The developer(s) created a product that didn't do even 10% of what was advertised and now must face the consequences. Why is that bad? Their professional reputation should suffer if the quality of their work is poor.
Anyone with a few years of experience in the software field has heard the following: I'll pay you N dollars to X but you have to finish by unrealistic Y. I'm the sole provider of a household of 4, so in this kind of circumstances I'll agree to minimum features or specific features plus additional features if time allows. I'll make it very clear that the client can't have their cake and eat it too. Sometimes it's merely a matter of economics, so don't go hanging anyone yet.
Any minimally competent developer could have implemented this particular design during, and for the price of, their lunch.
If you're really doing it for moral reasons, you won't keep quiet and make a buck while doing it. If you're opposed to drugs, you don't become a drug dealer and make loads of money selling lower quality drugs.
broadcasting this, and likely harming the developer, for internet points, is a pretty poor move.
Looks like they know they cannot offer a video platform without providing DRM, because the media industry demands it, and they also know that trying to implement unbreakable DRM is futile. Therefore, they just need to implement the minimum needed to convince the media suppliers that their content is really DRM'd.
Given the evidence (complex integration with a non-standard set of open source libs, complex industry area in general), I'd say it's almost certainly an insult to imagine the developer could not have made your life harder if he'd chosen to.
Please, if anything commend the dear fellow, and shame on whoever considered a momentary glimpse of Google Plus limelight worth making this guy's Tuesday morning and ongoing professional reputation much harder earned than it otherwise might have been.
"No good deed goes unpunished"