoot]

No. For simple economic reasons, such as too much testing effort vs. too little revenue.

[ArchReaper]

For "simple economic reasons" you believe companies will go out of their way to block Linux users for some reason? If the browser supports it, that's all that really matters.

[rocqua]

To support EME on linux, they need to create an EME plugin for linux. Leaks in that plugin would kinda break DRM, so it needs to be designed well.

Writing and maintaing a crypto plugin is quite expensive.

[tedunangst]

That plugin is called widevine and it's been shipped with chrome for Linux for a year or more. It's already done. They don't need to do anything.

[AndrewCHM]

wouldn't it be Google or Adobe who would write the plugin?

its not like they lack the developers or the such

[thephyber]

Companies browser-sniff, rather than feature-sniff.

They shouldn't. But they usually do.

[bigfoot]

But don't get me wrong, I'd love to see your optimism come true here.

[tdy721]

This does not add to the conversation. But it makes me giggle. And I'm not really a Linux user...

I'm assuming you are? And trying to foment a revolution? If I'm wrong see the first sentence.