# Talk:Widevine

I just added the Ad tag to this page. Some extracts that are pretty blatant:

"Content creators, MSOs, and other enterprise media companies can use Widevine to ensure the monetization of content across every device."
"Widevine is used by top Content Providers including Amazon Video, BBC, Hulu, Netflix and Spotify whom [sic] secure premium content using Widevine DRM."
The bullet points in the Certification Program section
I'm not experienced enough to trust myself to overhaul a page, but I've added the tag to the page in the hopes that someone more skilled might. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.140.81 (talk • contribs) 2018-08-17 (UTC)

+1, I like "my" old version better, anything remotely critical or LINUXish is now gone, including the recipe how to disable Widevine on Firefox. Today I only wanted to check that Spotify is mentioned, and suggest a link to their simple help page explaining the Widevine issue for different browsers. I was unable to find the English help page after creating an account (immediately deleted after stumbling over the Widevine requirement) from Germany, and maybe their community pages are anyway more relevant.[1] –84.46.52.175 (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I've invited Ryancl01 to this discussion. –84.46.52.175 (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I've now blanked the spammy "certification program" section based only on two self-published sources, and killed some "many" etc. weasels in another section. –84.46.52.142 (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I've also removed the "open source" section about two NN products, i.e., products without wikilink and only obscure Google-sources (counted as primary / self-published.) –84.46.52.142 (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

My English is limited, so I don't want to write that section, but it would be good to mention that Widevine/Google occasionally rejects to get permission to use that mechanism in open source projects, preluded by months of waiting (possibly also in general they can ban selected projects, but I didn't find reliable sources for the later).
In April 2019, the author of a Chromium derived open source browser - Metastream was denied permission to use Widevine in his project with the response "we're not supporting an open source solutions like this". Some sources:
https://blog.samuelmaddock.com/posts/google-widevine-blocked-my-browser/
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/04/03/googles_widevine_drm/
https://boingboing.net/2019/04/03/i-hate-being-right-2.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19553941&p=2
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Szpak (talk • contribs) 

Thanks, added to section "Open source", which generally looked as if it was written as an ad.  Done --rugk (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Here is the link https://twitter.com/David3141593/status/1080606827384131590?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.8.243.184 (talk) 04:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC) 

@2605:e000:1127:838d:a15d:aa4a:4975:acb:. Can you please elaborate on why you undid my changes (without providing an edit summary)? DRM is in general not a security feature and does not enable «Secure Distribution», it serves the purpose to restrict what can be done with the transmitted data. Secure Distribution technologies would be TLS etc. If you don't provide an explanation, I'll undo your changes tomorrow. -- Dr.üsenfieber (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The current lead paragraph contains the phrase "...Google Chrome, Brave and Firefox web browsers (including some derivatives)..." and I wonder if the current formulation might be redundant, given the fact that Brave is already a "derivative" of one of the other browsers in the list. If we were to include Brave, then I think it would be reasonable to also include other Chromium-based browsers such as Edge and Opera, both of which have a larger market share than Brave and also have options (either integrated or downloadable on-demand) to play Widevine content. I think it'd be better to just list the two upstream browsers (Chrome and Firefox) and also include the "some derivatives" note. 142.162.184.35 (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@ElijahPepe some Harv warnings here, may want to fix them before someone starts reviewing. DFlhb (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Done. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 13:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the section Client Support is currently misleading, as it mentions browsers only. Given that Widevine is a binary operating system as well as CPU architecture play a major role. I also don't think "support" is a great term here, as it gives the impression that Clients need to add support, when in fact many would like to, but cannot. I'd consider rewriting and renaming the section to clarify that the people behind Widevine choose which Browser, OS and Architecture they are willing to support. This might even make a criticism section somewhat redundant. I do not know if that is the best way, but given that there are many systems running Firefox or Chromium out there which are not able to run Widevine I think it is worth clarifying this bit and not boldly claim that for example Firefox and Chromly simply support it. Actually not even Chromium derivatives (Brave, Electron based applications, etc.) support it, so the statement is wrong. Athaba (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

if I'm looking correctly, I don't see criticism about denying technology to some open source projects and platforms (for projects see de.wiki, for 32 bit linux see this article). Palu (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)