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.'"
translation: "it's not your computer, it's Microsoft's, and they should decide what you run on it."
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.
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!"
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..
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"
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?
And has Slashdot ever been happy about Apple's little cryptographic lockdown party, Android devices with locked bootloaders, or particularly enthusiastic about paying more for a googlepliance than for the netbook of equivalent spec?
Each time those subjects come up, they generally catch flack from everyone except a few die-hard apologists(and half the apologies seem to be of the form 'but the chains are breakable, so it's ok!'). Now that Microsoft is stepping up and making it clear that 'Windows RT' is essentially the NT kernel/MS development tools equivalent of iOS, rather than a Windows port to ARM(in the sense that WinNT was about as similar as technology allowed across its supported architectures). Why wouldn't it be totally normal for them to get the same criticism for doing the same things?
Illogical argument?
Look, the purchaser owns the computer, not Microsoft. This doesn't change just because the computer fits in your pocket.
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.
They are not blocking the browser as such, but any apps for Windows RT on ARM can only use the new WinRT ("Metro") API (as has been communicated on the MS dev blogs for quite some time), and this would make it difficult to implement a competitive browser (especially the Javascript engine as I understand). This is the same for iOS on iPad, the only third party browsers on iPad are either using the built in WebKit renderer or doing server based rendering (Opera Mini).
The official reason for only Apple and Microsoft software having low level system access on these tablets is to protect the tablet user experience in terms of responsiveness, battery life, security, etc. We can debate if these are the only reasons.., but as the iPad has shown there is clearly something to this. Pros and cons. And if not happy about it buy an Android, competition is good :)
It is btw. strange FireFox is not more upset by the same iPad limitations, surely the don't expect Windows 8 ARM tablets to overtake the iPad market share any time soon..
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.