this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2023
1639 points (99.6% liked)

Technology

59593 readers
3396 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] poopkins@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's why DRM is bad period. It takes away your power and gives it to a single authority

[–] poopkins@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] bobo@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Corgana@startrek.website 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] BigT54@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] BigT54@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] Corgana@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago

Or a PiHole! Still not as good as uBlock in a browser but an improvement.

[–] Cannacheques@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] baltakatei@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

Google will just buy such a competitor like Facebook did with Instagram.

[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

As a reminder, this doesn’t apply to the web at large.

Every movement has a start.

[–] artic@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago

Dont care all drm should be outlawed