Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Blocks 3d-Party Browsers In Windows RT, Says Mozilla Counsel
nk497 writes "Mozilla has accused Microsoft of trying to go back to the 'digital dark ages' by limiting rival browsers in the ARM version of Windows 8. Third-party browsers won't work in the desktop mode, and Metro style browsers will be limited in what APIs they can use, said Mozilla general counsel Harvey Anderson, forcing users to move to IE instead. Mozilla said it was the first step toward a new platform lock-in that 'restricts user choice, reduces competition and chills innovation,' and pointed out that such browser control was exactly what upset EU and U.S. regulators about IE in the first place. Anderson called on Microsoft to 'reject the temptation to pursue a closed path,' adding 'the world doesn't need another closed proprietary environment.'"
You know that there already exists a mobile version of Firefox that isn't just the desktop browser recompiled for ARM, right?
translation: "it's not your computer, it's Microsoft's, and they should decide what you run on it."
Whooo, party in 3d! Always knew Microsoft had a stick up their ass, but now they're trying to limit us to two-dimensional parties.
Can I install a different browser on a Chromebook? Can I install a different browser in iOS? Heck, Apple bans ANY app that duplicates functionality that Apple provides.
Why is MS always being held to a double-standard that others aren't?
People will beat MS up over bundling... but I don't see anybody on Slashdot going "Apple stifles competition! Google bundles Maps inside Search and there's no way to uninstall it or integrate a different mapping service into it!"
But hey... this is Slashdot. They'll use show a picture of the world's biggest philanthropist as a borg... and then they'll whine about how one single post that is vaguely defending MS is PROOF that Slashdot is overrun with MS shills.
Whatever bro.
I don't find this lock-in too much of a hassle since it only affects the ARM version. I can easily opt to use the Intel version and nothing of value would be lost, in my opinion.
All glory to Arstotzka!
So we can get around Microsoft's managerial convulsions.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
It's the Firefox prototype anyway.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
"Strangely" enough, Internet Explorer, along with other MS apps, will still have access to those features.
Android devices are not infested with malware, and they do in fact run alternate browsers. Windows programs do not run on them for technical reasons not as a method to lockdown the platform.
Firefox actually already has a version for android on arm called Fennec and it is lighter than the desktop version. I am sure IE will not be limited to some crippled set of APIs, and you know that.
You are wrong on many facts and in general appear to be a shill.
Skip windows 8.
Ignore windows RT.
Does Apple allow non-safari based browsers on IOS?
You read the article and wrote your reply in 0 minutes? Nice try, Ballmer.
And, as long as it's compatible with the WinRT APIs (same as Metro IE), there's absolutely no reason why it wouldn't run on Win 8 ARM devices.
Microsoft just wants to ensure it has as much control as possible over mobile devices. It's not about the user, performance or security. It's about control.
How did you manage to type up and post this comment within 1 minute of the time the original article was posted?
The world collectively pissed itself in delight over Apple's closed proprietary environment. The clueless twits who threw their freedom away in exchange for "cool" have made similar environments acceptible in the minds of the clueless majority. You can't expect Microsoft to not take advantage of this. If anyone complains, they can just point at Apple and say "they started it!"
I actually RTFA because I thought it was odd and I was curious on how Windows could block browsers from a technical standpoint.
The article leads to a Mozilla blog from which in turns links to another blog on from Microsoft which in no ways mention limiting browsers on Windows for Arm. So this quite strong claim has no actual source.
Yes, quality control, the defining characteristic of Microsoft software.
"They would not consider the limitations of the devices nor would they make Firefox use less resources. Seeing how bloat Firefox already is, this is a good thing."
I'm sorry you feel that way, but I respect your right to do so. Unfortunately, my computer does not belong to you or Microsoft. I get to decide what's a "good thing" or not, as you couldn't possibly know what I want or expect.
Apple does it and Apple is a strong enough competitor on low powered devices that MS can't be faulted for exploiting a monopoly. When competitors agree, the consumer gets screwed.
Wake me up when Apple listen too and allow other browsers.
- http://www.milkme.co.uk
Apple restricted browsing to Safari for at least the first couple years of the iPhone OS, now iOS, before they allowed a couple third party browsers into the App Store. This isn't really any different. MS can always change later once they've established a certain level of quality over the platform.
OSX only ships with Safari....and you slashtards don't whine about that. Plenty of software manufacturers only do this, or that. Everyone here knows that Windows 8 won't be a big hit - like Vista wasn't either, so it's marketshare will be very small. Thus, the whole argument is moot - outside of people bashing MS.
The first post on this account, too!
...by any means.
WinPho 7 (and above) have explicitly never supported alternative browsers either.
This sig left unintentionally blank.
As long as the industry supports the current Intellectual Property and copyrights I find this to be just more noise between giants. It used to be that you could count on seventeen years of exclusive rights, now it's gone mad. There will be no new innovations until creators don't have to spend more time with patent research and lawyers than actual breakthrough practice. Patent trolls are the new sharks on the seas of technology. Hell, how many new cancer cures have we seen in the last six months alone ? anything available yet ? oh right, treatments not cures for the masses...it's all about the money...
Why doesn't Mozilla stop complaining and write their own operating system?
