...but "for as little as $550 each" just blows my mind.
I thought I was crazy when I spent $400 on a graphics card once, but I (and I understand it's subjective) was perfectly happy with the performance on any game I played for the next 2 years. $500-$1000 (x2) Crossfire/SLI setups just seem to me to be about people with too much money and not enough creativity as to how to spend it...
And isn't a bit terrifying that the former director of the NSA *and* CIA doesn't realize that a PUBLIC phone conversation can be overheard? I mean, even second rate TV screenwriters have figured that out...
Why is it surprising you can access to hardware features with Java *if you approve it*? I can access hardware with Python after I approve it, and that proves very useful. It's all about granting lower level access from interpreted languages - they already ask when they need these permissions, what else do you want, a human sacrifice?
I mean, really - you can install a native plugin or you can run a Java applet - both require user intervention for this level of access. Maybe I am underestimating the human population, but when both explicitly tell you exactly what enabling them allows it really doesn't matter - you either allow it or you don't.
And another useful thing about Java is that is has a very mature set of security domains. If anything, it was basically the proving grounds for all of the current iOS and Android apps in that regard. OBVIOUSLY it will of course ask you before running an applet that tries to access devices like that. When the applet wants to access hardware, ask. When it doesn't, don't. Seriously, your/. ID isn't that high, have you really never seen this before or are you just trolling?
But when the context of "work" is market share, it's TOTAL FAIL. General consumers really don't give a shit if it's the most secure platform on the planet if it's nigh useless in practice. Or are you one of the dozens of people using NetBSD?
Because Java allows native access to USB hardware. Haven't seen that in Javascript.
And no offense, but do you know what a digital signature is? Having the source code to the algorithm doesn't affect security. That would be like saying "I know how AES works, therefore I can decrypt all AES-encrypted data!" Doesn't work that way.
Actually, for whatever reason 2.5mm has been a fairly common jack ("sub-mini") on office and cordless phones for a long time, which means it's also fairly common for phone headsets (even high end non-wireless telemarketer/office headsets).
What made the US an immediate 'first world' nation? Was it born that way, fully industrialized and ready to go
Yes, it was, because the term was invented in the 50's to represent wealthy capitalist democracies aligned with the US and NATO, as opposed to the Second World (Soviet Bloc countries) and the Third World (counties not aligned with either of the first two).
There are microUSB to HDMI connectors that can do it in one cable, just as there are (obviously) Slimport/DisplayPort connectors that can do it. They are no different in that regard from a Lightning to HDMI connector, except that the former can do true uncompressed 1080p and the latter currently compresses to a lower resolution H.264 stream before uncompressing and outputting on HDMI.
Apple may one day be able to output 1080p60, but they are still compressing it via H.264 first, so it's never going to match true 1080p60 uncompressed video. Oh, and MHL 3 supports 4k video. Good luck putting high quality 4K encoders/decoders into the device and "connector" (respectively) any time soon...
Well, in general on PCs DRMs are only available in plugins or standalone apps right now anyway. Access requires Flash, PlayReady requires Silverlight, and the others are really only used as libraries in specific apps (not web browsers).
But EME actually isn't primarily about PC browsers, anyway. It's going to be much more interesting with devices - Android and iOS tablets/phones, of course, but even more for all of the various TVs, BD players, streaming devices like Roku, WD Live, and Chromecast, game consoles, whatever. If it were just about compatibility with a few browsers on a few PC OSes, the content providers wouldn't really care, and they could probably live with annoying browser plugins. It's really about being able to support dozens of different embedded devices without having to write and maintain separate apps for each...
How much of that ~$65B video market is streamed through a web browser? Almost none. OP was talking about DRM in general, so in that sense video games are very relevant.
Content owners don't use DRM. Content providers use DRM, which is the owners' condition for allowing them to provide their content.
And it seems like so many people are commenting on this without actually understanding the EME spec... with EME content itself does not have to be tied to *any* DRM. For example, if a provider uses MPEG-DASH to stream, it's just encrypted with a normal AES key, and the device manufacturers/browser developers and the content providers can implement whatever DRM schemes they want to do the key exchange.
I'm not arguing that DRM *itself* doesn't restrict freedom to use content or encourage walled gardens - but creating a mechanism to make it *easier* to switch between different DRM schemes for the same content obviously doesn't promote *more* walled gardens, it promotes fewer. It will allow more competition among DRM providers because the lock-in to any one scheme is significantly reduced. See Apple/iTunes for the worst walled garden offender with their completely closed and proprietary FairPlay DRM. And compare to Netflix, which is nearly ubiquitous since they don't really care what the specific DRM scheme is as long as the content is protected per owner's requirements.
