Unwelcome

[Purple Lady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You mean you want the text to reflow if you zoom in on the screen? I've never come across a browser that did that. It sounds as if it would be horribly distracting.

That's exactly what I mean. If you needed to zoom in to be able to see the text and it didn't reflow when the text goes off the screen, you would have to pan back and forth to read. I won't do that.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I think I've seen this movie before. Providers want to force consumers to consume exactly according to the provider's business plan, without regard to how the consumer may wish to watch. It generally doesn't work out well for the providers.

+1, I would add "without regard to how and when the consumer may wish to watch".

The main problem is that the rights holders' (and the lessees of those rights) strategies do not recognise what customers are and that "alternative providers" should be treated as "competition", albeit unwelcome "competition". They regard customers as consumers easily tamed by threat, rather like pets who get fed when and where their master says, and if tempted to scavenge free food from an easier source, gets threatened with a whipping. The competitive strategy should be to beat the "competition" in the market of customers rather than by complicating the enjoyment of their material by compliant to rules consumers through restrictions on how and when the material is consumed.

An easy example is that of the ordinary not too computer savvy person buying ebooks. It is in fact, for them, far less complicated with less hoops to jump through, and far, far cheaper to "buy for free" an ebook from direct download elsewhere or via torrent file providers than it is to obtain it from an ebook retailer. That those in the supply chain to the customer do not change their marketing model to a more consumer sympathetic one (as music has been slowly doing) is beyond understanding.

But I suppose that the completely blinkered acceptance by many of the public (often seen in such threads as this), to what is really an abuse of their ignorance of competitive marketing and their own place as customers, allows providers to implement a lazy and blunt, and ultimately ineffective marketing strategy based on protectionism and the threat of the customer getting a whipping if they stray outside of the tight rules of use tried to be imposed by providers. I will sit back and watch the bleating from the protectionism and whip the "thieves" is the only way, with some amusement.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

An easy example is that of the ordinary not too computer savvy person buying ebooks. It is in fact, for them, far less complicated with less hoops to jump through, and far, far cheaper to "buy for free" an ebook from direct download elsewhere or via torrent file providers than it is to obtain it from an ebook retailer.

The reason that Amazon have been so successful in the ebook market is precisely because they've made it so incredibly easy to buy books. Buy a Kindle, tap on a book in the Kindle store and you're reading it. Buy a 3G Kindle or use one of their phone apps and you don't even need to own a computer, let alone be "computer savvy". If you're suggesting that it's easier to steal books than to do that, then I must, with the greatest respect, disagree with you. People steal stuff because they're scum who want something for nothing, not because it's easier than buying.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Purple Lady

That's exactly what I mean. If you needed to zoom in to be able to see the text and it didn't reflow when the text goes off the screen, you would have to pan back and forth to read. I won't do that.

Fair enough. Which Android browsers do that, as a matter of interest? It's something I don't recall ever having encountered.

[nabsltd]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The reason that Amazon have been so successful in the ebook market is precisely because they've made it so incredibly easy to buy books.

If Amazon had every ebook ever made available for sale, then maybe this would be a valid point, but since they don't, and Kindle readers and apps only read Amazon books, then it's just another walled garden locking you in.

In addition, Amazon has taken back ebooks that people have "bought", so this shows that Amazon doesn't sell very many ebooks at all. They do rent a lot of books, and then put restrictions on them so that you can''t use them the way you would use a purchased (or even rented) physical book.

Yeah, they've been successful, and they are likely to continue to be because they now have the self-published sources pretty much locked up, but then many "successful" things were later replaced by things much better for consumers. Like Apple trying to "sell" DRM-laden music being replaced by companies that are up-front about the fact that it is a rental (Pandora, etc.). All-you-can-eat audio streaming was one of the things that forced Apple to drop DRM from music sales.

If Kindle Unlimited was actually that (borrow any book Amazon sells), then Amazon would discover that nobody would "buy" ebooks, because the extra selection and the truth (it's a rental) are something that people really want.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The reason that Amazon have been so successful in the ebook market is precisely because they've made it so incredibly easy to buy books. Buy a Kindle, tap on a book in the Kindle store and you're reading it. Buy a 3G Kindle or use one of their phone apps and you don't even need to own a computer, let alone be "computer savvy". If you're suggesting that it's easier to steal books than to do that, then I must, with the greatest respect, disagree with you. People steal stuff because they're scum who want something for nothing, not because it's easier than buying.

