Correct me if I'm wrong but to stream 4K, studios require a hardware root of trust and a verified media path. They need a guarantee that the video frames are decrypted inside a trusted execution environment and sent directly to the display without the OS kernel or user space being able to read the raw buffer.

AFAIK Windows and macOS provide this pipeline at the OS level. OTOH, ChromeOS gets 1080p/4K not because it has massive market share but cause the hardware and boot chain are locked down by the almighty Google.

On desktop Linux, where you have root access and can modify the kernel or compositor to inspect memory, there is technically no way to guarantee that secure path to the studios' satisfaction. Am I right in this assumption?

Unless the DRM providers change their threat model, which sounds unlikely to me. Or distros start shipping signed and locked-down kernel modules that prevent the user from being root, which is again unacceptable to most (me included), we will likely be capped at 720p for some time now.

Yes. I tried using Chrome on Linux just to watch movies that I purchased on Youtube at HD/4K and watched as the stream was limited to 240P. IMHO regardless of what Google says in their ToS they have already broken the trust agreement by not providing what I paid for. Regardless of what the studios want, all this does is push me back towards piracy because once again the industry fails to understand that piracy is a accessibility problem, not a financial problem. If I pay for 4K then regardless of where I want to watch that movie it better be in 4K, that's what I paid for. Google hides behind their ToS to get around the fact that they sold me a product then failed to deliver.

> ChromeOS gets 1080p/4K not because it has massive market share but cause the hardware and boot chain are locked down by the almighty Google.

ChromeOS is based on Gentoo Linux underneath just very stripped down and Googlefied. It's the same BS that Bungee pulled with Destiny 2 and Linux. If you so much as dared to run Destiny 2 on Linux you would be banned. Stadia used Linux but because Google controlled the platform they allowed it to be played there.

These are the games they play to make other platforms that aren't MacOS/Windows appear like they are incapable but in reality it's just corporate greed and grift.

Oscilloscopes and signal analysers exist.

s/need/want/ but yes.

Does YouTube and Netflix work? That's the lion's share right there. A lot of users probably don't even care about the other streaming platforms. I'm probably being too optimistic, but I think the upcoming Steam machines will have a significant adoption of the linux desktop. Microsoft is certainly working 'round the clock to alienate their users.

The same is true for running a vanilla Chromium build on Windows, the big difference is the quality of content you can get on Windows can be higher than 720p in the mainstream browsers (as long as the rest of the system is compliant as well).

I agree it's a bit silly, but I think a lot of people don't really care about quality so long as they can watch it. I guess that'd also explain how Netflix gets away with such low bitrates for even the "high quality" versions of content.

- 15% PC

- 10% Smartphone

- 5% Tablets

- 70% TVs

In terms of viewing hours https://www.statista.com/chart/13191/netflix-usage-by-device.... So definitely most viewing on TV, but still something like 1/3 of households with TVs don't have a 4k TV at all (as of 2025) in the first place. Hard to definitively say more since Netflix & others don't seem to publish the numbers often.

I'd love to find out I'm wildly wrong though and have a bunch of people willing to push Netflix to have higher quality content... but so many people don't even seem to pay for the premium plan with 4k (anecdotally, Netflix doesn't seem to publish numbers on that) that I'm not holding my breath as I sit here with UHD Blu-Ray quality instead :D. It seems like most people just want something quick to turn on in the background than something to really sit down and bask in every detail of.

Right. The user I was replying to was asking about a browser that isn't either of those.

Most people will not use a browser that can't open youtube videos and they know and exploit this with extreme precision.

You're already paying the monthly fee to stream it, you're just streaming it in a more friendly way. Granted if you cancel the service, you should delete the content.

Many won't though and that's the problem but that problem is caused by the fact that you're being restricted in the first place.

Nothing is stopping you from buying a 4k webcam and recording your computer monitor

Video DRM that doesn't protect the stream all the way through to a decryption key embedded in your eyeballs always seemed somewhat futile to me.

Same situation on Mac where Apple's Fairplay DRM enables 4K playback in Safari, but Chrome and Firefox have the same limitations as on Windows.

Last time I tried to use Firefox on Windows as my daily driver, video playback was one of the biggest gaps that made me go back to Edge.

The entirety of personal computer viewing doesn't have enough users where the media companies can't ignore them.

Fundamentally higher resolution playback happens on platforms like Windows and MacOS because they have closed, signed driver stacks, same as anti-cheat in games. Not because of the browser. So it will only ever happen if someone forks Linux to a more restricted, closed browser stack and offers that as a product (which is basically how a cable set-top box works in practice).