Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Blocks 3d-Party Browsers In Windows RT, Says Mozilla Counsel

Posted by timothy on from the embrace-extend-extinguish dept.

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.'"

69 of 329 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Completely reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    You know that there already exists a mobile version of Firefox that isn't just the desktop browser recompiled for ARM, right?

  2. Re:Completely reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    translation: "it's not your computer, it's Microsoft's, and they should decide what you run on it."

  3. 3d-Party by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:3d-Party by stoofa · · Score: 2

      It says they're blocking 3D party browsers. So my reading of that is that as long as you actuallly join in, you can still attend 3D parties. But if you're just there to mosey round the edge and watch from the side then Microsoft won't let you in. That's only my reading of it though. This is as vague and tricky as the EU Cookie law.

  4. Double standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Double standards by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can install a different OS on a Chromebook. You're specifically allowed to do this, and then you can run Firefox or whatever you want (as long as it runs on Linux, and even if it doesn't, thanks to Wine!)

      MS has always been eyed critically for browser share since they've used their monopoly on the OS to force users onto their browser before. Neither Google nor Firefox has such a monopoly to leverage for that purpose.

    2. Re:Double standards by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Apple no longer has that restriction other than on browsers and you should be able to do that to a chromebook.

      The reason MS is held to a different standard is that they are a convicted monopolist. This is much like not letting child molesters live near schools and parks. Giving away ill gotten gains, and using strings attached to that giving to prevent competition with your investments is not very philanthropic.

    3. Re:Double standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If this is true, I have no idea how I managed to install Opera on my iPhone, from the AppStore no less.

    4. Re:Double standards by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Informative

      Opera is not really a browser on iOS. It does many other things including doing all of the heavy lifting off the device on a proxy service Opera hosts. Sure it displays webpages, but it does not do this directly.

    5. Re:Double standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      this is mobile/tablet/arm version only, same one where windows is less than 5% and both apple and google have almost 50% so microsoft is underdog here and apple should be one forced to allow firefox and internet explorer on its IOS devices

    6. Re:Double standards by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    7. Re:Double standards by bws111 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Microsoft was convicted of using a dominant position in one area (desktop OS) to gain an unfair (anticompetitive) advantage in another area (browsers). Microsoft has no monopoly in the ARM tablet market, so they should be (and are, legally) held to the same standard as everyone else who does not have a dominant position in that area.

    8. Re:Double standards by obarthelemy · · Score: 2

      Opera Mini is not a full browser. It uses Opera's servers which send it a simplified HTML-like page, but not a fll one. Pugins and Javascript don't really work.
      The true Opera browser for mobile devices is Opera Mobile.

      --
      The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
    9. Re:Double standards by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 2

      So in other words, it's a browser.

      No, it is more like running Remote Desktop onto another computer that runs a browser. The problem with the Opera approach is that it limits what client side JavaScript can run after the page has loaded. This is not the fault of Opera, but rather the dictatorship of Apple.

    10. Re:Double standards by Karzz1 · · Score: 2

      No other mapping service can get this prime real estate - it's Google only and it's not "uninstallable".

      You forget that you are free to choose any of the other search engines out there including MSN errr... Live.... errr... Bing.... errrr... what the hell is Microsofts search called now? Oh yea, Yahoo.

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
    11. Re:Double standards by recoiledsnake · · Score: 2

      By your reasoning Amazon Silk on the Kindle, and Opera Turbo on my PC, and InternetExplorer Accelerator on my dialup line, are not real browsers either. Their respective servers grab the data, squash it, and then feed it to the user's program.

      Obviously I disagree with your reasoning. These are all real web browsers, even if the data has been compressed along the way.

      The difference is not with compression or downscaling of things like images, it's about whether Javascript is run on the client machine or the cloud.

      It's hard to consider a browser a real browser if it cannot execute Javascript and has to rely on the cloud.

      By your metric, Office fully runs on the iPad, because you can use VNC to connect to your desktop and run Office there.

      --
      This space for rent.
    12. Re:Double standards by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Apple should not have such a requirement, because they did not have an anti-trust suit lost.

      But that was for something else.

