So basically it happened because users see the feature and don't realize how hostile it is until they actually try to access their media in an "unsupported" way.
Of course if everyone else resisted streaming services would likely have launched anyways, but that is classic prisoners dilemma.
(They dropped SGX which is needed for the DRM)
https://www.whathifi.com/news/intel-discontinues-support-for...
Intel's executives would show up to play golf, and find out that nobody wanted to play with them. They might even be no longer welcome at the country club. Power structures coalesce, because powerful people identify with each others' authoritarian desires.
I think you could refine your point here.. markets include adverse negotiation, secure applications are a thing, and for that matter, weapons making is a thing. You can't "wish away" that part.
I have a colleague who makes secure DRM for FAANG since long ago, and has a large house and successful middle-class life from it.
Where is the commerce ? the market? the reality, in your dream solutions ?
edit as a sound designer and open software advocate, with a book published by MIT Press, please know that some people in the USA try to make the arts life, and some of the emphasis here is the empty hands and pockets that follow. Let's agree, no mafia sound sellers, but also "no" to complete free flow of all digital material no matter what.
Certainly. Intel (amongst others) supply consumer grade CPUs for a "multimedia" market, to service music and movie playback.
The movie and music industry apply intense pressure and lobbying against the computing industry to protect their profits. They see users having control over media, and thus ability to copy, recode, edit or time-shift content as a threat, which they dub "piracy".
Under this pressure to implement "Digital Rights/Restriction Management" within their hardware, semiconductor manufacturers have been making microprocessors increasingly hostile to end users, since if users were able to access and examine device functions they would naturally disable or reject what is not in their interests.
Hiding undocumented functionality to take over, examine or exfiltrate data from systems via backdoors etc is a natural progression of this subterfuge and tension between manufacturer and user. This situation of cat-and-mouse hostility should not exist in anything recognisable as a "free market", and hence I deem it "protectionism".
Now the real problem is that these same "multimedia" processors are used in other areas, automotive, aviation, health and even military applications. The "risk-tradeoffs" bought by big media bleed into these sectors.
Therefore it's clear to me that measures for the protection of "intellectual property" are directly at odds with computer security generally, and are increasingly leading to problems for the sake one relatively small sector. Sure, the digital entertainments industry is worth many trillions of dollars, but pales within the larger picture of human affairs. At some point we may have to choose. Hollywood or national security?