• AnonTwo@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Isn’t the issue that the website will go through with this and firefox has to either comply or just not be able to view the webpage?

    Chrome has enough of the marketshare that websites probably don’t have to be concerned with whether firefox can support them or not.

    • CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Incorrect. Some companies supported IE5 when we had IE8 because market share was greater than 5%. We need to get Firefox to above 5%, and keep going to 10% and 15% as a real middle finger to say, DON’T EVEN TRY OR YOU WILL LOSE MONEY!

      • AnonTwo@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        …the example is some companies supported Internet Explorer 5 when it had a market share of 5% vs… Internet Explorer 8

        …so what was Netscape Navigator’s marketshare at the time?

        • CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It is irrelevant to the point. The point is companies won’t implement webDRM if their firefox userbase is too big and it’s going to cost them money and users. If Firefox is used by 10% of users, the decision to implement it would potentially cost 10% revenue.

          I’m highlighting how companies make these decisions and how this can kill WEI.

          • AnonTwo@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Okay, so here’s why it’s not irrelevant:

            IE5 is still IE. Microsoft has an obligation to make it look good (so dumb users don’t bunk newer versions in with it) and browers have the same issue (Well i’m using the internet explorer so why isn’t it working?)

            This same perception (which I can absolutely assure you as someone who has supported older users does happen) Is not a perception that happens with different products altogether. If you’re using Netscape, they’d just tell you to use IE. If you’re using Firefox, they’d just tell you it was made with “Google” in mind.

            Using an example where the two products are in fact different versions of the same product is a significant difference.

            But still in regards to the argument about revenue, the gaming market is constantly showing that companies will definitely implement DRM under the assumption that it is providing them revenue, even if they lose customers because of it.

            • CrypticCoffee@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Gaming is very different. Losing a battle with DRM on gaming does not mean losing it on the web is a certainty. People can still choose DRMless games, and GOG is still going so it’s not a lost battle.

              I know IE5 and IE8 are the same browser, I’m saying that company support decisions are made on market share and revenue. Any browser over x% is a supported browser. Over y%, it’s a partially supported browser. We need to make Firefox a supported browser through market share.

              A retail website will not implement something that will cost them traffic, because they’ll lose more than they gain. My biggest concern is the first movers will be the streaming giants, and it’s probably a case, that people need to take a stand here, and cancel subscriptions if they get blocked, but it won’t even be coded if it costs more than it gains. They aren’t going to sacrifice 10% of their revenues, if they don’t gain more. This project will fail if no website supports it. The mission is to ensure websites don’t support it and it dies. If Chrome market share dies in the process, awesome.