      See, it was determined that Microsoft had a monopoly on operating systems for Intel-based computers. They then took advantage of that monopoly to unfairly compete against Netscape through various means, both technical and non-technical. That's the illegal part--you can't leverage one monopoly to compete in another market. Remember, having a monopoly is not illegal. Using that monopoly the make another one is illegal.

      (As an aside, I still think iTunes monopoly hold of the downloadable music market is eventually going to bite Apple in the bum, but that's another story.)

      Where is Microsoft's monopoly that they are abusing?

      Is it tacky? Heck yeah. Illegal? Nope.

  5. Just use Chrome on Windows RT by jez9999 · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's the Firefox prototype anyway.

    --
    == Jez ==
    Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
  6. Re:Completely reasonable by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Completely reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You read the article and wrote your reply in 0 minutes? Nice try, Ballmer.

  8. Another closed proprietary environment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!"

    1. Re:Another closed proprietary environment? by thoth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is one of those free-market conflict moments... what do you do when the MARKET (you know, what some people blindly worship, what some describe as the solution to just about every problem) itself decides it wants a "closed proprietary environment"? By definition, is the MARKET ever wrong about goods freely chosen in a competitive environment without criminal coercive tactics (e.g. what Microsoft did)?? Is Apple to be punished for delivering hundreds of millions of products over 10+ years?

      You can't have it both ways - exalting the free market, and then getting pissed when it doesn't choose they way YOU expected.

      If you have a problem with the way things are headed, you have to OUT COMPETE, not insult the customer base by calling them clueless.

    2. Re:Another closed proprietary environment? by 4pins · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Generally I speak out for the free market, however it has some historically discovered limits. For instance, financial products have to be traded on an open/transparent market, this means they can (and unfortunately should) be regulated (congress can see what is going on and therefore is able to do something about it, usually pass a law). Otherwise people buy AAA rated "investments" promising double (or more) the going rate and then they lose their money.

      What happened the last time Microsoft coupled their browser to their OS (and then they let you run a different one along side it)? Interoperability across the entire Internet was broken. Thousands of people developing websites big and small had to do (about) double the work. My approach was to find something all major browsers rendered acceptably, others parsed the User-Agent header and served different pages for different browsers. The serving of different files lead to problems, like this. Now we are finally recovering from these problems and we find we have come full circle (Microsoft is going to do it again). This gets to an unpopular position I hold (bye-bye karma), interoperability in established software markets (web browsing, word processing, spreadsheets, and etc.) needs to be mandated and regulated.

      Disclaimer I work for a standards body. However, I work there because of my beliefs (I was a volunteer for years before I was hired), not the other way around.

      --
      I will not mourn that which I never had to lose. - Unknown
  9. No source for statement. by lyml · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:No source for statement. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      If I remember correctly, Microsoft isn't blocking browsers, it's blocking EVERYTHING from using the desktop. Mozilla is whining they can't get that, which is really only being provided as an environment for the free copy of Office that Win-on-ARM includes.

      They should, at least to my knowledge, be able to do everything as a Metro browser, though. I think they're mostly complaining that all their previous Win32 code will be worthless since Microsoft is finally starting to kill it...

    2. Re:No source for statement. by oldlurker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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..

    3. Re:No source for statement. by mikejuk · · Score: 2

      have a look at http://www.i-programmer.info/news/177-windows-8/4198-mozilla-microsoft-is-blocking-browser-choice-again.html which attempts to explain it.

    4. Re:No source for statement. by oldlurker · · Score: 2

      and this would make it difficult to implement a competitive browser

      If that was the case, IE10 Metro would be a dog, but that has not been the case for the Consumer Preview. WinRT is a very performant API, however if you've been writing programs in an unmanaged language then you're going to have to change, and this is something Mozilla doesn't want to do if they don't have to.

      IE10 (as WebKit on Safari) do have special privileges for low level access that 3rd party apps wont get.

    5. Re:No source for statement. by BZ · · Score: 2

      The Metro API doesn't allow, for example, creating a JIT. So Mozilla _could_ do a browser... if they don't have a JIT and accept various other limitations along those lines.

      The only programs allowed to have a JIT in Metro on WinRT are the ones Micorosoft ships (IE10, for example).

  10. Apple Already Did it by jongalbreath · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Apple Already Did it by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 4, Informative

      Apple still hasn't really allowed any 3rd party browsers into the app store.
      Any browsers in the app store right now must use the same underlying engine as the system browser.

