Windows RT Browser Restrictions Draw Antitrust Attention

An anonymous reader writes "Last week we heard complaints from Mozilla that Windows RT would restrict users' choice in web browsers, unfairly favoring Internet Explorer over alternatives like Firefox and Chrome. Unfortunately for Microsoft, the situation is now on the Senate Judiciary Committee's radar, and they will look into claims that Microsoft is engaging in anti-competitive behavior. That said, it could be a difficult case to make, since Windows RT is destined for ARM-based tablets, and Apple currently dominates that market. 'When it comes to proving abuse of monopoly power, an important question is determining the market in which a monopolist has power — the relevant market, in antitrust legal terms. In the [late '90s] DOJ case, U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's findings of fact concluded Microsoft had a monopoly in the market for "Intel-compatible PC operating systems." Windows on ARM doesn't run on x86 chips, so by Jackson's standards, Windows RT hasn't been judged to be part of Microsoft's monopoly.' Microsoft addressed some of these issues in a blog post in February."

Comments

Where's the one on Apple?

[recoiledsnake]

"There' is no tablet market. There is only an iPad market" say the fans and Apple gets away with not only bundling Safari but banning all other browser engines. Yet Microsoft with it's 0.1% share of tablets in the "Post-PC world" gets flogged for this.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[mystikkman]

"There' is no tablet market. There is only an iPad market" say the fans and Apple gets away with not only bundling Safari but banning all other browser engines. Yet Microsoft with it's 0.1% share of tablets in the "Post-PC world" gets flogged for this.

Dude, haven't you gotten the memo?

"It's OK for Apple to block Firefox, but wrong when Microsoft does it".
http://tinyurl.com/d2m8qs3
(Sorry for tinyurl, it's legit I promise, Slashdot filters the link because it's too long).

Not to mention Apple's worse actions like forcing their in-app payments and their 30% cut of even in-app purchases(driving many apps, esp. ebook related ones out of the market) and even forcing developers not to charge Android users less for the same services from the money they save from not paying the 30% tithe to Apple.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[recoiledsnake]

All the browsers available in the App Store are just wrappers and skins on the Safari browser engine, except Opera Mini, which runs the browser engine in the cloud to escape Apple's banning of running Javascript(or any other JIT code).

That's why there is no Firefox or Chrome(or even IE ;) for iOS.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[Sarten-X]

The point of antitrust laws is not to block monopolies. The point is to block anticompetitive behavior (which often, but not always, follows monopolies). Microsoft has a long history of aggressively anticompetitive tactics, where Apple has comparatively little.

Apple has also publicly stated the reason for the ban on other engines (coherent UI bahavior), which is perfectly in line with (and necessary for) their business model of producing devices that look and feel the same. Microsoft, on the other hand, has provided no reason (to my knowledge), and does not have any history of using such restrictions to actually improve the end product.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[recoiledsnake]

How many copies of webkit do you want on your phone/pad. ;-)

Count the number of gekko/webkit links and bundles you find on a well-augmented Ubuntu or Fedora box.

So, you solution is to ban all those browsers on the Linux box, I presume?

Ff Webkit is all important, why is Chrome way more popular than Safari on Windows? They use the same Webkit engine, don't they? A browser is much much more than it's engine.

"I" may or may not want something, but that doesn't mean browser makers must be banned from providing alternate rendering and JS engines.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[ifrag]

why is Chrome way more popular than Safari on Windows?

Thanks to Mozilla, we know the answer to this. It's because Chrome has a higher version number.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[mario_grgic]

Actually, you are completely wrong. Also, no one is asking for permission to "replace" Safari engine, just to install another one and give user a choice. All browsers for iOS devices on the App Store use WebKit (Safari) engine and they just provide different UI around it. But if something doesn't render (work) in Safari, it won't work in any other browser. The only exception is Opera Mini which renders content on the server and then sends the rendered content to the browser on iOS device. In this regard Apple is way worse than Microsoft ever was. Now Microsoft is playing catchup in evil practices that Apple got away with so easily.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[Reapman]

ok. if other browsers are allowed then please recompile (or ask someone else to) Mozilla Firefox for iOS and submit to Apple for submission. What do you anticipate happening?

Either browsers are allowed and Mozilla can launch Firefox for iOS, or browsers are not allowed and they can't. Letting me skin a browser isn't an alternative web browser. That would be like saying IE6 didn't rule the interwebs back in the day because you could install 3rd party varients of it!

