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.'"

Comments

Re:Double standards

[squiggleslash]

Well, you can use a different browser on a ChromeBook. To the best of my knowledge, only "Opera Mini" is acceptable as a non-Webkit based web browser alternative on iOS.

But there are a few things to say here:

First, you're claiming a double standard. What double standard? What Slashbots are you reading that enthuse over the Chromebook anyway (even allowing for the fact it isn't as locked down as you claim)? And I'm hardly a lone voice when *I* criticize Apple on here, regularly, for locking down iOS. You might just as well go into a court and say "Oh, so you're saying I can't murder people. Well what about Charles Manson? Or Ted Bundy? Huh? Huh? DOUBLE STANDARD!!!?!1!"

The second is, quite honestly, I don't care in this instance.

OMG, did I really say that? Why, yes I did! Well, let's walk that back slightly. I think RT sucks for being locked down like iOS, but let's also look at Windows 8 in general, not just RT (which will probably go the same way as its powerful but too-little-too-late IBM namesake in the 1980s.)

Windows 8 is a browser based operating system. This time for real. Not a Windows 98 type "We're sticking the browser in Explorer and pretending this benefits you somehow by letting you create some desktop widgets using it that'll be long forgotten by the time the idea is dusted off again for Mac OS X as an evolution of desk accessories", but "You will be using a complete environment, that you can choose to never leave if you wish, written in Javascript and HTML."

In that context, replacing the browser doesn't make any sense whatsoever. That's like replacing the file system (I don't mean the layout of files on the disk, I mean the library calls to open and close files), or standard C library. All you'd do is introduce incompatibility within your operating system so existing apps no longer work because of something Firefox does that IE doesn't, or something IE does that Firefox doesn't, or both.

The exception, of course, is the desktop. You can escape to the desktop if you wish (and in the early days of Windows 8 you will, probably all the time if you're a gamer or software developer, though not so much if you're grandma.) In that context, the operating system ceases to be accessed via a browser, and installing Firefox makes sense.

Windows RT, of course, heavily deprecates the desktop. And why wouldn't it? It's designed specifically for tablets. Desktops require mice and don't play well with touchscreens. The only reason the desktop is there at all is so that Microsoft doesn't have to come up with Office RT before Windows RT.

With all of this in mind, this is not really as big an issue as you might think. It's less of an issue than it is with iOS, because iOS isn't a browser based OS. Nothing breaks if you install Firefox/Fennec on an iOS device. The user experience isn't damaged in any way. Users expect to use an app to access the Internet. Users, therefore, reasonably expect to be able to choose between different apps for that particular function. In RT, you're already connected to the world wide web. From the start. When you boot up. Your launch screen is a bunch of RSS feeds and other widgets written in HTML and JS. You're on the 'net.

See the difference?

Re:Double standards

[cpu6502]

>>>Why is MS always being held to a double-standard that others aren't?

Because MS has been sued - twice (once in the US; once in the EU) - for using their monopolistic position to kill-off or damage competitors. The other companies are not in a monopolisticsituation.

Anyway I think the lawyer should have kept his mouth shut & waited a year after Window 8's release. That would give the US and EU regulators more ammunition ("look: users can't install Firefox or Opera") to break-up the Microsoft company once and for all..... like they did with ATT in the 80s.

One company would be the OS. The second company would be the software (Explorer, Office, Visio, etc). I'm not sure where the Xbox division would end up... maybe a third company.