Employee of a PR company that monitors new submissions (e.g. Firehose) to put a positive spin on potentially negative articles as soon as possible?
"Strangely" enough, Internet Explorer, along with other MS apps, will still have access to those features.
That's only because they know what they are doing. They have a good enough track record in the security area to be trusted blindly by the population.
I mean, come on, they wrote the frigging OS itself !!!
Write boring code, not shiny code!
yes exactly same as apple, if it worked for apple why it would not work for microsoft
Microsoft isn't banning browser per se, it is limiting access to APIs that might be insecure and could be used for hacking the system.
Limiting access to APIs that Microsoft is using for themselves for their own browser is downright shady.
It has different APIs from standard Windows APIs and is much more secured.
How do we know it's secure at all? I trust Firefox and Google to provide far better security to me than some black box dumped by Microsoft and pumped by you shills.
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
So you are claiming that Metro IE uses no non-public WinRT APIs? Do these APIs allow for a browser that is not based on the IE rendering engine?
And, as long as it's compatible with the WinRT APIs (same as Metro IE), there's absolutely no reason why it wouldn't run on Win 8 ARM devices.
According to TFA Microsoft is restricting the API available to third-party browsers and not allow them on the "classic" desktop.
You registered just to MS shill? Douchebag.
I don't find this lock-in too much of a hassle since it only affects the ARM version. I can easily opt to use the Intel version and nothing of value would be lost, in my opinion.
Until they "unify" their platform on the basis that "its been like that on the ARM for years"
We'll see whether it is completely reasonable when EU gives some more fines for Microsoft for trying to kill competition as it has done before in these browser questions.
They have a good enough track record in the security area to be trusted blindly by the population.
That is funny
translation: "it's not your computer, it's Microsoft's, and they should decide what you run on it."
There's nothing stopping you from running whatever code you want on a processor you own other than lack of tools and knowledge.
That's not your problem, you want someone else's software to have a program loader that does whatever you want. That's different. There's no law requiring all software running on a programmable system to load user provided code, or do so easily.
Even if there were such a thing, then what, is direct access to the hardware expected? A limited sandbox? A non functional "check-the-box" sandbox? So you'd have to formally define that too. Expect the hardware warranty to be voided right away, no law would change that. Also if this software customization law was passed, expect a long list of exceptions, just like you cannot modify the exhaust system you own and drive it on public road legally.
So, this 'large carrier' uses a bunch of devices which don't properly create self-signed certs for themselves, and they're complaining that a browser properly flagging that exception causes too many support calls? Maybe they should get on HP to fix the problem with their devices.
Illogical argument?
Look, the purchaser owns the computer, not Microsoft. This doesn't change just because the computer fits in your pocket.
What's the going rate for destroying the internets?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. We only marginally complained when Apple did this exact same thing. Get over it.
There is money to be made from selling an operating system, but there is a lot more to be made in controling an ecosystem of interrelated products. Apple showed this, and with the huge success (Both in market share and financially) they enjoyed, it's hardly surprising that Microsoft would want to follow the same path. The move to ARM allows them to get away with things they could never do on x86/64. Control of a popular browser gives them much power to advance other products (like Bing, or h264) or to hinder competitors (by introducing IE-exclusive features to break compatibility) - and it's only good business sense to take advantage of a rare chance to completly remake the industry in a way that favors themselves
I gather from comments the critical APIs relate to hardware acceleration, particually JIT compilation of scripts. A browser without them would suffer a serious performance penalty, and these tablets are made for low-power to begin with.
As the ARM version of Windows 8 is meant to be used on lighter, less powerful devices like tablets, there's a good reason to maintain some quality control and put limits.
Yes, exactly I should maintain some control and be able to put some limits on what Microsoft does on my tablet. This is well past those limits.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
then they'll whine about how one single post that is vaguely defending MS is PROOF that Slashdot is overrun with MS shills.
You mean like your post, which reads, "Wahh wahh nobody criticizes Apple so Microsoft should not be criticized either!" even though Apple bashing is a favorite activity here on Slashdot?
Palm trees and 8
They are just trying to be like Apple now. It's no fun anymore when everything is the same as what everyone else has.
You won't be able to opt to use the Intel version if you're going to buy a ARM-based Win8 tablet o Windows phone. That's funny because there are many different browsers for Android and iOS. Microsoft could be unique in locking competitor browsers out of their platform.
good reason to maintain some quality control and put limits.
No, there is no good reason for anyone to control the quality of a product after it has been purchased, nor is there a good reason to "put limits" on computation. This is just an attempt by Microsoft to join the lock-down party, dictating how computers can be used by their users and shutting out competition.
Palm trees and 8
...oh wait.
> Microsoft isn't banning browser per se, it is limiting access to APIs that might be insecure and could be used for hacking the system.
If they did that consistently across all platforms, they would have the world's first API with all access blocked. Anyway, it isn't just the browser which is being limited in this way, it is all software not written by MS. Frankly, Google and Mozilla would be better off announcing they were not going to support it because of this, rather than announcing support and then moaning about standard MS tactics. They, however, are somewhat more committed to openness than MS.
