> Is there an alternative approach one could take to not need google's involvement to include a Widevine module in their said brand-new browser? ![]() Widevine allegedly has a 70% market share, so the refusal really was a big deal and a deal-breaker for the intended vision of the browser. Said browser (Metastream ) was meant to build a different experience for watching video streams together, potentially including DRM-ed sources. > Why did Google's refusal squash a brand new browser? Why was it even a factor? Did it have to be? My point was that DRM (EME) support is becoming an expectation, and you are outright locked out from certain EME schemes like Widevine unless you're a "blessed" browser (which you can't be, yet - by definition, you're too small to enter any meaningful communication with a large player, as the browser I mentioned found out). My refusal to allow EME content is entirely my own decision, and irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |