Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Netflix Ditches Silverlight With HTML5 Support In IE11

Posted by timothy on from the such-comfortable-handcuffs dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Netflix today announced that it has finally taken the first step towards ditching Silverlight for HTML5, largely thanks to Microsoft, no less. The company has been working closely with the Internet Explorer team to implement its proposed 'Premium Video Extensions' in IE11 on Windows 8.1, meaning if you install the operating system preview released today, you can watch Netflix content using HTML5 right now. Back in April, Netflix revealed its plans to use HTML5 video in any browser that implements its proposed 'Premium Video Extensions.' These extensions allow playback of premium video (read: with DRM protection) directly in the browser without the need to install plugins such as Silverlight or Flash."

24 of 337 comments (clear)

  1. Still need to install something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I like how it touts the fact that you don't need to install flash or silverlight but you still need to install Netflix's DRM stuff to decode the data. And if your operating system or machine isn't supported by Netflix, then you can't view the data. I don't see how this is any better than flash or silverlight. With those, you just need to install either flash or silverlight but now you need to install a DRM from each provider.

    1. Re:Still need to install something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I like how it touts the fact that you don't need to install flash or silverlight but you still need to install Netflix's DRM stuff to decode the data. And if your operating system or machine isn't supported by Netflix, then you can't view the data. I don't see how this is any better than flash or silverlight. With those, you just need to install either flash or silverlight but now you need to install a DRM from each provider.

      The joke is that they did their content licensing deals based on MS drm( so that it is stipulated that on desktop it has to have their magic sauce because it's soooo unrippable) because of MS influence, the meat of the joke is that MS discontinued silverlight.

      that's why you have netflix clients on phones and what have you but the only desktop platform is with silverlight!

    2. Re:Still need to install something by letsief · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not quite as bad as you're suggesting. You don't need to install a different DRM plugin for each content provider. You just need different plugins for different forms of DRM. At least in practice, I suspect, most users (i.e., those running common browsers and operating systems) won't have to install anything- the DRM plugins will ship with the browser. That's the case now with the Chromebooks and Windows 8.1/IE11.

    3. Re:Still need to install something by devent · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Please tell me how Firefox will ship a patent laden and proprietary DRM plugins?
      For that matter, also Chromium (open source Chrome)?

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    4. Re:Still need to install something by denis-The-menace · · Score: 3, Informative

      HELL NO!

      Protecting content is job #1

      you enjoying the is job #2

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
    5. Re:Still need to install something by prelelat · · Score: 4, Informative

      They won't they will require you to download it just like most other plugins you get for FF. That's how it should be at least. I'm not sure what chrome will do. I would hope they would have it as a download, while I would probably install it at home I wouldn't want extra stuff shoved in from a fresh install.

    6. Re:Still need to install something by bzipitidoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Take your own head out of the sand and face it, DRM is a broken concept. It's not only that DRM is unworkable, DRM is contrary to the social good. You think only of the mythical starving artist who deserves a chance to make a living, and skate right past the point that copyright is not the only way or even the best way to profit from artistic endeavor. And you don't think about the millions who are robbed, by this implicit tax, because adding DRM to everything is very costly, and most of all by breaking our implicit social contract to love thy neighbor. Sharing valuable information is more than a courtesy, it's the core of our lives. We are social animals. Artists' bosses will have to accept this eventually.

      As an example, do you think it might be a good idea to apply DRM to knives? If a knife refused to function when held by anyone but the owner, you might think criminals could not take your knife and stab you with it, and so it would be safer. They couldn't steal your knife and use it themselves or sell it to a 3rd party. If you were ever convicted of a crime, or diagnosed as mentally troubled, the manufacturer could disable all your knives. Maybe just a speeding or parking ticket would count. This ability could be used to coerce you on other matters, such as being late on paying the rent or utility bills or those parking tickets. Disable your knives until you pay. This could be implemented by making the knife retractable, like a typical utility knife, and adding finger and palm print sensors to the handle. Would need batteries in the handle. The DRM knife would be far bulkier, clumsier, more expensive, and less useful than a knife without DRM. We would also have to outlaw non-DRM knives. Would be quite a task to make sure no one ever makes knives, out of stone, as our ancestors did in the Stone Age, or out of sheet metal or broken glass or who knows what.

      Now you may think that's all a strawman. It is not. Trying to apply DRM to knives is just silly. Might not be silly to apply DRM to guns, but knives are just too simple. As silly as it is to apply DRM to knives, it's even sillier to try it on information. Being a physical item, a knife takes some effort to duplicate. Might be easier to make your own design than bother trying to copy another. By comparison, the effort required to share information is trivial.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    7. Re:Still need to install something by makomk · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, it couldn't become standard. You know why? Because the entire point of this is to allow access to proprietary, vendor-specific DRM modules, and those DRM modules are intentionally not compatible with each other. (In fact they pretty much have to be in order to be effective as DRM.) As of this announcement, Netflix supports two mutually incompatible, single-platform DRM stacks for HTML5: Microsoft's PlayReady on IE11 and Windows 8.1, and Google's Widevine on non-rooted Chromebooks manufactured by Google partners. If you're not using one of those two stacks, it's both illegal and impossible to use the HTML5 version of Netflix. Firefox user? Forget it. Chrome user on the desktop? No way!