. . . nor does anyone else who goes out of their way to install Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome, Safari, or Opera. People who install those browsers quite simply DO NOT WANT INTERNET EXPLORER.
I don't want to use MSIE even if MSIE had a plugin that will build me an island and then fucking transform into a jet and fly me there. If I don't need to access an ActiveX app, I simply do not want to use MSIE!!
Got that, Microsoft?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
NO..I bought it...I should say. OK, use the buggy thing, then...FFox way more stable.
Or a paid subscriber that gets to see slashdot posts before they are posted to the public.
Seems quite common on /. these days that the First Post is a deliberate wind-up, as if from a MS shill for example as in this topic.
I guess these are deliberate plants, to get the discussion going.
Somewhat offtopic, but while Fenec might be lighter weight than the desktop browser it's still by FAR the heaviest browser available for Android (not sure about Chrome for Android as my device doesn't have ICS). I basically only use if on sites that refuse to work with both Opera Mobile and the default browser because I have to close every other app on my phone in order to run it.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Clueless throwback. ARM is the new upcoming platform for mobile devices. Mobile devices is the current growth market in computing. To say its not a hassle is to say you're not part of the current century.
Sorry, but if you're not bothered and/or disturbed by this announcement, then you'd failed to learn anything about history, and doubly so about Microsoft.
Yes, the purchaser owns the computer, and he can run whatever he wants on it, including running an OS other than Windows. Microsoft is not dictating what you can do with your computer, they are saying what can be done with their OS.
I thought all third party apps were restricted from running in desktop mode in WinRT. In fact, I believe that every application has to use approved APIs and such... WinRT is supposed to be a walled garden, not unlike that found in iOS.
Stop trolling. The Apple desktop is a completely open Unix OS. I develop on it all day long and never run into any restrictions like this.
Developers: We can use your help.
This one of my biggest issues with Apple. All of your apple devices are really apple's. You just paid a lot of money to rent it indefinitely.
No, those have a visible asterisk after their username.
This is outrageous, I mean I LOVE all of the different browsers that came with my iPhone! Why is Micro$oft being such evil corporate jerks?!?!?!
Que?
No, the impossibility to access an https website, NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO causes too many supportcalls. You could not even access it to fix the problem!
Yeah, HP is going to update iLO on servers from 2002, suuuuure.
Yes, Servers from 2002 are still in use.
No, you can't "properly create" self-signed certs on the iLO's, and you could not even install a commercial certificate 'cause the ilo's only allow to export a CSR (with md5-hashing that no CA will accept), but not import another key/cert.
But why is this even an issue?! Every fucking browser allow's you to skip a cert-warning, all but Firefox. Mozilla is creating a problem where none should be, on a LOT of devices, with the consequence, that you need another browser to "fix" this non-issue (we decide for ourself which devices need an official certificate for 50$ a pop, 5000 iLO-Interfaces on a secure managment network that only accessable from System-Admin-Workstations dont have to cost an additional 25k/year just because Mozilla "insists".)
... be ported to linux? ... isn't this the real solution?
That's funny because there are many different browsers for ... iOS.
No, there is only Safari for iOS, and clones thereof. This is the reasons there is no Chrome or Firefox on iOS. Opera is the only exception bcause it does all its webpage rendering on Opera servers, not the actual device. Windows 8 RT is actually more open than iOS in that respect, as you can install any metro browser you like.
3D gives me headaches anyway.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
This part is absolutely irrelevant. The issue is whether Firefox will be limited to a lesser set of API's than IE, and so far that seems to be 100% confirmed.
To a normal user this is a distinction without a difference. The OS *is* the computer to the uninitiated.
No, the developer TOS forbids this. IT's not a built in OS lock, it's a Legal ," we get to spank you" lock.
Quite different, but just as shady.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
If you don't have administrative access to the computer, you don't really own it. It is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition.
He IS a shill or a troll. He specifically created the account to post here and his post was within the minute. He has one submitted article about "How EA Helped a Transgender Transition Inside EA Sports" as if that would make me him a usual member of the community or something.
"Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
No. Check the user out. This is his first post. He subscribed today.
"Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
Fenec requires resources, but smartphone processing power is getting cheaper and an impressive rate. On my Samsung Galaxy SII running a gingerbread spin Fenic is not noticeably slower than the native browser. My biggest criticism of Fenic on Android is how very little it feels like Firefox.
I was talking more about RAM than CPU, even topflight phones don't have that much RAM.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
But that's true for the Windows desktop as well. We're talking about Windows RT here, which is the spiritual equivalent of iOS. How's that for a completely open Unix OS?
Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
You know ARM was introduced in 1983, right? It's been a "new upcoming platform" for nearly 30 years now.
Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
Article is talking WinRT, which is the equivalent of iOS.
iOS IS restrictive, and Microsoft is aiming exactly for that. Actually... not exactly. From what I read, Microsoft will allow third party browsers, with third party HTML and JavaScript engines (something Apple does not allow.) The issue is in restricting some APIs required for JIT, and that will give third party browsers a heavy performance penalty.
So as much as I tend to be on Apple's side, this is nowhere near as restrictive as Apple's stance.
iOS on the iPad is NOT a completely open Unix OS. WindowsRT is Microsoft's IOS.