And the answer "I don't want Firefox" isn't a valid answer. We're not talking what you want to do, we're talking what you CAN do. Installing a non Safari based browser is not allowed (note Opera is the Mini version and gets around it by offloading the rendering to the cloud)

Sorry but I'm really tired of this "BUT THEY DO ALLOW IT!" comments I keep seeing on here. Show me Mozilla Firefox or Chrome or IE or something that doesn't need Safari on the phone AND does it's rendering on the phone and I'll believe it. Until then.. wrong. Apple will deny the app.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[CanHasDIY]

How many copies of webkit do you want on your phone/pad. ;-)

Strawman - as the consumer who purchased and supposedly owns the device, that should be for me to decide, not Apple.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[tepples]

You mean if I don't like IE10 on my WinRT tablet I can't just go buy an iPad bundled with Safari?

Likewise, if I didn't like IE on my Windows 98 box, I could have just bought a Mac or a UNIX workstation. The U.S. government didn't see it that way.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[thetoadwarrior]

Because Apple makes shit software for Windows like Microsoft makes shit software for OS X.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[Reapman]

particular browser? show me a browser that doesn't require Safari, and does rendering on device (you know, a real browser, unlike Opera Mini). Link to the Apple store please.

Show me one. Even one would be enough. I originally wrote a car analogy, but perhaps the words from an actual developer at Mozilla might help:

"I am a developer on the mobile Firefox team at Mozilla.

We currently have an iPhone App called Firefox Home, which lets you sync your Firefox tabs, history and bookmarks to your iOS device. You can get it from the app store, or read more here: http://www.mozilla.com/mobile/home/

We have no plans to release the full Firefox browser for Apple iOS devices. The current iOS SDK agreement forbids apps like Firefox that include their own compilers and interpreters:

“3.3.2 An Application may not download or install executable code. Interpreted code may only be used in an Application if all scripts, code and interpreters are packaged in the Application and not downloaded. The only exception to the foregoing is scripts and code downloaded and run by Apple’s built-in WebKit framework.”

Other browsers for iOS use the built-in WebKit libraries (like Skyfire) or do not execute any JavaScript on the device itself (like Opera Mini, which uses a proxy server). But unless Apple removes these restrictions, full browsers like Firefox are not allowed on iOS."
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/will-firefox-mobile-ever-be-released-for-ios-devices-no-blame-apple/10770

this is back in 2010, did something change? If so, show me the updated information.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[Dahamma]

That's because Apple has spent a lot more money on political campaign contributions than Microsoft.

Citation? Brief search so far has indicated that's completely false.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[jimshatt]

But what if I *want* a crappy, unsecure, resource needy browser. I'd like that to be my choice to make. If IE really is better on WinRT then let the market speak. I know, I know, they're afraid WinRT will get bad rap because the batteries will be drained in 10 minutes, but then they should just focus their marketing on that. Put out advertisements with battery life comparisons between WinRT with FF and WinRT with IE.

At least give other browsers (and IMO all software) the chance to be crappy and ruin my device if I so choose.

It's the same as on the PC really. Even though I hear from many that FF sucks their memory and CPU, that isn't the case with me and I choose to run it. I'll pick another browser when the time comes, but at least *I* pick.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, do you even read what you link to?

A new Google-funded study of browser security by security research firm Accuvant Labs crowned Chrome the champion of security features, and ranked Firefox below Internet Explorer in terms of protection available from web-borne threats.

How is it even relevant, when ARM version of IE won't have plugins, so no (how carefully you copypasted those!) sandboxing or plug-in security.

By your logic, MS should have insisted on Chrome, then.

PS: You gotta get paid, I know, I know, but - please! - do you really have to sound so much like a sales pitch? Tell your higher-ups that not having to follow an obvious script, but rather having a degree of freedom in your postings adds to your value as a marketing asset. Just add something about leveraging synergies for better monetization of social media resource and you won't have to sound like a broken record.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[shutdown -p now]

It's more than just being required to use WebKit. It's being required to use a particular version of WebKit, with no ability to extend or change it in any way.

I want Firefox to keep using its own engine, thank you very much. Last thing we need for the Web is to see "best viewed in WebKit" monoculture, and it's already starting to to trend that way. Didn't a decade of IE dominance teach people anything?

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[shutdown -p now]

Apple's stance is the same reason we don't want non-Microsoft browsers ruining the security of our Windows RT tablets and draining battery.

That's pure bullshit. If a browser can "ruin the security" and "drain the battery", then so can any other third-party app.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[shutdown -p now]

"Cheated", really? Do you seriously think they've made it work that way just because they were so desperate to get into the App Store?

Opera Mini has worked that way since it first appeared on J2ME feature phones. It's the main feature of the damn thing - that it offloads heavy processing to the server, thereby allowing it to run on low-powered devices and not strain the battery.

