ORBX.js: 1080p DRM-Free Video and Cloud Gaming Entirely In JavaScript 103
An anonymous reader writes "According to Brendan Eich, CTO of Mozilla and the creator of JavaScript, ORBX.js can decode 1080p HD video and support low latency remote graphics entirely in JavaScript, offering a pure JavaScript alternative to VP8/H.264 native code extensions for HTML5 video. Watermarking is used during encoding process for protected IP, rather than relying on local DRM in the browser. Mozilla is also working with OTOY, Autodesk and USC ICT to support emerging technologies through ORBX.js — including light field displays and VR headsets like the Oculus Rift."
Writes reader mikejuk: "The problem with all of this is that orbix.js is just a decoder and there is little information on the coder end of the deal. It could be that OTOY will profit big time from coding videos and watermarking them while serving virtual desktops from their GPU cloud. The decoder might be open source but the situation about the rest of the technology is unclear. In the meantime we have to trust that Mozilla, and Brendan Eich in particular, are not being sold a utopian view of a slightly dystopian future."
No DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
Watermarking, not DRM. This could be huge. OTOY’s GPU cloud approach enables individually watermarking every intra-frame, and according to some of its Hollywood supporters including Ari Emanuel, this may be enough to eliminate the need for DRM.
LOL.
"Hollywood Supporters". Those two words alone are enough to make this something to avoid.
Re:bloat (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, you are completely missing the point [wikipedia.org].
By now, the whole damn OS API is implemented in browsers. But slower. And shittier. And crippled.
s/browser/shell/g; s/tab bar/task bar/g; and you're done. In fact they already went that far, and called it ChromeOS [wikipedia.org]!
In fact they went even further: The browser is not the new OS, but the new machine [emscripten.org].
Don't believe they went too far? Then feast your eyes at THIS: http://jslinux.org/ [jslinux.org]
Yes, that's right! The actual Linux kernel... running on an actual virtual CPU... actually implemented in JavaScript inside your browser!
If you don't think this path is fucked-up, you're fucked-up.
Re:No DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
Why even bother using this type of stream as a source when a Blu-ray or even a DVD rip* would be easier, quicker, and of superior quality?
*I'd imagine that, even if the stream is 1080p, a DVD rip would be of superior quality due to the fact that the stream would be of limited bit-rate due to being streamed over the Internet. In addition to that, you be re-compressing an already compressed stream, resulting in further degradation.
Please note that I don't advocate piracy: I believe that ships and booty should be acquired in a legal and civilized manner.
Re:bloat (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, you are completely missing the point [wikipedia.org].
By now, the whole damn OS API is implemented in browsers. But slower. And shittier. And crippled.
s/browser/shell/g; s/tab bar/task bar/g; and you're done. In fact they already went that far, and called it ChromeOS [wikipedia.org]!
In fact they went even further: The browser is not the new OS, but the new machine [emscripten.org].
Don't believe they went too far? Then feast your eyes at THIS: http://jslinux.org/ [jslinux.org]
Yes, that's right! The actual Linux kernel... running on an actual virtual CPU... actually implemented in JavaScript inside your browser!
If you don't think this path is fucked-up, you're fucked-up.
Irrelevant examples are irrelevant.
You use your Web browser to go to a web page and there's a video. How do you play it? Your browser uses some sort of plugin. This is not an example of the "Inner Platform Effect" but simply the most efficient and straight forward way to do it. As for the other examples, yes they are stupid, but irrelevant. All browsers contain a Javascript interpreter and ORBX.js is just another Javascript file. In fact, this *reduces* browser bloat by eliminating the need for a video plugin and instead, just using the Javascript interpreter that already exists in the browser.
Re:bloat (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, the inner platform effect is an anti-pattern, and browsers do represent an example of it to a large extent. But that's not actually a bad thing.
Browsers have become a major way to distribute/run applications and in many ways they are significantly better than other methods. Particularly, web apps are (for the most part) cross-platform, even to obscure platforms. Other pluses are that they are very easy to make accessible, easy for the end-user (or at least third-party extensions) to customize, easy to write, and auto-updating.
The slow evolution of HTML into an application platform is certainly weird, the blending of the document viewer with an application platform has issues, and the legacy in the technology isn't great, but it's still the best chance for a cross-platform application target.
Re: bloat (Score:4, Insightful)
I left Firefox too for a long time too.
I am typing this on Firefox 17 ESR because I do not like change that often when it breaks things, but it is much better thant Firefox 4. Versions 4 through 8 were really terrible and I do not blame his wife for switching.
My exwife used IE 6 right until IE 7 came out. I loaded up Firefox 2 and she was shocked how much better it was. She is not a loyalist and thinks IE is crap. Point being is that browsers and things change. Some people use Firefox out of habbit like some IE users now and wont change. Some like me use the best tool.
2 years ago IE 9 was the best browser. Secure, supported decent HTML 5, quick etc. Then Chrome was the better one. Now I find Firefox improving as it is no longer a bloated pig that breaks ever release and is OK. Once someone leaves due to performance the image is tarnished just like yours is with IE. Very hard to get people to switch back.
Watermarking is Stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Watermarking is worse than DRM. Another person has already spelled out how to defang it - compare multiple copies and fuzz the parts that are different.
But the huge downside for the vast majority of regular joes is that it makes all of the customers responsible for "protecting" the videos they watch. If anyone hacks them or snoops the download stream or even infiltrates the server transmitting the video and releases their copy into the wild, that innocent viewer is now implicitly responsible for that piracy. It becomes a guilty until proven innocent situation.
No way am I going to watch a streaming movie, much less pay for it, if it means I have to now worry about the ultra-litigious MAFIAA coming after me with multi-million dollar copyright infringement lawsuits because I didn't know my PC was infected with a virus designed to pilfer the videos I watch.