There's nothing stopping you from running whatever code you want on a processor you own other than lack of tools and knowledge.
I think the locked down BIOS that only lets you run Window RT might also be an impediment...
How does it tell the difference between a "rival" browser and any random application which uses a TCP/IP transport?
Android devices are not infested with malware, and they do in fact run alternate browsers. Windows programs do not run on them for technical reasons not as a method to lockdown the platform.
Android devices are, indeed, infested with malware. Android has overtaken iOS as the #1 malware target. Firefox may not run on Windows RT for technical reasons, and not as a method to lock down the platform.
If they were trying to be like Apple, there would be maybe 12 browsers to choose from. More if you count the forks and derivatives. Not including Lynx or Line Mode Browser.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Since when did the kernel and desktop mean the same thing? The huge majority and all the important parts of OS X's user land is closed source.
I have no particular inside information!
Certainly if MS is using APIs to privilege IE over other browsers, that's pretty bad behaviour. So far, though, there doesn't seem to be much evidence that it is. I would think that the onus for demonstrating bad faith would fall on the people who are complaining about the new APIs, though. If Metro IE doesn't use any secret sauce, then the other browser vendors should put up and/or shut up. And I would like to see more evidence of bad faith on Microsoft's part than "There are new APIs and we will need to write new code, wah wah wah"
This guy could very well be a Microsoft minion. But you do realize this is Slashdot, right?
People don't always read the article *and then* comment. Don't expect that argument to be valid for every post :P
Some apps are WYSIWYG. Some others are WYSIWTF.
Makes good click bait headlines, but they are not blocking 3rd party browsers. They are blocking everyone from adding software to run on the windows classic desktop, and instead forcing them to write software for the "Metro" desktop.
Likely the only reason the classic desktop is even there, is Microsoft could not rewrite Office fast enough. It will likely be gone in 2-3 years. Not allowing anyone to develop for it is actually a smart move.
Oh, one more thing:
Setting aside the question of private APIs, I believe Apple's app store specifically prohibit any independent browser implementations. So everything is basically embedded Safari. Is anyone claiming that an analogous situation exists for Win 8 Metro ARM? Or is the API thing the only issue (i.e. Technical feasibility with the white-listed APIs rather than political/legal/corporate interference)
UEFI firmware on Window RT tablets won't let you install any OS that the computer doesn't already have a signature for, and per Microsoft's certification requirements, you can't turn that security feature off, so unless the OS you plan to install has a certificate, and unless you tablet vendor allows installation of those certificates into your firmware, you can't run anything other than Windows RT.
For the average consumer who doesn't have a PhD in Computer Science, installing another OS is a pipe dream.
Don't worry, you can just erase the devices and install an OS of your choice. This will allow you to use the purchased device in whatever way you see fit.
Oh wait.
Thank you, I didn't notice that. Luckily I'm on Android.
For that to be true though, Windows will have to survive on ARM for years, which isn't necessarily likely.
It's pretty much public knowledge that IE on Windows RT (and Safari on iOS) use privileged APIs.
This is to help preseve battery life and security. It worked quite well for Apple too.
This space for rent.
It's not that there are more than 50 different Android tablets to choose from.
Is MS really forcing you to buy Windows RT?
You could make that case on the desktop for apps, but exactly zero apps that run on Windows 7 will run on Windows RT.
This space for rent.
Stop trolling. The Apple desktop is a completely open Unix OS. I develop on it all day long and never run into any restrictions like this.
First of all, it's not as open as Linux(no source available, can't redistribute, can't even choose your own hardware legallly, can't even buy standalone to run on your machine) and not even as open as Windows (you can't legally run OS X in a VM like you can do Windows).
Secondly, the Apple desktop equivalent is Windows 8. We are talking about Windows RT here, which is a totally different beast and most comparable to iOS.
This space for rent.
Your funny i almost spewed coffee on my screen when i read that. What your weren't joking?
no seriously yes they have a lot of open projects and use a lot of open code like webkit, cups, and darwin, but to say that osx is open it not true. they are most definitely closed source just look at the majority of the user space code, oh wait you cant, because it is not open. what osx is however is unlocked you cant run any code you want, but that dose not equate open
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Stop trolling. The Apple desktop is a completely open Unix OS. I develop on it all day long and never run into any restrictions like this.
I guess you were hurt by my comments, eh?
/. down and makes it nothing more than a forum for butthurt whiners like yourself. Now get get back to fucking off.
Unfortunately, you were wrong and I am absolutely correct in that MS are trying to be more like Apple now.
So, yeah, you're just another asshat who thinks "trolling" is anything you disagree with. Again, you are the type of person who drags
If that API is so useful, why is not public then?