You, apparently unwittingly, make my points by your reaction.

First, apart from the other restrictions on the use of the material there is the control of the non-computer savvy customers usage by having to buy Amazon's own Kindle, and furthermore they put barriers against use of that for media from other media suppliers. Perhaps you would similarly hold the view that Sony should only allow the movies they hold rights to be only played on Sony TVs, assuming Sony provided a direct supply channel of some sort to those, and that Sony TVs should not play material from other suppliers?

Second, your last sentence demonstrates to me a closed and rude mind; and also a complete lack of understanding of the competitive marketing strategy environment. You seem to dismiss people who are potential customers of the "mainstream suppliers" and could be made customers if approached with effective marketing as just being "scum". How much crasser and ruder could you be about potential customers? I am sorry but I can only assume that one who seems to have such a poor opinion of fellow beings by calling them as "scum" is not worth conversing with.

[Purple Lady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Fair enough. Which Android browsers do that, as a matter of interest? It's something I don't recall ever having encountered.

Opera and UC browsers do. Dolphin used to do it well, but only does it sometimes now. Chrome used to and got rid of it a few years back. Boat Browser used to until Chrome got rid of it. Any browser using chromium lost text reflow when it was removed from chromium.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by nabsltd

If Amazon had every ebook ever made available for sale, then maybe this would be a valid point, but since they don't, and Kindle readers and apps only read Amazon books, then it's just another walled garden locking you in.

The typical reader doesn't require that "every book ever made" be available to them, but simply that a sufficient range of the books they enjoy reading are available. No bookstore, either physical or electronic, could stock "every book ever made". It's a rather silly standard to hold any bookstore to, if you'll forgive my saying so. I would suggest to you that Amazon's range of books is sufficient to hold the interest of any reasonable reader, as is Kobo's, and whatever other mainstream bookstore you choose to patronise.

Like Apple trying to "sell" DRM-laden music being replaced by companies that are up-front about the fact that it is a rental (Pandora, etc.). All-you-can-eat audio streaming was one of the things that forced Apple to drop DRM from music sales.

Er, no. Apple were willing - indeed, eager - to sell DRM-free music from the outset, as is well-known and well-documented. It was the record companies who insisted on DRM, not Apple. In exactly the same way, any book publisher has the choice whether their book is sold with or without DRM at Amazon.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

First, apart from the other restrictions on the use of the material there is the control of the non-computer savvy customers usage by having to buy Amazon's own Kindle, and furthermore they put barriers against use of that for media from other media suppliers. Perhaps you would similarly hold the view that Sony should only allow the movies they hold rights to be only played on Sony TVs, assuming Sony provided a direct supply channel of some sort to those, and that Sony TVs should not play material from other suppliers?

Your premise is false. You don't have to buy anything to read Kindle books; all you actually need is a device with a web browser, although the experience is more enjoyable if you have a device on which you can install a reading app.

I would note that Sony do indeed appear to believe that, if I buy a PlayStation game, it's reasonable that I can only play it on a Sony PlayStation.

All this, though, seems somewhat irrelevant to what we're debating here, which is an encryption standard for video streaming on HTML5 - an open standard which anyone will be free to implement, and which does not restrict the viewer to any choice of hardware or software.

How much crasser and ruder could you be about potential customers? I am sorry but I can only assume that one who seems to have such a poor opinion of fellow beings by calling them as "scum" is not worth conversing with.

I make no apology for considering that the people I see stealing what I've put so much work into creating are somewhat more crass and rude than I am for regarding them unfavourably for doing so.

[Little.Egret]

Originally Posted by nabsltd

If Amazon had every ebook ever made available for sale, then maybe this would be a valid point, but since they don't, and Kindle readers and apps only read Amazon books, then it's just another walled garden locking you in.

I first saw this misteak in 2009. Please try again.

Compare the 50% of Americans who are convinced that the car was moving when the coffee was spilled

[SigilBear]

Originally Posted by Alpha o

I dislike MS and Google. I use each on my terms. You can root an Android phone. I use Linux for anything important, and my XP boxes run legacy Windows only software. They are off line.

