- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
The Chrome team says they’re not going to pursue Web Integrity but…
it is piloting a new Android WebView Media Integrity API that’s “narrowly scoped, and only targets WebViews embedded in apps.”
They say its because the team “heard your feedback.” I’m sure that’s true, and I can wildly speculate that all the current anti-trust attention was a factor too.
You must log in or register to comment.
Unpopular opinion here: I kind of hoped they’d go through with it, as that would completely kill Chrome and Chromium and would lead to a repeat of IE vs Firefox, except Chrome would be the new IE. The fact that they backtracked means that they too saw that people would be massively flocking to Firefox.
that would completely kill Chrome and Chromium
It definitely wouldn’t. The majority of people would never know the difference. Most people use Chrome and don’t use ad blockers.
It wouldn’t. If Google only owned Chrome, then maybe. But combined with services like AdSense, Google can easily leverage people and site operators to keep using Chrome.
Firefox is losing users year over year. I think it’s beyond saving.
Most Chrome users don’t even know what a web browser is. They would have remained on Chrome and the web would have suffered for it.
To be fair, most IE 5 and 6 users didn’t know what a web browser was either and here we are.
But that was broken and didn’t provide the right functionality. Chrome’s change breaks everything else, not itself.
I think it’s less, “We’re worried people will flock to Firefox,” and more, “We could get in a lot of legal trouble for trying to force everyone onto Chrome”.
Careful what you wish for.
I still think it will come out but on the down low
This should never be left up to Chrome. We need antitrust laws.
The “don’t be evil” motto was replaced with “don’t be evil, but greedy and posessive is okay”
deleted by creator
And then later edited to
“
don’t be evil, butgreedy and posessive is okay”Soon after it changes to it’s final form:
“
don’t be evil, butgreedy and posessive is okay”I just figured they skipped straight to:
“
don’tbe evil,butgreedy and posessive is okay”Then it will eventually come to its end and become:
“
don’t be evil, but greedy and posessive is okay”Some people have moved to /e/ already.
It has always been…
“We’ve decided not to pursue Web Integrity API.”
“Oh great! But what’s that giant thing under the tarp behind you”
“Oh don’t worry…”
we already have play integrity and now we have this webview attestation now?
Ha, suck on that!
The Advert People are easily startled, but they’ll soon be back, and in greater numbers.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
The Media Integrity API is something that streaming video services want and applies only to Android apps that are built on web technologies. This has nothing to do with conventional web experiences or even the Chrome browser on Android: it’s effectively a solution for when media is served on webpages that are embedded inside an Android app.
Typically an Android app will use native libraries like ExoPlayer to request and serve DRM content, for instance a video from a paid streaming service to ensure that the viewer is permitted to watch it. Chrome is built on top of open video codecs and doesn’t inherently support DRM in this manner (as far as I’m aware), so if an app developer wants to use web technologies by leveraging a WebView, they are restricted to which codecs and DRM is available.
It’s my understanding that this new library offers a solution to such developers. As a reminder, this doesn’t apply to the web at large.
From my perspective, this is no different than DRM offerings that are supported natively in all operating systems, including Android, iOS, Mac and Windows.
That’s why DRM is bad period. It takes away your power and gives it to a single authority
The difficulty as I’ve understood it, is that this isn’t sustainable for streaming services: if a bad actor knows how to serve the media request, there are no guarantees if they are actually licenced to watch it. I’m not especially knowledgeable in this field though, so perhaps there are other solutions that would mitigate concerns around the use of DRM.
I personally think that the end does justify the means. Sure Disney, Netflix and others might be concerned about piracy but at the end of the day they don’t have much to say in terms of morals.
As a reminder, this doesn’t apply to the web at large.
Every movement has a start.
Dont care all drm should be outlawed
Yeah, but they were testing the waters with this one. The hydra’s going to grow another head eventually. It’ll be interesting to see how/if the media integrity API gets leveraged in the Android Chrome browser. They’re eventually going to attack this problem from a slightly different angle.
Good summary. I used to think that apps were soooo much better than web apps, but I’ve come to realize that frequently the web UI is made intentionally janky to nudge users onto the apps where ads can’t be blocked.
This is essentially an attempt to further embed Google’s existing dominance. What we need is a serious competitor in the Android space, that can involve a webstore, an api, etc that can provide an alternative force catering to both OEM and consumers alike that stands to challenge Google’s dominance to the OHA alliance.
Google will just buy such a competitor like Facebook did with Instagram.
Ads can actually be blocked in apps if you use a VPN that has the ability. Though not all apps will function with a VPN enabled
Ads can actually be blocked in apps if you use a VPN that has the ability.
While technically correct, not really feasible on mobile devices, especially when they have not been rooted and they are controlled by the telco you get your service from.
Wdym not feasible? I’m currently doing it on a non rooted android device using Mullvad VPN. Not sure what the telco has to do with ads but you can remove all of that bloatware using adb anyways.
Wdym not feasible?
Speaking generally, but if you lack the knowledge how to root a phone, if you’re just using the phone as it’s given to you by the phone company, they tend to control the things on there to a certain extent, and settings have a way of being switched back to the default values, etc.
Not that it’s literally impossible to do.
P.S. and to be honest I’m also over using the work rooted, I really mean to say one where the user has changed portions of the phone away from the default software that the phone company has on it.
Or a PiHole! Still not as good as uBlock in a browser but an improvement.
thank FUCK
Web Integrity API proposal is what happens when Big Tech takes over the internet.
That usually means they will have something worse at a later time.
They have to figure out how to apply DRM to YouTube first.
I mean, Widevine is present in all browsers and actively used by Netflix for example. YouTube also uses this when you’re watching movies on YouTube Movies.
Not running DRM on the majority of YouTube content is also likely due to the added cost of running such encryption (the encryption is usually on a per-customer level, not one key fits all) and the added bandwidth and computer cycles required. Not to mention that this might be a legal struggle with the content creators.
The most likely option is that they will rebrand and we will have to push back against a “completely new, completely different functionality” in a few months.
Yeah, it makes me worried about what they have planned to replace it.
‘Heard your feedback’ is becoming the death flag of future fuckery these last few years
more like they realised that the Irish data protection officer looked like they were gonna side with privacy advocates over anti-adblock, which is a precursor (and main usecase of) this API
Irish data protection office
I had to look this one up.
https://www.digitalguardian.com/blog/irish-data-protection-puts-google-notice-data-privacy-again
edit: that’s from 2020 about google, not chrome
Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.
You did it everyone! Good job!