Of those web services that use the second approach, are there actually any that are not available on all of the platforms the DRM service itself is available?
I wanted to try to answer your question, but I just can't parse it:)
Though note that a lot of video apps on devices, etc are not browser based at all. They may just use a DRM library embedded/linked with the app (for example, Adobe Access is in Flash, but does not in itself depend on Flash. Same with PlayReady and Silverlight). More of them are switching to use browsers (or embedded web views in a semi-native app) - but that's the reason they want EME.
Not sure if this is what you meant in your question... but Chromecast is already using HTML5-EME (with support for PlayReady and Widevine) and it's selling so fast Google can't make enough of them. And the *only* way to play protected video on it is via an HTML5 app using EME...
Why does that matter to me as a user or integrator? It still means that I am locked in to whatever vendor they choose for their DRM. If that vendor chooses not to support my platform, or decides that I am a competitor in some other business so refuses to give me distribution rights to their EME plugin, then I'm stuck.
Again I will say READ THE SPEC if you want to understand how it works - your assumptions are incorrect. With EME the content itself is not DRM-specific. It's just encrypted with standard AES128-CTR mode. The key exchange (ie. getting the key into the player in a way that is specific to that player) is the "DRM". Both a provider AND a client/player can support more than one DRM scheme with this, they just negotiate which one they would like to use.
There is no requirement that OMA plugins be interoperable
Of course there is. That's the point of standardizing it. Sure the plugin has to be implemented for the platform but that's a given. Once it is, EME is a standard way to provide keys to the player via Javascript APIs. And of course OMA itself is a defined (and open) spec, so correctly implemented plugins will be interoperable with OMA servers as well.
If Netflix decides to use MS PlayReady, but MS decides that they don't want to support my device because it competes with the Surface or the XBox, then I'm in exactly the same situation as I was with Silverlight.
No, you're not. If Microsoft decides they don't want to support your device, that device maker can support another DRM scheme like Widevine, Access, whatever (which are cheaper than PlayReady to license, anyway). If Netflix wants to allow customers to stream to that device, they support that DRM on their servers and it just works. Though it's not a particularly good example, anyway, because PlayReady is already supported on the PS3/PS4, iOS, Android, etc. It's in MS's interest to license it wherever they can. But my point is if they don't, then their competitors will. Standardizing the DRM interface makes DRM a commodity and easily replaceable, which can result in lower licensing costs and cheaper products and content for consumers.
I'm not even trying to argue whether DRM itself is good or bad, just IF you accept that it's already there and isn't going away, might as well make it less proprietary and easier to replace if any DRM providers start playing politics like you suggest.
Who cares if Netflix is using an open API, if instead of using MS Silverlight they're now using MS DRM Plugin?
Yes, that's exactly my point. Now they (or other) providers can write the code once and use MS PlayReady, Google Widevine, Adobe Access, OMA, or whatever DRM they feel like supporting. You clearly don't understand EME, maybe you should read the spec before commenting on it...
This is SO TOTALLY IRRELEVANT that it's becoming mind numbing.
W3C approval, yes, as you said, may not change anything for "the better", but it is going to happen regardless of whether it's codified as a standard. Seriously, how many actual browsers/engines are there that matter today, anyway? IE, Chrome, Safari, Firefox, that covers 95+%. IE and Chrome have already committed to EME regardless of the "standard". So, in the future if you want to watch Netflix with DRM you may have to install one of those browsers.
All that excluding EME from the "standard" is going to do is make the other browsers less relevant. In fact, IMO the #1 thing NOT adopting EME would accomplish would be more or less killing off Firefox as a relevant web browser for most users (Safari is still the Apple Koolaid so they don't care about compatibility).
Yes, they absolutely can survive without *your* money. Because the vast majority of consumers doesn't consider DRM on their movies some inherent moral issue - in fact the vast majority doesn't even know what we are talking about.
But seriously, if you don't want to watch a movie, DON'T. Don't pirate it, don't buy it, and don't fucking whine about it. If you think they are all crap you obviously are not a significant consumer, making you even less relevant/influential than even you seem to think you are. But apparently you are not the average consumer, since Hollywood is having their best year ever in 2013 revenue-wise...