      Suppose for instance that Apple decided to support this part of HTML5. You still wouldn't be able to watch Netflix on Apple platforms, even though they supported HTML5 EME, because they have their own DRM scheme which Netflix and Apple would have to negotiate a license for.

    8. Re:Still need to install something by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, it couldn't become standard. You know why? Because the entire point of this is to allow access to proprietary, vendor-specific DRM modules, and those DRM modules are intentionally not compatible with each other. (In fact they pretty much have to be in order to be effective as DRM.) As of this announcement, Netflix supports two mutually incompatible, single-platform DRM stacks for HTML5: Microsoft's PlayReady on IE11 and Windows 8.1, and Google's Widevine on non-rooted Chromebooks manufactured by Google partners. If you're not using one of those two stacks, it's both illegal and impossible to use the HTML5 version of Netflix. Firefox user? Forget it. Chrome user on the desktop? No way!

      Suppose for instance that Apple decided to support this part of HTML5. You still wouldn't be able to watch Netflix on Apple platforms, even though they supported HTML5 EME, because they have their own DRM scheme which Netflix and Apple would have to negotiate a license for.

      Obviously the problem is trying to do this in a web browser. Why should we play video in a web browser?

      Why not just do it like we do on Android an iOS? Make it an app. Just download the Netflix app from the Windows/Mac app store and run it to organize your queues and what movies and such you want to watch. Videos play in the app.

      No need to hassle with plugins, web browsers and all that. It's already an app everywhere else you go (including set top boxes and Blu-ray players, etc).

      One app for Windows, one for OSX, another one for Chrome OS. No more battling between IE, Chrome, Firefox, etc.

  2. Not really HTML5 by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If I still have to have an approved OS and browser and install a DRM plugin, it's not really just HTML5.

    Oh wow, we swapped one plugin for another.

    1. Re:Not really HTML5 by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In my minds of the corporate overlords these days, what's good for the goose is good for the goose and the gander can take it or leave it.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    2. Re:Not really HTML5 by Microlith · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually that would still be HTML5. That's why adding ECE to HTML5 is stupid: it solves none of the problems of Flash plugins while opening the door for a multitude of similar DRM plugins, each with its own, unique attack surface.

    3. Re:Not really HTML5 by Sparticus789 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sounds like a problem with your internet connection and not a problem with Netflix. I stream in 720i regularly without any problems.

      --
      sudo make me a sandwich
    4. Re:Not really HTML5 by citizenr · · Score: 5, Funny

      Its NOT a plugin citizen, we call them Extensions!

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    5. Re:Not really HTML5 by Vanderhoth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree with you for the most part.

      If I can't find something on Netflix TPB or ExtraTorrent is my next stop. I like Netflix because I like watching movies I haven't seen in a long time and they have a pretty good anime selection, way better than my local video store (now closed) ever had and I don't have to spend days snooping the interwebs to find episodes. Also there's good content there for my two year old to watch. For eight bucks a month it's worth the effort it'd take me to find and download stuff for her and saves physical space in my house for crap movies/shows she'd only watch once and never look at again.

      If they had newer movies and shows there, I'd be willing to pay more. Espically if I could get rid of my cable. If I could get rid of the cable I'd save nearly $100/month, but my wife is addicted to having crap playing in the background even when she's reading a book and not watching it. I just got Sickbeard setup a couple of weeks ago to auto download shows we watch and I'm starting to wean my wife off of channel surfing, but she still insists we can't get rid of the cable.

      Part of the reason for getting Sickbeard is we live on the East coast (Atlantic time) and a lot of shows we want to watch don't end until almost midnight for us, we have a two year old and are up early every day so staying up late is less and less of an option. The cable company wants to charge us ANOTHER $15/month for one PVR or $25/month for two so we could have one for the bedroom and another for the living room, all on top of the $150/month for internet and cable we already pay. With Sickbeard I have it downloading to a 3TB ($250) external drive on a laptop in our bedroom closet that's hocked to our bedroom TV (HDMI cable through the wall). Then I use Plex to stream content to our downstairs Smart TV, it's a pretty awesome setup and I'm considering ripping, or just downloading, all the movies we own and sticking the DVD's in a box in the attic to save space in our living room. But it's a shame I have to expend all the energy to setup that system when I'd be perfectly willing to pay a reasonable price for a similar service.

      I don't like cable, I don't like sitting through 20 minutes of useless commercials for every hour of TV I watch and have movies and shows interrupted, I don't like having to pay for tons of crap I don't want and pay extra to get the two or three channels I do want, then be nickled and dimed for equipment that's inconvenient to use and I have to give back if I cancel my service anyway, $300/year for two PVRs on top of the $1,650/year for basic cable and internet is stupid.

  3. If it's still MS only, who gives a shit? by jpstanle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If it's still MS only, who gives a shit?