Everyone will be wanting to important European 'N' versions for their ARM-based system; won't have Windows Media Player (who cares if you don't have the codecs anyway) but it won't have anti-competitive restrictions (that's how Neelie Kroes rolls!).
that actually would not be a bad idea. Knowing apples stance on there devices and how much they hate jail-breaking or people who dare to desire to run xp in a duel boot. what they should do is simply lease people the devices for like 5 hundred years that way if you do jail break the devices they can go after you. Mind you everyone of us would go to war on them but we are not their target demographic. we are not hipsters or the technically inept.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
This is the story that inspired my sig!! Because WindowsRT makes just as much sense.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
no not funny. Sadly its true. most people would trust Microsoft because that is who they use and have used for years. sad but true
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
what we should do is simply down mode obvious shills and then ignore everything they post. do not reply to any thing they post. they will get the hint and leave eventually
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
You confuse the sanctity of education with its utility. You'll probably never find a PhD touching a line of code to do with that feature set. They'll be too busy churning out whitepapers like crazy about it. It'll wind up being the guys with certificates and lesser degrees actually making the clever hacks..
competitive advantage?
Sure.... you *can* use Firefox or Opera if you want to... but if you do, then you'll only get 5h of battery life instead of 10. Use our product instead.
What do you mean? My phone has 1GB of ram, how much do you want?
ARM version - dubbed Windows RT[...]Rival browsers won't be allowed on the "classic" desktop
Windows RT supporting the classic desktop is news to me. Windows RT was meant to ONLY allow metro apps, but I guess one may need a way to fall-back if the metro web-browser breaks something. Then IE in the desktop mode will continue to work.
1) MS says "No desktop for Windows RT"
2) MS says Metro web browsers, including IE, have limited API access to keep the system secure
3) MS says "Ohh, shit, we need a "safe mode" incase shit hits the fan, lets allow desktop mode, but only let IE to operate"
4) Community goes ape shit because MS doesn't want 3rd parties to f*ck with their safe mode
This sounds about right
But to the uninitiated Microsoft owns the computer anyway.
You misunderstood me. I was implying that those privileged APIs contain far more power than MS/Apple want to give to third party developers. For example, it allows apps to run in the background all the time. This means that any app that uses those APIs can run down the battery or open additional attack vectors on the power starved tablet. I did not imply that those APIs are useful to enhance battery life and security.
This space for rent.
Fuck off, bonch.
The sad thing is that it works! These shill/troll posts are so damn easy to spot (first post, within the same minute the article is posted, always critical of Google and praises Microsoft), but (like this one) they generally dominate the discussion because people don't just ignore them. I've scrolled nearly a 3rd of the way into the discussions and we're *still* on responses to this misinformation troll.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Windows RT is called Windows RT because it ONLY allows access to the WinRT APIs. MS does not have any limitations for 3rd parties to use the WinRT APIs. Everyone is complaining about not having access to the Win32 APIs that the "desktop mode" IE has. MS does NOT want users using desktop mode, especially on ARM.
This is well past those limits.
Windows RT only allows access to the WinRT APIs?! Say it isn't so! Wait, you want Windows RT allow access to more than just the WinRT APIs? Then don't purchase Windows RT, get the desktop version. BTW, FF/Chrome/etc will run just fine under WinRT(Metro)
It must be like owning an iPad! Also, surely it can only block known browsers
Internet Explorer only support 32 stylesheets, can't dinamically change the innerHTML of a TR row, don't register deletion of elements inside optgroup, don't apply the stylesheets of styles added dynamically and a hundred billion other bugs that shows is not a true DHTML browser. Its also a risk of virus and other malware infection. As a webmaster I think theres nothing worse than a whole genre of devices gimped to use IE, the "no-browser".
-Woof woof woof!
This is still not accurate. Apple does not restrict the capabilities of iOS for 3rd parties. They restrict what they sell via their store. But you can install anything you want on the device and use whatever APIs are available.
Developers: We can use your help.
What happened is that MS realized that there was no way they could port Office to Metro in time for the Window RT release. But they want to push the availability of Office on Windows RT as one of it's major selling points over the iPad. On the other hand, there was no way they could port all the legacy Windows APIs to ARM in time to allow developers to build desktop applications in general, and even if they could they don't want to.
So instead, they are porting just enough of the legacy APIs to support Office, IE, and the desktop shell, but are keeping them private and only allowing their applications to use them. Office 15 for Windows 8 will be themed to fit in well with Metro but will be a classic (desktop) application.
I didn't say open source. I said open, as in all APIs built in are available for use. iOS and OS X are not locked down or restricted in any way (other than iOS apps needing to be signed).
Developers: We can use your help.
No I called you a troll because you brought Apple into the discussion specifically to start an argument. What MS is doing here is not at all what Apple does.
Developers: We can use your help.
Desktop Windows won't run on ARM tablets.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Technology moves slowly. Forget all the buzz you listen on the media, the time some tech needs to start making that buzz is huge (even if it has a PR budget).
The point, tough, is that everything else is even slower, so tech in fact moves fast, but nothing moves as fast as you expect.
Rethinking email
Yep, exactly the same as Apple.
You know, up to now Apple's strategy is working exceptionaly well for pushing people into Android. If people ever notice Windows phones, it will probably have the same result.
Rethinking email
They restrict what they sell via their store. But you can install anything you want on the device
Considering that the store is the only way to install any software in iOS, how exactly do you install anything you like? Or are you talking about jailbreaking the device? If that's the case, what's to say that Windows RT won't have a similar "jailbreak" that allows you to install whatever software you want and use whatever APIs are available?
But you can install anything you want on the device and use whatever APIs are available.
