[AnthonyMouse]

> That's kinda my point. Browser vendors had a no-win which-is-the-lesser evil choice: accept an in-browser binary blob but keep the linkability, etc, of the web, or concede the rest of the already-vastly-shrunken ground of the premium video playback market to off-web blobs.

> Thing is, in ten years, it's not going to matter, because long-form premium video on web will be such a vanishingly small niche.

But that is the point. Why permanently infect the web and destroy trust in our institutions for the sake of something that it would barely hurt anything to just let go?

[majormajor]

Because the number of people who believe this will "permanently infect the web and destroy trust in our institutions" is miniscule and limited to certain tech-savvy internet community bubbles, and browser vendors are also looking at the millions more people who would see Netflix et al ceasing to function on the internet as just another reason to ignore the web as a whole?

My claim is that the alternative isn't "more open" the alternative is "more closed, because the open web has yet another (this time self-inflicted) nail driven through it."

But I do think they're both lost causes, long-term. The open web will likely be increasingly relegated, for most users, to a dangerous place of viruses, malware, and shitty ads compared to their happy little walled gardens.

Not to play more-paranoid-than-you, but if you want to save the web, I think you've got to fix the web, first. DRM is a sideshow.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Because the number of people who believe this will "permanently infect the web and destroy trust in our institutions" is miniscule and limited to certain tech-savvy internet community bubbles

The "tech-savvy internet community" is the only place the W3C has any relevance. Nobody else has even heard of it. And destroying trust in something important among the only people who actually know what it is, that's a problem.

> and browser vendors are also looking at the millions more people who would see Netflix et al ceasing to function on the internet as just another reason to ignore the web as a whole?

The web isn't the internet and Netflix isn't the web -- it is an app, just like Windows Media Player is an app. The fact that you can also write that app in javascript doesn't change that.

Netflix doesn't work like the web. You can't create a hyperlink to a specific title on Netflix and send it to your friends or post it on Twitter. You can't embed a Netflix video in your own webpage. Just rendering an app in a browser isn't what makes it the web.

> My claim is that the alternative isn't "more open" the alternative is "more closed, because the open web has yet another (this time self-inflicted) nail driven through it."

You can't get more openness by making the open thing more closed. Even if more things then use it, then they're using the closed thing and you've gained nothing -- or lost something because previously-open things on the open web become more closed.

> The open web will likely be increasingly relegated, for most users, to a dangerous place of viruses, malware, and shitty ads compared to their happy little walled gardens.

The web is already a sandbox. Browsers are specifically designed to run potentially malicious code, and are very good at it -- the large majority of vulnerabilities (and super-spammy ads) come from terrible plugins like Flash, or soon the EME black boxes. It seems rather odd to argue that having those things makes the web better.

"Walled garden" means excluding native apps that haven't been sanctioned by the gatekeeper. It's a terrible system that gives too much control to the gatekeepers, but it only makes the web more competitive by comparison because you can still put whatever you want on your own webpage and not have to get it approved by anyone.