    1. Re:If it's still MS only, who gives a shit? by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They already had netflix working just fine. So why would they care?

    2. Re:If it's still MS only, who gives a shit? by sangreal66 · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, PS3 is the most used "TV-connected" Netflix client.

  4. HTML5 is now officially been Embraced and Extended by apcullen · · Score: 5, Informative
    FTFA:

    According to Netflix, Microsoft made this possible by implementing three features in its still-unfinished IE11:

    The Media Source Extensions (MSE), using the Media Foundation APIs within Windows. Since Media Foundation supports hardware acceleration using the GPU, Netflix can achieve high quality 1080p video playback with minimal CPU and battery utilization.
    The Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) using Microsoft PlayReady DRM. This provides the content protection needed for media services like Netflix.
    The Web Cryptography API (WebCrypto), which allows Netflix to encrypt and decrypt communication between its JavaScript application and its servers.

    Sounds like this is locked into windows via the Media Foundation APIs

  5. "Such as" by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These extensions allow playback of premium video (read: with DRM protection) directly in the browser without the need to install plugins such as Silverlight or Flash.

    Geez, talk about stretching the meaning of "such as." The whole point of this is that it lets you play it in the browser by installing a proprietary single-source plugin. Sure, you can argue that your plugin isn't "like" Sliverlight or Flash, just like Microsoft might say Silverlight is also not a plugin like Flash, and Adobe might argue that Flash is not a plugin like Java. And the guy serving malware on porn sites might argue his video codec is not a malware plugin like the other ones are. "My plugin takes spam-sending orders from this botnet, not that botnet! See? It's totally different!"

    That is exactly how these extensions are not plugins like Flash or Silverlight. In other words: totally meaningless bullshit. It's just another plugin, which happens to use a newer API.

    Lie all you want about it not being a plugin, but the lie is pretty transparent and does more to discredit the speaker than it does to really deceive anyone.

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  6. Re:what about chrome os? by realityimpaired · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If that suggests/implies it'll eventually work on Linux with HTML5/extensions on Chrome browser, I can live with that.

    All the shouting about DRM being evil and everything doesn't really accomplish what we want. You end up looking like a zealot, and you would have better luck holding back the tide with a thimble. If you want to get rid of DRM, you need to show them that it's not necessary. The best way you can do that is by not pirating their stuff, and actually paying for it if you feel that it's worth paying for. If you don't think it's worth the price they're charging, then don't pay it, but don't download it and then rationalize it by saying that it's too expensive to pay for, or you plan on deleting it once you've watched it. The people creating content have a right to set the price they want to charge for it, and you, the consumer, have a right to vote with your wallet. But voting with your wallet does *not* mean circumventing the rights of the creators, it means not consuming the product at all.

    And I realize there's a very good chance that you don't download stuff that you haven't paid for, and that I'm ranting at the wrong person, but I have absolutely zero sympathy for the people who piss and moan about DRM in one breath, and then talk about how they download their movies and music because information wants to be free. These people are the reason DRM exists in the first place. I don't like DRM either, but as long as it doesn't interfere with the legitimate use of a product or service I'm paying for, I don't really notice it. If it starts to interfere with my use, I simply won't buy the product in question. The market will sort itself out, but as long as people keep giving them a reason to invent more draconian methods, those methods are going to keep being created.

  7. Re:HTML5 is now officially been Embraced and Exten by TopSpin · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sounds like this is locked into windows via the Media Foundation APIs

    There may be lock in, but it's not exclusive to Microsoft:

    Media Source Extensions (MSE) This specification extends HTMLMediaElement to allow JavaScript to generate media streams for playback. Allowing JavaScript to generate streams facilitates a variety of use cases like adaptive streaming and time shifting live streams.

    Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) This proposal extends HTMLMediaElement providing APIs to control playback of protected content.

    Web Cryptography API (WebCrypto) This specification describes a JavaScript API for performing basic cryptographic operations in web applications, such as hashing, signature generation and verification, and encryption and decryption.

    They're all W3C standards track specifications. The first two have editors from the same three corporations; Google, Microsoft and Netflix. Google, in particular, can't tolerate not being capable of playing Netflix (10% of the population of the US subscribes to this) on its platforms (Android and Chrome OS.) It already works on both and you can take it for granted that Google expects to achieve parity with these specifications.

    The last specification is not specific to streaming; it's a general purpose Javascript API to perform common cryptographic operations.

    --
    Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
  8. Re:Don't see how that's better. by wagnerrp · · Score: 4, Informative

    If so, what is stopping other people (e.g. some Firefox extension developers) to build the exact same thing, allowing Netflix videos to play in other browsers?

    Nothing prevents Firefox from implementing HTML5 ECE, but then nothing is requiring Netflix to support Firefox as an approved browser for their ECE module. Of course, trying to re-implement the ECE module itself to independently support Netflix is a federal crime under the DMCA.

  9. Re:HTML5 is now officially been Embraced and Exten by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

    Even if HTML5 EME isn't "locked into Windows", Netflix appears to have chosen a Content Decryption Module that is.