Video games grossed about $67B in 2012 worldwide. The movie box office was $35B and the home video market was about $30B. More people watch video, maybe, but games are often much higher priced per unit. And don't forget mobile games, that industry has EXPLODED.
The buckets are pretty close to equal these days...
By leaving DRM out of the standard for the Web, we could have forced content providers into that same choice: offer DRM-free video at a price, or starve.
Not sure how this is "insightful". Netflix, Apple, VUDU, Amazon, Hulu, etc all have DRM and they are far from "starving". But they are all using a random mishmash of DRM solutions individually developed/licensed/etc. And they will continue to do that as long as there are no standards they all can adopt.
Standardizing DRM in HTML5 is not caving to anyone, I don't know what people keep thinking that. It's just consolidating the APIs so that these providers can create HTML5 web apps that run on more devices without modification. But don't kid yourself that if it didn't exist DRM wouldn't exist. It currently DOESN'T EXIST and DRM is everywhere...
A laptop is a TOOL. A cellphone is a TOOL. When you need them to be the entertainment in themselves you have issues.
“I interviewed a month ago a recent college graduate from Stanford—a mechanical engineering degree. She was already on her third cellphone or laptop and bored out of her mind,” Jepsen said. “She graduated in 2010. I think it gets depressing. It was so exciting three years ago.”
Three years ago your cellphone and laptop were "exciting", but now they are "boring"? If you are talking about building them - maybe. But using them? If the form factor of your computers and communication devices are boring you "out of your mind", maybe that's your problem more than the devices'.
It's not some CNG badge that gets you carpool access, it's the carpool sticker. So you have to apply for it with your VIN, license number, etc and sign "under penalty of perjury" that the application is truthful and correct. You're probably better off just violating the carpool law and crossing your fingers...
Most CNG powered cars are basically proof of concept vehicles rather than anything else
Actually, most CNG vehicles are fleet vehicles (or former fleet vehicles sold to commuters), where operating your own filling station makes sense. PG&E (of course) and various city departments in CA have THOUSANDS of CNG vehicles around here (and they allow private owners to use those stations).
Slashdot Mirror
...but "for as little as $550 each" just blows my mind.
I thought I was crazy when I spent $400 on a graphics card once, but I (and I understand it's subjective) was perfectly happy with the performance on any game I played for the next 2 years. $500-$1000 (x2) Crossfire/SLI setups just seem to me to be about people with too much money and not enough creativity as to how to spend it...
And isn't a bit terrifying that the former director of the NSA *and* CIA doesn't realize that a PUBLIC phone conversation can be overheard? I mean, even second rate TV screenwriters have figured that out...
Who could possibly port the Java plugin to Google's new plugin API? How about, oh I don't know... Google?
It's not like Google is anti-Java. After all they develop a rather well-known mobile OS that is based on it...
Why is it surprising you can access to hardware features with Java *if you approve it*? I can access hardware with Python after I approve it, and that proves very useful. It's all about granting lower level access from interpreted languages - they already ask when they need these permissions, what else do you want, a human sacrifice?
I mean, really - you can install a native plugin or you can run a Java applet - both require user intervention for this level of access. Maybe I am underestimating the human population, but when both explicitly tell you exactly what enabling them allows it really doesn't matter - you either allow it or you don't.
And another useful thing about Java is that is has a very mature set of security domains. If anything, it was basically the proving grounds for all of the current iOS and Android apps in that regard. OBVIOUSLY it will of course ask you before running an applet that tries to access devices like that. When the applet wants to access hardware, ask. When it doesn't, don't. Seriously, your /. ID isn't that high, have you really never seen this before or are you just trolling?
But when the context of "work" is market share, it's TOTAL FAIL. General consumers really don't give a shit if it's the most secure platform on the planet if it's nigh useless in practice. Or are you one of the dozens of people using NetBSD?
Because Java allows native access to USB hardware. Haven't seen that in Javascript.
And no offense, but do you know what a digital signature is? Having the source code to the algorithm doesn't affect security. That would be like saying "I know how AES works, therefore I can decrypt all AES-encrypted data!" Doesn't work that way.
It certainly won't work when there are usable default or better alternatives already available on PCs that allow it.
Actually, for whatever reason 2.5mm has been a fairly common jack ("sub-mini") on office and cordless phones for a long time, which means it's also fairly common for phone headsets (even high end non-wireless telemarketer/office headsets).
