Blog post author here. Since this post, there's now an option available for DRM-enabled Electron. However, it's only available through a single vendor, castLabs [0].

This is a closed source, downstream effort which means no modifications can be made to Electron itself. All changes must make it upstream to show up in this fork. When asked whether they would eventually merge it upstream, they didn't provide a clear answer [1].

I also wrote a followup blog post with more detail on the current state of DRM options on the web [2]. Spoilers: it's not great.

Regardless of all of these problems, I still hold an interest in browser development and have been working towards making Electron a viable option for building a browser [3].

[0] https://github.com/castlabs/electron-releases

[1] https://github.com/castlabs/electron-releases/discussions/24

[2] https://blog.samuelmaddock.com/posts/the-end-of-indie-web-br...

[3] https://github.com/samuelmaddock/electron-browser-shell

Isn't this just how DRM works? It's precisely why so many were concerned about EME being adopted into web standards, and why so many are passionate about DRM-Free media. DRM is designed to put restrictions on where, when, and how media is played, including what software it's used with.

This doesn't invalidate any of the author's points, and they're right to be upset. But the problem isn't Chrome per se, it's DRM-encumbered media.

And that's why I buy audiobooks from Libro.fm†, games from GOG†, and (out of necessity) movies and TV shows from iTunes—which are still DRM'd by default but are at least relatively easy to decrypt.

----------

† Among others, I don't use any one source.

Not sure if this is covered under Widevine, but Google also blocks anything that is not a major browser from logging into any of its services.

https://security.googleblog.com/2019/04/better-protection-ag...

Regardless of the discussion, Electron browsers are very insecure and is not a stable foundation to build a browser on. Electron even recommend that you do not try and build a browser using it.

I had the same problem. After a couple of emails, I got completely ghosted. They simply do not respond.

Seems that google pushed hard for EME, under the guise of giving widevine to anyone who wanted it. Of course, as is evident from OPs situation - this isn't the case.

There is an ongoing EC investigation.

DRM is fundamentally incompatible with open source and free software. DRM is all about restricting what your computer can do (what code it is allowed to run), so it can be trusted by third parties with handling protected information. Content providers want to be able to trust your computer in not allowing you to have full control of what it does.

If users can execute their free software rights (modify software and run modified versions), they can instruct their computers to do anything, thus DRM would not be possible. Binary blobs like Widivine are not complete DRM solutions on systems where users can still modify their display server or kernel. As DRM gets more widespread, content providers will require more strictly locked systems, that's why mobile devices are shipped with locked bootloaders and PCs have secure boot and TPM — most current hardware is ready to support strict DRM.

The only approach to DRM is to boycott its use completely, there is no workaround or compromise.

"I tried creating a web browser, and Google blocked me"

Title is very missleading, your web browser works and google does not block you, it's all about DRM.

"For the last 2 years I’ve been working on a web browser that now cannot be completed because Google, the creators of the open source browser Chrome, won’t allow DRM in an open source project."

This is crap, you should probably have known that before starting the project? As a dev it should be some common sense that you can't just playback 4k video from Netflix with a built-in Browser.

I'm no an expert on DRM, but maybe someone here is. What would open source programs using DRM look like? My understanding is that the whole point of DRM is to prevent the software and the user from having arbitrary control over the data, which is fundamentally opposite of open source.

Say that Google desperately wanted to support any reasonable method to accomplish allowing open source tools access to DRM-protected media. Is there some way to allow that? What would it look like?

If you are a business I'd check if in your country there is a body that deals with anti-competitive behaviour and make a complaint.

Google's commitment to open source stops at their profit's edge, yet again.

Original discussion (612 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19553941

I’m not claiming the situation is just or should be ignored, but the option the author seems to be ignoring is to launch without Widevine. Sure, a lot won’t work, but a lot will. Having a vocal community can add a lot of pressure.

Why aren’t there more browsers? Is it just a matter of all the IP tied up by the majors?

Of possible related interest:

Google has announced that it is cutting off access to the Sync and "other Google Exclusive" APIs from all builds except Google Chrome. This will make the Fedora Chromium build significantly less functional (along with every other distro packaged Chromium).

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1351624743510827015.html

That will end badly for Google with antitrust in the EU and in the US.

Speaking of DRM.

Where are the relevant philosophical and legal debates around digital copy?

If we establish some common ground over copy, where balanced legal frameworks can grow, i bet things like DRM would be considered illegal.

It should be not be considered a reasonable legal path to be pursued against copyright infringement (which is a reasonable right).

And while we are at that, i see a lot of people mentioning feeling betrayed by Firefox, while back in the day, i felt that it was Tim Berners Lee and W3C who stabbed me in the back with this.

Is in time like these that we see how important it is to have a guy like Linus (and all the contributors) behind important projects.

Corporations being pulled by the capitalistic strings are not suppose to look forward higher ethical things as the "common good".

Its not irrational that corporations do this kind of things, its irrational that we expect them not to, knowing the game that is being played here.

Past comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19553941

I'm curious what the gatekeeping around letting you use Widevine or similar does. As an "approved" entity are you then technically capable of copying DRMed content? Trying to understand if that's why it's so closely guarded.

Discussed at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19553941

DRM is the new ActiveX

I was hoping it was going to be an actual created a web browser, rather than another Chromium or Webkit derivative.

I do not want a "web browser" that is also a video player.

We need more "web browsers" that just browse HTML.

What capabilities does the DRM blob running in a browser have?

Am I wrong, but is this more evidence of monopoly power by Google?

Wait, what is this person trying to do? They're not happy that Google open-sourced Chrome, so they also demand that Google open-source some DRM system so that they can make a media player for Netflix or something? Forgive me for not feeling sorry for someone who wants to make a browser polluted with DRM who complains that someone else is enforcing their copyright.