No you can’t, not without hammering down the OS with a jailbreak. That's like saying banks allow anyone to withdraw as much money as they want with a bit of dynamite placing on the vault.
As a developer I can actually install any app (I compile and sign myself) but even that will be limited to the certificate lifetime.
It is shady, and obviously, I'd refuse to buy a computer from a suplier that does something like that (or like trusted boot).
But I think that is overblown. MS has no monopoly on the phone market, it is not even an important player. It is currently not abusing any other monopoly to push it... I think we should just get over it (and turn our attention on the real problems MS will certainly create).
Rethinking email
Considering that Fenec eats up 200MB (all available ram) on my Android phone, I'd say at least 2GB would be nice.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
So apart from being locked down, iOS is entirely open. Congratulations, you just graduated in Newspeak.
And some people wonder why you Apple shills are so despised.
Us Apple shills? I don't give a shit about Apple. I just don't like the lies you're spreading. An OS that lets me install anything on my own and use all of its APIs it not locked down. Sorry to disappoint.
Developers: We can use your help.
If they were trying to be like Apple, there would be maybe 12 browsers to choose from. More if you count the forks and derivatives. Not including Lynx or Line Mode Browser.
There is exactly 1 rendering engine available on non-jailbroken iOS*, and that is the built in WebKit that Safari use. All the browsers available in the marketplace are just reskinned frontends for the built in WebKit, or (in the case of Opera Mini) offloading rendering to server.
*And in case not all are clear on this, WindowsRT (ARM) is the equivalent of iOS, it will only be available pre-installed on ARM tablets. FireFox are already planning a Metro browser for regular Windows 8 on Intel.
Considering that the store is the only way to install any software in iOS
More lies. This is why I usually avoid these conversations online. The store is NOT the only way to install software. I can create anything on my desktop and upload it to my phone. I can take any app a friend makes and upload it to my phone. Apple is not involved in any way and it is not jailbroken. Please stop with the ridiculous misinformation.
Developers: We can use your help.
Considering that the store is the only way to install any software in iOS
More lies. This is why I usually avoid these conversations online. The store is NOT the only way to install software. I can create anything on my desktop and upload it to my phone. I can take any app a friend makes and upload it to my phone. Apple is not involved in any way and it is not jailbroken. Please stop with the ridiculous misinformation.
And how would FireFox go about doing that to be available on iOS?
Wow, really? I had no idea. So then why are so many developers giving a 30% cut to Apple? Why don't they just host their app on their own site so I can download it there? More importantly, if that's the case then why isn't there Firefox or Google Chrome for iOS?
Is there any reason or Windows on ARM other than copying Apple? The only reason people use x86 Windows is for its ecosystem. The Windows on ARM will not have any better ecosystem than Windows on PopwerPC, MIPS, Alpha had and they all died and too much reliance on Windows killed the chips also. Fortunately, ARM has no reliance on Windows.
You can only do this if you are a registered developer (I know because I am one.)
You can only install your friend's app if he adds you to he too is a developer certificate.
Actually, you can install his stuff (if he is a developer that added your device under his provisioning profile) even if you are not a developer, but you cant install your own stuff without you being a developer yourself.
Heck, even if you are a developer you must add your own devices to your profile, and there is a limit to how many devices you can add (arguably it's high enough to have all your friends devices registered.)
You can't just download software written by strangers and add it to your device, though.
Oh, if you are a corporation with a much more expensive (although not prohibitive) corporate program, you don't have a device limit (either that or its a frigging large limit) and you can even remotely push software and updates, but this is not in the realm of the common guy and still subject to Apple's blessing.
You're not allowed to install anything on your own on iOS devices, only apps from Apple's own app store, which in your own words prohibit use of certain APIs. For someone who claims to not give a shit about Apple, you're sure willing to lie to make them look good, which makes you a shill. And yes, also a liar. You're a despicable low-life spinster, and probably don't even get paid for it. You don't only disappoint, you disgust me.
This is to get an advantage over competitors. This is legal if you are not a monopoly or using this technique to maintain a monopoly. However Microsoft is a monopoly on the desktop and having this advantage on tablets, even if not a tablet monopoly, will help maintain the desktop monopoly. That's why Apple can do the same stuff in MacOS that MS can't do in Windows.
Wow, really? I had no idea. So then why are so many developers giving a 30% cut to Apple? Why don't they just host their app on their own site so I can download it there? More importantly, if that's the case then why isn't there Firefox or Google Chrome for iOS?
OP is either trying to brag about having a developer account, or not aware of how this is only possible for and between registered developers (non-jailbrake).
Calling other people liers while so blatantly misrepresenting the truth by omitting this is rich.
I can create anything on my desktop and upload it to my phone. I can take any app a friend makes and upload it to my phone. Apple is not involved in any way [...]
Except for that $99 a year you pay Apple for the privilege.
Nice try, Troll.
Free market advocates are quite often very smart people, I admit. They're 90th, maybe 95th percentile and above for intelligence. And they, reasonably, see everyone else as relatively stupid, and they also disdain the average man, knowing that they can outsmart and outcompete them. Ironically, at the same time they think that the force of the market, which is overwhelmingly a sum of the urges of these relatively stupid, disdainful people, is going to drive things in a good direction. A bit o' paradox there, eh?