What made the US an immediate 'first world' nation? Was it born that way, fully industrialized and ready to go
Yes, it was, because the term was invented in the 50's to represent wealthy capitalist democracies aligned with the US and NATO, as opposed to the Second World (Soviet Bloc countries) and the Third World (counties not aligned with either of the first two).
...which is nice...
Wrong.
There are microUSB to HDMI connectors that can do it in one cable, just as there are (obviously) Slimport/DisplayPort connectors that can do it. They are no different in that regard from a Lightning to HDMI connector, except that the former can do true uncompressed 1080p and the latter currently compresses to a lower resolution H.264 stream before uncompressing and outputting on HDMI.
Apple may one day be able to output 1080p60, but they are still compressing it via H.264 first, so it's never going to match true 1080p60 uncompressed video. Oh, and MHL 3 supports 4k video. Good luck putting high quality 4K encoders/decoders into the device and "connector" (respectively) any time soon...
Well, in general on PCs DRMs are only available in plugins or standalone apps right now anyway. Access requires Flash, PlayReady requires Silverlight, and the others are really only used as libraries in specific apps (not web browsers).
But EME actually isn't primarily about PC browsers, anyway. It's going to be much more interesting with devices - Android and iOS tablets/phones, of course, but even more for all of the various TVs, BD players, streaming devices like Roku, WD Live, and Chromecast, game consoles, whatever. If it were just about compatibility with a few browsers on a few PC OSes, the content providers wouldn't really care, and they could probably live with annoying browser plugins. It's really about being able to support dozens of different embedded devices without having to write and maintain separate apps for each...
How much of that ~$65B video market is streamed through a web browser? Almost none. OP was talking about DRM in general, so in that sense video games are very relevant.
Content owners don't use DRM. Content providers use DRM, which is the owners' condition for allowing them to provide their content.
And it seems like so many people are commenting on this without actually understanding the EME spec... with EME content itself does not have to be tied to *any* DRM. For example, if a provider uses MPEG-DASH to stream, it's just encrypted with a normal AES key, and the device manufacturers/browser developers and the content providers can implement whatever DRM schemes they want to do the key exchange.
I'm not arguing that DRM *itself* doesn't restrict freedom to use content or encourage walled gardens - but creating a mechanism to make it *easier* to switch between different DRM schemes for the same content obviously doesn't promote *more* walled gardens, it promotes fewer. It will allow more competition among DRM providers because the lock-in to any one scheme is significantly reduced. See Apple/iTunes for the worst walled garden offender with their completely closed and proprietary FairPlay DRM. And compare to Netflix, which is nearly ubiquitous since they don't really care what the specific DRM scheme is as long as the content is protected per owner's requirements.
Of those web services that use the second approach, are there actually any that are not available on all of the platforms the DRM service itself is available?
I wanted to try to answer your question, but I just can't parse it :)
Though note that a lot of video apps on devices, etc are not browser based at all. They may just use a DRM library embedded/linked with the app (for example, Adobe Access is in Flash, but does not in itself depend on Flash. Same with PlayReady and Silverlight). More of them are switching to use browsers (or embedded web views in a semi-native app) - but that's the reason they want EME.
Not sure if this is what you meant in your question... but Chromecast is already using HTML5-EME (with support for PlayReady and Widevine) and it's selling so fast Google can't make enough of them. And the *only* way to play protected video on it is via an HTML5 app using EME...
Why does that matter to me as a user or integrator? It still means that I am locked in to whatever vendor they choose for their DRM. If that vendor chooses not to support my platform, or decides that I am a competitor in some other business so refuses to give me distribution rights to their EME plugin, then I'm stuck.
Again I will say READ THE SPEC if you want to understand how it works - your assumptions are incorrect. With EME the content itself is not DRM-specific. It's just encrypted with standard AES128-CTR mode. The key exchange (ie. getting the key into the player in a way that is specific to that player) is the "DRM". Both a provider AND a client/player can support more than one DRM scheme with this, they just negotiate which one they would like to use.
There is no requirement that OMA plugins be interoperable
Of course there is. That's the point of standardizing it. Sure the plugin has to be implemented for the platform but that's a given. Once it is, EME is a standard way to provide keys to the player via Javascript APIs. And of course OMA itself is a defined (and open) spec, so correctly implemented plugins will be interoperable with OMA servers as well.
If Netflix decides to use MS PlayReady, but MS decides that they don't want to support my device because it competes with the Surface or the XBox, then I'm in exactly the same situation as I was with Silverlight.
