Having just taken a long look though the settings, I noticed that I've only got Widevine. Which I've only probably used for Netflix. I expect that Flash will eventually be slapped out of the Chromium base, which would eventually make it upstream, meaning Debian Users would stop having Flash in Chrome about 6 years from now.

Vivaldi also has the Widevine Content Decryption Module.

Personally, I feel this is a bit of tinfoil hattery; this isn't Chrome, DRM, it's a module.

Yeah, they are simply too big. They don't go bankrupt after so many failed projects is an amazing fact.

I also not a fan of Android direction but I haven't find the alternative

I was making a trifling joke on how Debian tends to provide...less than fresh packages in the name of stability.

Afaik, Chrome isn't installed by default in the vast majority of Linux distributions anyways (Firefox is the default browser instead), and it's Chromium that's in some repos. One has to go to Chrome's download page and get a .deb or .rpm file from there to install it. Many distros are also more relaxed in terms to using closed source software -Linux Mint used to include codecs until version 18, and the sole reason it stopped doing it by default and now needs a checkbox was so that the devs wouldn't need to build a separate codec-less OEM version, while afaik Fedora now has support for installing mp3-codecs by default. So, the way I see it, most Linux distros aren't so opposed to letting their users use Chrome if they so wish, and the situation isn't going to change as long as those .deb and .rpm binaries continue to be provided in Chrome's website.

Well, news about security flaws are written the whole time, but most of these flaws are somewhat obscure and don't affect all that many people. Thus the convenience of being able to watch ANT1's web archive trumps the worry of the 1/1 billion chance of my being hacked.

I personally generally prefer not to go too much into ethics in regards to software (ethics is such a complicated matter...) which means that I consider DRM to be mostly unpractical, as in forces the user to go through many more hoops to enjoy whatever he wishes, and also basically takes away ownership from him, so that he isn't even able to access the product at all times (that's the part most veering towards the unethical). The Widevine DRM, the way it will be included into Chrome, will be practical more than anything -if someone wants to watch Netflix, or even the web archive of a TV channel that uses JWPlayer for whatever reason (like ANT1 that I mentioned on my previous post) he 'll be able to do so easily, without trying to look for workarounds, or enabling stuff into options. And while access to Netflix is paying, the access to the web archive of your average tv station is generally free, so if they're clueless and use JWPlayer, I shouldn't be punished just because my browser won't have that drm enabled by default...

I've seen from the FSF newletters that HTML5 and the like has had DRM build into the language and system to help facilitate things for media streaming...

So, what happens if I encounter such DRM-protected contents without such a widevine plugin?
Not here though. My usage share for the Chrome browser is 0%. I basically don't care what it's doing or not doing.

Nothing go wrong, except a message showed on the supposed video area:
A network error caused the media download to fail part-way.

What proof do you have that Chrome's market share is 70%+? Ad revenues are down, and that is because of effective ad blocking. Firefox is the only one with the best blocking capabilities, and not under threat from corporation overhead changing things for business reasons (Chrome (owned by google) allows you to block their ads (google ads) for now, but for how long?).

Hmm, that could mislead people into believing their network is broken. I wish they would show a more helpful message.

I don't use Chrome for browsing either, but i have installed all major browsers (without any addons) for testing purposes. The only thing i like about Chrome is the Developer Tools, but for my everyday browsing i've always preferred Firefox.

I must admit that i was refering to my Analytics visitor readings. Apparently it's not 70+% in a global scale, but more like ~60% as of the end of 2016. Still, the difference between Chrome & the other browsers is chaotic -- let's see if this will change in 2017. And for what it's worth it, nearly every computer i've received for repair in the last two years, had Chrome as the default browser and only a few of them had any sort of addons installed. I guess the users in my town aren't very aware of ABP, Ublock and the likes.

Some links with stats:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_web_browsers#Summary
http://gs.statcounter.com/
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/default.asp
https://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php

Ah well. Bye bye Chrome.

Does anyone know if this affects the developer version of Chrome?

If it does, goodbye Chrome.

Google can be so up themselves.

Latest Google Chrome dev channel could block Protected Content, aka DRM.

Not for long:

https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2015/08/21/the-future-of-developing-firefox-add-ons/

https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2017/02/16/the-road-to-firefox-57-compatibility-milestones/

https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2017/01/20/migrating-to-webextensions-port-your-stored-data/

Essentially, Mozilla has decided to destroy the only advantage Firefox has over Chrome - the extensions - by deprecating and eventually removing (coming November 2017, according to second link, in Firefox 57) the old extension API, despite not being anywhere close to feature-parity between the old and new APIs (and this is giving them the benefit of doubt that such a thing is achievable in the first place...initial developer reactions were along the lines of "nope"). Some very popular extensions might get preferential treatment, but thousands of others will only get a boot to the head. So, very soon, Firefox will be even closer to being a half-assed Chrome clone.