zlacker

>>jakobd+(OP)
The Chrome team have used "the Open Web" as a euphemism for what is to all intents and purposes Google's great ad supported walled garden. That so few people see this for what it is is amazing, and then they get all surprised when Google act to preserve it and close the capability gap with native platforms.

>>fidotr+G8
When Microsoft did this with IE, they did it with proprietary and undocumented APIs. The fact that this is an open spec, discussed in an open forum, using well established and standard technologies is what ensures it can never be positioned against users in any meaningful way.

To me it looks like SGX for the web. Maybe it will introduce some neat and weird capabilities, but at the end of the day, it will be trivial to bypass at scale if it ever positions itself as being harmful to users.

>>px43+ts
This is as much of an "open spec" as EME - if you don't have the keys Google uses you can't implement it in a meaningful way.

>>accoun+Az5
EME is a great example. It's been around for over a decade now. In what way has it negatively impacted users? Is piracy any harder than it was? EME has been built into Chrome since long before it was an official W3C spec, which it has been for six years now. People lost their minds when EME was getting standardized, yet here we are. This same nonsense is playing out with WEI, yet people haven't seemed to learn a thing.