Sleipnir claims to run on Windows and Mac. Platforms owned by Microsoft and Apple, who coincidentally also own two of the main three DRM implementations (PlayReady and FairPlay). Then Google will add their WideVine DRM scheme.
The difficulty isn't EME, but the proprietary blackbox it interfaces to. Without the blackbox, EME is worthless.
* "[I]f content protection of some kind has to be used for videos, it is better for it to be discussed in the open at W3C, better for everyone to use an interoperable open standard as much as possible, and better for it to be framed in a browser which can be open source, and available on a general purpose computer rather than a special purpose box. Those are key arguments for the decision that this topic is in scope." *
* "Content protection", of which DRM is only one. So the other forms of content protection should still be in scope, and open to discussion
* "better for everyone to use an interoperable open standard as much as possible" -- I can't get my head around how EME is an open standard when the key component that gives it value is a proprietary / licensed / FOSS-incompatible black box.
* "better for it to be framed in a browser which can be open source" -- again, building around a proprietary blackbox can't be the open source solution in spirit. The proprietary blackbox taints the rest of the stack "like a cancer" 
* "available on a general purpose computer rather than a special purpose box" -- I wonder what the definition of a general purpose computer is. I worry it's limited to computing platforms owned by Microsoft, Apple, or Google.
* "Those are key arguments for the decision that this topic is in scope". Amen. The technology stack that EME is designing for assumes the answers to these four points, and so seems to reject solutions (e.g. watermarking) that question these assumptions, based in part by confidential agreements between Netflix and the movie industry.
It depends on which part of the Amazon organisation.
The ones in Amazon Instant Video in London are useless. Particularly in identifying suitable candidates for the AIV Retail Website stack. They've burned out their hiring credibility in London to the point that the three hires to London in 2013 have been from East Europe. Plus churning and burning through university interns. It's been a desperate mess for a good two years now.
I hear positive things about the AWS hiring process.
> "When you're making websites for big clients, you have to deal with things like browser compatibility on every version of IE back to 7 (and yes, it is expected that those rounded borders work on IE7 and render the same as in chrome). You need an HTML star to pull that off."
Or a diligent resetter of expectations. And HTML star should be able to effectively argue against that sort of requirement. Otherwise, what are you paying him for? Markup monkeys are dime a dozen, and there's an A List Apart Sliding Doors article those code monkeys can just follow.
I'd expect more from an HTML star than just knowing how we did rounded corners before border-radius. I'd expect leadership, and standing for correctness.
In both Yahoo and Amazon we succeeded in pushing back against rounded corners in browsers that don't support border-radius. Because that's the pragmatic thing to do.
Browser compatibility doesn't mean pixel-exact layouts, it means that the core objectives of the site are functioning in a customer-supportive way.
Rarely do customers bring up the site in two browsers side-by-side and decide not to buy because the website wasn't identical in both.
You're right, and I often try to do as you say. But in the end the customer's wishes are the deciding factor for me, and unfortunately they often don't budge despite my argumentation. And I consider myself pretty good at convincing and explaining.
If I were a full-time employee, I would fight hard, but I feel that my role as a freelancer is to inform, and then do as the client asks anyways, within reason. Rounded corners on ie7 is within reason, as far as I'm concerned.
Obviously if a client keeps insisting on all sorts of ridiculous things, my enjoyment of the project plummets and I might look elsewhere for projects that I actually enjoy. But that's only because I can afford to say no in the current economy.
> That's the same for any language. Especially those that don't just clone the language you already know.
CSS, on the other hand, has tons of quirks that lead to issues that require either annoying trial-and-error to fix, after-the-fact bugfixing for particular devices or browsers, or a deep knowledge of the logic involved.
Back in high school, I loved mathematics and physics, because difficult things felt 'fair'. And figuring them out felt satisfying. On the other hand, I disliked biology and to a lesser degree chemistry, because it seemed like there were gotchas and quirks everywhere that required rote memorization, not understanding. Or at least not at a high school level.
I've only met a handful of people who seemed to really know the fundamentals of css. These people read the specs, but also played a role in the development of new css features. I think there's still a market for 'true' css/html experts. Knowing the exact ins and outs of html and css across browsers and platforms is arcane knowledge, and if you know this you might get away with not being much of a programmer.
> "The HTML/CSS guru should not exist anyway since the designer is supposed to decide how the page should look like,"
It's this idea that leads to a whole host of trouble. It's the implicit statement that HTML and CSS is just about a visual presentation. A designer (in the typical "I'm a web designer" mould) is singularly unqualified to deliver an accessible experience. Because they cannot let go of the visual aspects, and focus on the non-visual elements. And a lot of that is because Photoshop doesn't support concepts like text-equivalents to images, and tests for whether the page reads correctly in a non visual way.
And then there's interaction design. It's rare to see a web designer have a solid grasp of interaction. Again, because Photoshop doesn't support these concepts.
A static visual representation isn't enough. And so the output from designers with some HTML experience is not enough.
But you're right. The HTML/CSS guru should not exist. But designers are not amenable enough to take up those reins at a high enough quality. And programmers and engineers also seem incapable of generating high quality markup and CSS.
HTML/CSS is where the technical meets design, and neither specialists seems to comfortably handle this intersection. So integration is a pain point.
Which means you have API access to the second most-used search engine in the industry. So what better way to voice your discontent with Google by supporting a competitor.
Running a successful search engine is expensive, it needs continuous investment into R&D. That's why Yahoo took a step back and partnered with Bing instead. The level of investment needed just to hold status quo with the existing market runs into billions of dollars a year, something Yahoo baulked at. Microsoft, however, were still strongly inclined to invest that every year.
Yahoo screwed up so bad here, read the research papers coming out of labs.yahoo.com back then and you realize they were onto knowledgraph before Google and actually had a head start, but they shattered their research division and lost a lot of those search people to microsoft and google. They just didn't have faith to create their own path and also lost their identity by deciding to become an entertainment company.