> I don't quite understand the ideological bent that EME corrupts an open standard, but the same result from NPAPI is somehow less objectionable?
The same result from NPAPI is the same objectionable. That's why NPAPI is deprecated.
There shouldn't be DRM in web browsers. Any DRM of any kind. If Hollywood then wants to only distribute movies via Comcast and not the web, let them. They'll lose a large revenue stream to spite themselves, smaller studios who use the web anyway will get a large uptick in viewers on mobile devices and PCs which will erode the big studios' power, Hollywood will get pressure from all sides to support the popular platforms anyway, and it doesn't even matter if they don't.
People aren't going to stop buying iPhones just because they can't watch certain feature length movies on the 6" screen.
If neither Samsung nor Apple are shipping a phone that can watch Netflix, one or the other has a huge incentive to be the one to sell a phone that does.
As for the viability of independent content. The last decade has been a damning indictment of that argument. Between high quality digital cameras and YouTube, it's never been easier to release independent content into the world. Yet, what rocketed YouTube to popularity? Being able to watch the Daily Show without paying. Same thing with games. With open source game engines and Steam, it's easier than ever to release independent games. Yet, companies like EA with borderline abusive customer practices are taking it in with Call of Duty 17.
And if neither Sony nor Paramount are showing movies to customers with iOS or Android devices, one or the other has a huge incentive to be the one to start, even if it means no DRM.
And there are a lot more little studios than there are browser or OS vendors, so there would certainly be movies available. Which would put pressure on more studios to make movies available, which would put pressure on the remaining studios to not abandon a proven revenue stream etc.
I'm also not sure how the argument that people will pirate Hollywood content rather than watch independent content on devices that don't support DRM is supposed to improve Hollywood's bargaining position. It's pretty much the pure distillation of the point that offering content without DRM will reduce piracy and increase revenue.
And "companies with abusive practices are very profitable" sounds like the argument for platform vendors restricting the abusive practices.
The same result from NPAPI is the same objectionable. That's why NPAPI is deprecated.
There shouldn't be DRM in web browsers. Any DRM of any kind. If Hollywood then wants to only distribute movies via Comcast and not the web, let them. They'll lose a large revenue stream to spite themselves, smaller studios who use the web anyway will get a large uptick in viewers on mobile devices and PCs which will erode the big studios' power, Hollywood will get pressure from all sides to support the popular platforms anyway, and it doesn't even matter if they don't.
People aren't going to stop buying iPhones just because they can't watch certain feature length movies on the 6" screen.