(there's also, of course, Hixie, but it's not surprising that his opinion wouldn't be informed by his employers)
Bullshit. Utter and complete bullshit.
Google was one of the initial enablers of DRM on the web. Without Google enabling it, nobody could have used DRM on the web and it would have been a non-issue. If they were "against DRM" they should have stood their stance.
But they didn't. Because to them being able to sell ChromeOS with Netflix-support was more important than the integrity of the open web itself.
And so it shall stand in the history-books: When the web was poisened with DRM, it was done so first by the hands of Google.
There's no way they can claim they "were actually against it" when they were the ones doing the original sin. Fuck Google. Seriously fuck Google for this one.
Fucking standards-maimers.
Read what I wrote again. I never made any claim like Google "were actually against it". I said that several of the most outspoken in combatting the proposal in the HTML working group (which is still an editor's draft, btw, and certainly not fait accompli) are employed by Google, and they will likely continue fighting it. Notable among them has been Tab[1] and, not for nothing, hixie[2], the editor of the HTML spec at the WHATWG, where he refuses to put in any sort of DRM to a specification for the open web.
That's exactly what you hope to see when a company doesn't force the people it pays to be on a standards body to toe the company line.
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Fe... (with many others on that list)
[2] https://plus.google.com/107429617152575897589/posts/iPmatxBY... (see also: posts to public-html)