The market brought you The Great Web Languish by letting IE be dominant for a dozen years. Web tech was seriously retarded and OS infections were rampant. Imagine how much time would have been saved in system reinstalls, and how much further along web technology would be today? Just one example of how we all got screwed by the market.
Putting the market on a pedestal and catering to it doesn't make the world a better place. Well, it might make your little world a better funded place and maybe more pleasant. Mostly. Until the market's stupidity defiles the greater environment enough that you get poisoned too. You can be 95th percentile smart and still not recognize that what's good for everyone is good for you.
Possibly because they've bought into the coolaid that there's money to be made there (just how most i fans are! ( buuuuurrnnnnnn! )
Then they realize that only very few developers break even and even fewer to actually make a reasonable profit.
When they realize that they're not making enough money, they abandon their $100 / year "permission to be in store" charge and *poof* any further sales? I wonder where it goes?
MS has enough money to make Windows RT 'survive' as long as they want.
Until they "unify" their platform on the basis that "its been like that on the ARM for years"
Only if they want to completely write off the business market, which is their bread and butter. Systems used to do real work simply can't be locked down to this degree. It's a rare business that doesn't have at least one piece of custom-written software (which will not be in the Windows Store and won't have any certificates.)
Wrong again. You only pay that to upload to the store.
Developers: We can use your help.
You should really educate yourself. Your facts are incorrect. You've obviously never worked with what we're discussing here. Calling others names doesn't make them wrong and you right.
Developers: We can use your help.
You don't like it, build your own OS.
You're confusing phones and tablets with desktops. I don't have a Mac but I'm pretty sure you can install pretty much anything you want on one. A PC that you can't install your own browser (or any other software) on is running a pretty shitty OS.
Free Martian Whores!
It's not that there are more than 50 different Android tablets to choose from.
Except that you can't run Android apps on your desktop out-of-the-box, so many people will prefer Window RT for that reason. Metro is essentially a Microsoft scheme to get lots of apps for Windows RT by leveraging Microsoft's monopoly position on the desktop.
Is MS really forcing you to buy Windows RT?
Car analogy: So, if want to buy one of three cars, and the sales person walks up and keys the side of one of the cars, that's okay because I still have two other cars to chose from, right? That's what you're suggesting, that a diminished-but-not-nonexistent choice excuses a critical defect in one of the choices.
You could make that case on the desktop for apps, but exactly zero apps that run on Windows 7 will run on Windows RT.
We aren't even talking about Windows 7 applications, though. This isn't a matter of Mozilla wanting to run legacy desktop code on Windows RT. Mozilla is being denied access to necessary APIs on Windows RT that would allow it to implement comparable functionality to IE10. Even if they chose not to implement desktop support in Windows RT (which they can't do anyways), the Metro version would be inferior because the operating system itself is designed to give IE10 access to higher security privileges, greater resources and more APIs. There is no level playing field to be had, even if you limit the field to the Metro UI.
Yup, there are so many s/w devs running over each other to write apps for Windows RT, all ready to abandon Android, iOS and anything else
MS will be lucky to sell many of these. ARM will remain a platform for only the unixes (Linux, BSD)
>Except that you can't run Android apps on your desktop out-of-the-box, so many people will prefer Window RT for that reason
Are you sure?
http://download.cnet.com/8301-2007_4-57404865-12/latest-bluestacks-arms-your-pc/
http://youwave.com/
http://keyable.blogspot.com/2011/12/using-adb-to-install-apps-on-android.html
>Car analogy: So, if want to buy one of three cars, and the sales person walks up and keys the side of one of the cars, that's okay because I still have two other cars to chose from, right? That's what you're suggesting, that a diminished-but-not-nonexistent choice excuses a critical defect in one of the choices.
If the salesperson believes that keying the side of the cars is going to attract numerous other potential buyers or give him some other advantage, he should be free to do so.
>There is no level playing field to be had, even if you limit the field to the Metro UI.
Contrast that with Boot2Gecko by Mozilla, you can't even run any native apps, forget browsers.
This space for rent.
Possibly because they've bought into the coolaid that there's money to be made there (just how most i fans are! ( buuuuurrnnnnnn! )
Then they realize that only very few developers break even and even fewer to actually make a reasonable profit.
When they realize that they're not making enough money, they abandon their $100 / year "permission to be in store" charge and *poof* any further sales? I wonder where it goes?
Or possibly because they have to to be able to distribute their apps to any non-developer or non-jailbreak user? There is no other way to get your apps onto normal users iOS devices.
OP is being very disingenuous, what he is talking about requires being a registered developer and to have the app certs signed for you. This will in no way let anyone distribute apps to others in any meaningful way or numbers.
Why is it everyone picks on Microsoft ?
Apple can reject ANY app they want, they force a browser etc.. But its all OK because its APPLE ?
Any device not designed 20yrs ago will be inside a closed environment...
Facebook/etc Everything has restrictions based on API's.
Android Boot Loader locking..
Its time to get over it..
Apple/PS3/etc all have controlled software.. Why can't microsoft WinRT arm control their software ?
If you don't like it, then buy another device.