Amen on M$ and Google. Microshaft drove me towards Linux long ago - except Linux wasn't really user friendly at that time. I finally gave up and bought a Mac. Yes, Apple is a big, corrupt corporation, but it doesn't even begin to compare to Microsoft.

Unfortunately, it's hard to completely avoid bad operators on the Internet; it's kind of like complaining about using fossil fuels...while taking the bus to work.

But it's important to at least be aware of the people hiding behind the curtains and do what you can to steer clear of them. The power they have over not just software but the Internet is amazing.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by HarryT

...I make no apology for considering that the people I see stealing what I've put so much work into creating are somewhat more crass and rude than I am for regarding them unfavourably for doing so.

Perhaps if people are "stealing" (they are not , in fact "stealing"; I think you know that as well as I do so you are being overly emotional) to the extent the leakage represents a significant part of sales after making allowance for many non authorised downloads being opportunistic because they found it free (i.e. they were never going to buy the product so is not a lost sale), you need to consider your marketing and pricing model which seems to be deficient.

I would suggest that you perhaps need to change your apparently emotive approach and refrain from name calling of people who could become your customers first, that would help in creating an environment in which you can make sound decisions.

People pay me for this stuff and here I am giving it away to you free while it is apparent that you have a fixed mindset regarding the problem . I'm going fishing instead (real fish that is, not phish ).

[kacir]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You mean you want the text to reflow if you zoom in on the screen? I've never come across a browser that did that. It sounds as if it would be horribly distracting.

This is how I view most pages on my Linux PC at home or my Windows PC at work.

For the majority of sites I use Firefox.
In the menu for zoom there is checkbox for "zoom text only". When I visit the page and the text is too small, I simply press Ctrl and use mouse scroll wheel to zoom up or down. VERY convenient.
I do the vast majority of browsing on Firefox.

For Chrome the setting is more involved, see http://www.thundercloud.net/infoave/...he-whole-page/
There are also some plugins to accomplish that.

Opera
http://ask.brothersoft.com/how-do-yo...er-248399.html

Yes, many sites behave in a funny way if you use text only zoom. This is one of reasons I did not like the old Verge.com layout. For example a thin menu at the top of the page (a feature I strongly dislike) is much wider suddenly, because it not only uses much bigger font, it now has two lines. Fortunately you can enable Yesscript on many pages and get rid of many advanced features, like animated shit or floating menus that just distract.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I think I've seen this movie before. Providers want to force consumers to consume exactly according to the provider's business plan, without regard to how the consumer may wish to watch. It generally doesn't work out well for the providers.

And how does DRM implemented in HTML5 do that exactly? Any device that supports a browser should be able to have a browser that supports HTML5. And you actually have a choice too! If I want to read a kindle book, I'm "forced" to either use Amazon hardware or Amazon software. Unless I remove DRM, naturally. If I want to watch a Netflix video that need a HTML5 DRM browser, I can use IE, Chrome, Firefox, or any other browser that supports HTML5. I don't need Netflix hardware or Netflix software. So, I can watch in the train, in the car (as passenger!), walking, on the couch, in the bathtub, anywhere where I have an internet connection.

Originally Posted by Purple Lady

This will probably prevent me from viewing content I have a right to access. I rarely use my pc anymore since getting 8 inch tablets. I currently use Opera and UC browsers in desktop mode because I find mobile sites are usually pretty bad. I can't login to my Chase account anymore on these browsers because Chase considers them out of date.

Complain to Opera that they implement HTML5 and update their browser. What if I wanted to use IE2 still, should content providers keep on supporting that too?

Originally Posted by HarryT

Your premise is false. You don't have to buy anything to read Kindle books; all you actually need is a device with a web browser, although the experience is more enjoyable if you have a device on which you can install a reading app.

Partly true. You cannot read offline if you use the webbrowser.

Originally Posted by kacir

This is how I view most pages on my Linux PC at home or my Windows PC at work.

For the majority of sites I use Firefox.
In the menu for zoom there is checkbox for "zoom text only". When I visit the page and the text is too small, I simply press Ctrl and use mouse scroll wheel to zoom up or down. VERY convenient.
I do the vast majority of browsing on Firefox.

Hmm, I need to check that out on my tablet!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

Partly true. You cannot read offline if you use the webbrowser.

That's precisely why the end of the sentence said "... although the experience is more enjoyable if you have a device on which you can install a reading app" .