and when apple decides to drop flash support, what happened? Did netflix or any other video content producer suddenly decide to stop supporting those devices? No, they went with html5 video (and at that time, free of DRM). That was a great step forward for DRM free content for the web.
By making the web standard include a mechnism to include DRM natively, this means content producers once again will have a hassle free way to include DRM. The end user won't care as long as they can get their content, but the slippery slope is there, and one day, the web will only contain content that is DRM'ed (and there would be no way of format shifting, or saving the video for offline viewing or sharing). That is not the web I want to see in 5/10 year's time, and the way to stop that is to prevent the cracks from appearing.
It's actively harmful to consumers of content producing companies, but only if those companies do not move to DRM free platforms. But because companies ultimately have to make the user experience smooth, forcing them off DRM like this to make a smooth user experience is worth it in my books.
The argument has a tiny issue in that it's not actually true. At all.
That's a figment of your imagination. They used DRM in an app store app.
Imagine if Netflix, Hulu etc. could have used the browser, complete with Chromecast/Airplay support. It would save us all so much wasted phone storage and app downloads.
As it is, too many people decided they are OK with a google browser. The answer to: "It's cumbersome to use DRM" is to tell your consumers to use Chrome.
* I find this highly questionable. We have an abundance of examples of media companies favouring DRM over user experience. Clearly they think a less smooth experience is a price worth paying.
I don't think media companies particularly care about user experience. They care about control.
Once you have a piece of content (which you didn't produce) in your hands, and an exclusive distribution contract to guarantee the content producer can't go elsewhere - you have a monopoly over the content in question. DRM is an abhorrent, if natural, extension of this control-freakery. After all, you don't want to provide consumers control over how they view YOUR[0] precious content.
The ingrateful bastards might find a way to enjoy the content without going through the hoops you've carefully put in place. What good would a monopoly be? As the sole content distributor, the last thing you want is competition.
0: Nope, you still didn't produce it. Someone else did. But now you own it.
EDIT: grammar fix in footnote
Unambiguously, no, they didn't.
They used applications that had Playready or Adobe Access or Widevine built in, or a little bit later they used Apple FairPlay inside the browser. Some also used root level Apple certificates to limit streams to iOS devices only.
Unambiguously, this argument is factually false.
Making DRM harder for the end user is the only effective push-back. It worked for music. It's working for e-Books. It would have worked for movies... if it wasn't for this.
But yes, you do have a point that making DRM easier will likely make more content producers consider and implement DRM than before. I'm not sure there is a good solution to this right now, and yours is just vindictive and actively harmful.