In the end consumers want SECURE, controlled OS/Device.. Thats why iOS sells so well.
Its simple, controlled, restricted, but it works.
WinRT should be allowed to do the same..
If you don't like it run LINUX on your phone/computer/tablet... Nobody is stopping you..
Ok, so what browsers do you use on iOS? Windows8 RT on ARM is equivalent to iOS. The iOS base is the Mach kernel, same as OS X, but the apps and services are not 100% identical between the intel/AMD and ARM OSs. Windows 8 for amd64 will still be able to run everything, but the tablets that can do this are far more expensive than the ARMs, mainly because of the battery, IO performance and SSDs required.
No, Apple can get away with just about anything in MacOS because they're not a monopoly on the desktop. They have less than a 15% share of the market.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Microsoft, like every hopeful in the tablet space and many other desktop environments, is encouraging developers to write apps using HTML5, CSS, and JavaScript. That does not make Windows 8 a browser-based O.S. like ChromeOS, you don't know what you're talking about. There's still a distinct I.E. browser app that you start from Metro. What you say is as ridiculous as claiming you it makes no sense to run other browsers in Gnome 3, or Plasma Active, or any other desktop that's allowing or encouraging JavaScript widgets and extensions.
Mozilla already has preliminary builds of Firefox running as a Windows 8 Metro application, you can follow along with the developers as they integrate it with Windows 8 Metro's tiles and charm/contracts for sharing and searching. The issue is
=S
Basically, here's what it boils down to.
Windows RT (i.e. Windows 8 for ARM) does not allow installation of third-party software that runs in the classic desktop. Only apps from the Windows Store allowed, and those can only be Metro.
Regular Windows 8 (x86/x64) allows installation of third-party classic apps same as Windows 7. Furthermore, it has a special arrangement for Metro apps that are browsers (i.e. which handle URL schemas like http:/// generically - there's a fairly strict technical definition), which allows them to maintain a dual nature - i.e. there is a single .exe, which can run either in desktop or in Metro mode, and will automatically be launched in whatever mode user was in when he clicked on a link. When a browser is running in Metro mode, it still has access to some APIs and capabilities that are normally desktop-only - for example, IPC.
Now, on Windows 8, Firefox intends to use this feature and ship a hybrid desktop/Metro browser, using all the special capabilities they get as a browser for Metro version. However, on WinRT, they don't get this hybrid mode - they only get Metro, with all the restrictions that apply to any Metro app. IE, on the other hand, does get it even on ARM - hence this complaint.
And yes, one specific thing that Metro sandbox prohibits is runtime code generation. To be specific, there's no way to allocate a block of memory with executable bit set, or to change that bit on an existing memory block. This, of course, kills any JavaScript JIT dead in the water.
So what the heck are you asking yet again?
Hell, you're probably one of the ones who were saying, all through the court case, "Microsoft don't have a monopoly! I can get Apple Mac! I can get Linux! I can get OS2 Warp!".
That you haven't changed your tune since then is no surprise.
And they will use that to ensure that they have a monopoly on ARM (if you don't agree to MS's Windows-only requirement on ARM, you won't get any windows OSes) and that ARM monopoly will ensure a browser monopoly.
They are STILL using their deskop OS monopoly THEY STILL HAVE to gain one in ARM.
Do you wait until AFTER someone is murdered before telling the police there's a dangerous maniac with a machette, because there's only a crime AFTER he's killed someone, not before?
Isn't that exactly what MS got in trouble for before? Isn't a set of "private APIs" what MS apologists insisted weren't there (and never noted that more were released after "all APIs were released") and an abuse of Monopoly?
Isn't it the only reason why IE and Office *have* to be on RT because they're on Windows desktop (only) and therefore will benefit from their desktop monopoly if it can run the same programs?
Isn't that leveraging their desktop OS monopoly?
So where is MS listening and allowing other browsers here? Or do you demand that Apple go first, and that Microsoft MUST NOT *ever* be better than Apple?
Wait, so does technology move quickly, or slowly?
Are you saying that we could have gone from the Archimedes to the iPhone in mere months instead of 20 years, given a sufficient PR budget?
Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
Given your large UID I would like to remind you that not only is that pretty bad behavior, MS has done it before and has been convicted for it. Only recently have the DoJ's (and most of the EU's) restrictions to force open access fallen away so MS is slowly but surely reverting to their prior days.
The evidence:
- OOXML
- SilverLight
- SharePoint
- Driver Signing
- Protected Video Path
- Metro
- BootLocker requiring TPM module
- Microsoft requesting vendors to lock UEFI to Windows-only OS
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
It moves slower than what the press or even your senses tell you (because most of the times it is hidden). It moves faster than any other kind of technology ever moved.
With a sufficient PR budget aimed at that, we could fix the part of it moving slower than your sensed tell you by correcting your senses.
Rethinking email
whom the gods wd destroy, they first make arrogant.
Not true. How many more times do we have call you on your lies, faggot?
And you totally fell for it. Of course you had to troll yourself by spreading a bunch of lies about Apple.
I can't understand why, someone who don't want to use MSIE, want to use tablet OS by Microsoft.
Just don't use it. It doesn't have any market share anyway.