No, you're not. If Microsoft decides they don't want to support your device, that device maker can support another DRM scheme like Widevine, Access, whatever (which are cheaper than PlayReady to license, anyway). If Netflix wants to allow customers to stream to that device, they support that DRM on their servers and it just works. Though it's not a particularly good example, anyway, because PlayReady is already supported on the PS3/PS4, iOS, Android, etc. It's in MS's interest to license it wherever they can. But my point is if they don't, then their competitors will. Standardizing the DRM interface makes DRM a commodity and easily replaceable, which can result in lower licensing costs and cheaper products and content for consumers.
I'm not even trying to argue whether DRM itself is good or bad, just IF you accept that it's already there and isn't going away, might as well make it less proprietary and easier to replace if any DRM providers start playing politics like you suggest.
Who cares if Netflix is using an open API, if instead of using MS Silverlight they're now using MS DRM Plugin?
Yes, that's exactly my point. Now they (or other) providers can write the code once and use MS PlayReady, Google Widevine, Adobe Access, OMA, or whatever DRM they feel like supporting. You clearly don't understand EME, maybe you should read the spec before commenting on it...
This is SO TOTALLY IRRELEVANT that it's becoming mind numbing.
W3C approval, yes, as you said, may not change anything for "the better", but it is going to happen regardless of whether it's codified as a standard. Seriously, how many actual browsers/engines are there that matter today, anyway? IE, Chrome, Safari, Firefox, that covers 95+%. IE and Chrome have already committed to EME regardless of the "standard". So, in the future if you want to watch Netflix with DRM you may have to install one of those browsers.
All that excluding EME from the "standard" is going to do is make the other browsers less relevant. In fact, IMO the #1 thing NOT adopting EME would accomplish would be more or less killing off Firefox as a relevant web browser for most users (Safari is still the Apple Koolaid so they don't care about compatibility).
Yes, they absolutely can survive without *your* money. Because the vast majority of consumers doesn't consider DRM on their movies some inherent moral issue - in fact the vast majority doesn't even know what we are talking about.
But seriously, if you don't want to watch a movie, DON'T. Don't pirate it, don't buy it, and don't fucking whine about it. If you think they are all crap you obviously are not a significant consumer, making you even less relevant/influential than even you seem to think you are. But apparently you are not the average consumer, since Hollywood is having their best year ever in 2013 revenue-wise...
Drop in the bucket? Really?!?
Video games grossed about $67B in 2012 worldwide. The movie box office was $35B and the home video market was about $30B. More people watch video, maybe, but games are often much higher priced per unit. And don't forget mobile games, that industry has EXPLODED.
The buckets are pretty close to equal these days...
By leaving DRM out of the standard for the Web, we could have forced content providers into that same choice: offer DRM-free video at a price, or starve.
Not sure how this is "insightful". Netflix, Apple, VUDU, Amazon, Hulu, etc all have DRM and they are far from "starving". But they are all using a random mishmash of DRM solutions individually developed/licensed/etc. And they will continue to do that as long as there are no standards they all can adopt.
Standardizing DRM in HTML5 is not caving to anyone, I don't know what people keep thinking that. It's just consolidating the APIs so that these providers can create HTML5 web apps that run on more devices without modification. But don't kid yourself that if it didn't exist DRM wouldn't exist. It currently DOESN'T EXIST and DRM is everywhere...
A laptop is a TOOL. A cellphone is a TOOL. When you need them to be the entertainment in themselves you have issues.
“I interviewed a month ago a recent college graduate from Stanford—a mechanical engineering degree. She was already on her third cellphone or laptop and bored out of her mind,” Jepsen said. “She graduated in 2010. I think it gets depressing. It was so exciting three years ago.”
Three years ago your cellphone and laptop were "exciting", but now they are "boring"? If you are talking about building them - maybe. But using them? If the form factor of your computers and communication devices are boring you "out of your mind", maybe that's your problem more than the devices'.
It's not some CNG badge that gets you carpool access, it's the carpool sticker. So you have to apply for it with your VIN, license number, etc and sign "under penalty of perjury" that the application is truthful and correct. You're probably better off just violating the carpool law and crossing your fingers...
Most CNG powered cars are basically proof of concept vehicles rather than anything else
Actually, most CNG vehicles are fleet vehicles (or former fleet vehicles sold to commuters), where operating your own filling station makes sense. PG&E (of course) and various city departments in CA have THOUSANDS of CNG vehicles around here (and they allow private owners to use those stations).