Also, there's no "skirting the rules" with Apple, since they are the final arbiter of what goes in, and can ban your app for any reason - including no reason at all. It's not like there's some kind of due process there where you can prove your innocence and be guaranteed to walk away.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[scot4875]

I didn't buy Apple. I don't want to be limited to their sandbox. I might have bought Apple if it weren't for their draconian control measures over the hardware and software. (Though there are now enough other reasons to avoid them that it's unlikely they'll be on my consideration list any time in the foreseeable future.)

Do I still have to just shut up and accept it? I think they're bad for the industry. I think they're taking software development to a place that I don't want it to go. I think that the idea of being forced to pay a yearly subscription to a hardware manufacturer and going through some arbitrary review process shouldn't be the *only* sanctioned way of running code on a device.

--Jeremy

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[Just Some Guy]

Still bad in my opinion, but not illegal

Warren Magnuson and John Moss would like a word with you:

Warrantors cannot require that only branded parts be used with the product in order to retain the warranty. This is commonly referred to as the "tie-in sales" provisions, and is frequently mentioned in the context of third-party computer parts, such as memory and hard drives.

So yes, your hypothetical scenario is specifically illegal. That law is why you can buy Fram air filters (instead of AC Delco), Pennzoil 10W-30 (instead of Ford Lubr-o-matic), and Shell gas (instead of Huile d'Fiat) without voiding your car's warranty.

On the other hand, if your car's reputation is based on being a generic vehicle and the brand has been built on support for aftermarket parts, a sudden addition of a locked hood, while requiring the expensive oil and limited service locations, would be seen as anti-competitive.

And illegal. There are times when car analogies are appropriate and reasonable. This isn't one of them.

Re:Where's the one on Apple?

[Bacon Bits]

Secondly Apple doesn't have a monopoly to abuse.

Most estimates I've seen put Apple in as 60-70% of the tablet market share. They alone control the hardware channel, the OS channel, and the third party application store for their product. You can't buy an iPad without iOS, you can't buy iOS without an iPad, and you can't install an application without Apple allowing it on their store.

Who's not a monopoly now?

iPad

[Anonymous Coward]

So why isn't Apple under the same type of scrutiny?

Re:iPad

[camperdave]

Because Apple doesn't sell operating systems for generic computers. Apple only makes OSs for Apple products. If Microsoft only made OSs for Microsoft computers, they wouldn't get this kind of scrutiny either.

Apple doesn't matter

[MBCook]

I don't think the fact Apple doesn't allow this kind of thing matters. Apple has a very clear differentiation of products. The desktops/laptops run a different OS from the iPads. I'm going to ignore the "Apple shouldn't be able to do this" argument, which I don't really disagree with. The fact is that's status quo.

With Windows 8, all tablets get the same interface and run the same software. The difference is that, based on something esoteric to the population at large (the architecture of the CPU), you lose the ability to load some kinds of software. Not because that software wasn't ported, but because it can't be ported without being severely crippled. What this means is that when someone buys a tablet from BestBuy, they may or may not be able to run the software they expect. Some Windows 8 software runs on everything, some Windows 8 software doesn't. What's the lesson? That FireFox thing doesn't always work. Just use the built in stuff or you'll have problems.

If MS was clearly positioning the ARM tablets as something different from the non-ARM tablets, that would be different. They may call it "Windows RT", but when two tablets are in the store next to each other, looking identical, running identical interfaces, I think it's fair to say they're the same. Duck typing for tablets. Since I'd expect ARM tablets to really take off due to cost and efficiency, this certainly seems like a round about way to force people to use IE.

Monopoly chain

[Todd Knarr]

The chain's going to go more like this:

1. Your business network runs on Windows. MS has a monopoly here.
2. If you want a phone/tablet that integrates with your business network, you need to have one that runs Windows RT. Others won't be given access to what they need to integrate smoothly.
3. And if you want a browser on your Windows RT phone/tablet, it must be Internet Explorer. Others won't be allowed.

Whether Microsoft has a monopoly in ARM-based tablets or not is irrelevant. It has a monopoly in the desktop and business-network market, and it's using that monopoly to gain advantages in the ARM-based phone/tablet OS and browser markets.

Apple...

[ericloewe]

Please remind me what Apple's stance on browsers for their iDevices is.

Right...

What's Apple's share again? At least 90%, you say?

Right...

What's Microsoft's share? 0% in ARM tablets?

Right...

But Apple hasn't done this before! What? They kept certain OS functions reserved for Safari?

And Microsoft gets flak for disallowing other browsers in desktop mode? How often is an ARM tablet user going to use desktop IE? Other browsers are still allowed on the store, so it's not a case of locking other browsers out.