      The only "exception" is Opera which does a little pre-processing on their servers if you trust the browser as a MITM.

      There has been a build of Firefox for iOS for a long time, but completely unofficial. It will never be on iOS if Apple has any say.

      That's why the Firefox Home (Sync) for iOS is just an app that displays your tabs/bookmarks from your other computers and opens them in Safari.

      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
  11. Re:Ipad by ewanm89 · · Score: 2

    No one has claimed apple is any better, we hate them too on that count, I would point out Google offers 2 browsers for android plus there are several 3rd party ones available.

    Now the fact Microsoft has tried this before and has just got rid of the need to follow the obligations of the courts against it until fairly recently might have something to do with things.

  12. Why doesn't Mozilla stop complaining? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why doesn't Mozilla stop complaining and write their own operating system?

  13. Re:Completely reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

  14. Re:Completely reasonable by Pieroxy · · Score: 5, Funny

    "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!
  15. Re:Completely reasonable by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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..
  16. Re:Completely reasonable by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  17. Re:Completely reasonable by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  18. Re:Completely reasonable by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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"

  19. Re:Completely reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Illogical argument?

    Look, the purchaser owns the computer, not Microsoft. This doesn't change just because the computer fits in your pocket.

  20. Unsurprising. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

  21. Re:Completely reasonable by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  22. Re:Completely reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They are just trying to be like Apple now. It's no fun anymore when everything is the same as what everyone else has.

  23. Re:Solution by denis-The-menace · · Score: 2

    In many corps that is exactly what is happening regardless of Windows RT.

    Metro is seen as a training and technical issue.

    There are no compelling features to warrant yet another full upgrade.

    Windows 8 is dead before arrival.

    --
    Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
  24. I don't want to use IE by kimvette · · Score: 2, Informative

    . . . 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
    1. Re:I don't want to use IE by mister_playboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      and Linux gets F/OSS Blu-Ray support

      VLC 2.0+ has Blu-ray playback capabilities on Linux. :)

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
  25. Are First Posts like this plants? by nukenerd · · Score: 2

    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.

  26. Re:This is why the good lord made virtual machines by ifrag · · Score: 2

    So we can get around Microsoft's managerial convulsions.

    Running Windows 8 in a VM on a low power tablet? What could possibly go wrong?

    The problem being mentioned here is performance, using a VM isn't going to help. You'd probably be better off just using the host OS anyway.

    --
    Fear is the mind killer.
  27. Not just browsers by HideyoshiJP · · Score: 2

    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.

  28. Re:Completely reasonable by truthsearch · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  29. That's fine. by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 3, Funny

    3D gives me headaches anyway.

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
  30. Re:Completely reasonable by poetmatt · · Score: 2

    I am sure IE will not be limited to some crippled set of APIs, and you know that.

    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.

  31. Re:Completely reasonable by godefroi · · Score: 4, Informative

    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)
  32. Re:Completely reasonable by godefroi · · Score: 2

    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)
  33. Re:Completely reasonable by Tharsman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  34. It is Completely reasonable by slomike1 · · Score: 3, Informative

    iOS on the iPad is NOT a completely open Unix OS. WindowsRT is Microsoft's IOS.

  35. Re:Completely reasonable by Severus+Snape · · Score: 2

    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.

  36. Re:Completely reasonable by sapphire+wyvern · · Score: 2

    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)

  37. Re:Completely reasonable by pmontra · · Score: 2

    Thank you, I didn't notice that. Luckily I'm on Android.

  38. Re:Completely reasonable by recoiledsnake · · Score: 2

    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.
  39. Re:Completely reasonable by recoiledsnake · · Score: 2

    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.
  40. Windows RT and desktop mode by Bengie · · Score: 2

    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

  41. Internet Explorer is damaging internet by Tei · · Score: 2

    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!

  42. Office by pavon · · Score: 2

    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.

  43. Re:Completely reasonable by Tharsman · · Score: 2

    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.

  44. Re:Completely reasonable by MrHanky · · Score: 2

    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.

  45. Re:Completely reasonable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

  46. Re:Completely reasonable by Missing.Matter · · Score: 2

    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?

  47. Re:Completely reasonable by Tharsman · · Score: 2

    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.