[rimantas]

  > Today, you can build a browser that can render all content on the web that
  > adheres to the open standards.

Actually, if your browser would only show that kind of content you wouldn't see much. Very little content on the web follows any standard at all.

  > Google, Microsoft and Apple together will decide how
  > we experience the web

You forgot Mozilla. And anyone making web browsers. That how it always was, that how it always be: browsers vendors will decide that.

  > and they will dictate terms on the rest of us, tearing down whatever "open" is left.
  > Average users are not going to install an open, non-DRM client if that doesn't allow
  > them to use Hulu, Netflix, YouTube, BBC etcetera.

And there you have it: the amount of "whatever "open" left" is immensely bigger than all hulus and netflixes. I cannot see hulu and netflix anyway, does that mean I have no access to the open web already? What does it mean "non DRM" client anyway? The one that only shows DRM'ed content? Does this exist? Back in the days of ITMS selling DRMed audio content iTunes still could play any mp3 you threw at it, and it still can do the same today. Just because some client will allow you to play DRMed content it in no way means that it won't be able to play open content. And because of that all this outrage is quite moronic.

> If you think "open" will still play a role in that, you must haven been living under a rock > for the past 10 years. Even Google's love for "open" and "neutral" has been reduced to mostly marketing.

Yes, I do. Your argument is just stupid.

[Myrmornis]

> You forgot Mozilla. And anyone making web browsers. That how it always was, that how it always be: browsers vendors will decide that.

Surely the implication was that Mozilla, and any other browser maker who does not or cannot support these locked-down content models, risk becoming irrelevant because the vast majority of people will use browsers that do support the protected content?