No Firefox For iOS, Says Mozilla's Product Head

hypnosec writes "Jay Sullivan, Mozilla's VP of Product, has revealed that the non-for-profit organization is not going to build an iOS version of its Firefox web browser as long as Apple doesn't mend its unfriendly ways towards third party browsers. Speaking at SXSW in a mobile browser wars panel Sullivan said that Mozilla is neither building nor planning to build a Firefox version for Apple's iOS. Mozilla pulled Firefox Home from the App Store back in September 2012 following Apple's not so accommodating attitude."

Comments

Dear EU

[lesincompetent]

It's not just microsoft that engages in anti-competitive behaviour.

Re:Dear EU

[tehniobium]

If the EU force Apple to have a browser ballot on iOS, I do believe Steve Jobs will be turning ever so violently in his grave :D

On a more serious note: couldn't the fact that Apple forces all apps to be purchased through their own app store just as well be seen as anti-competitive?

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just microsoft that engages in anti-competitive behaviour.

True. Many many companies are guilty of it. But, iOS doesn't have a monopoly, so it's a bit of a different situation. Also, Apple's "it's for security reasons" stance is much more defendable than MS's "why would anyone ever need another browser?" position.

Re:Dear EU

[lesincompetent]

Quite a thorny matter. It's just a matter of deciding wether the reasons that brought those fines to microsoft apply to apple too. And i don't see why they shouldn't. DISCLAIMER: i personally can't wait for the total demise of apple.

Re:Dear EU

[obarthelemy]

It is. But since Apple don't have an overwhelming share of the mobile space, that's allowed: customers got other options.

MS got sued because on the desktop, there is no other option, and that OS monopoly gave MS leverage in other areas (browsers, apps...). Apple don't have that kind of power.

Re:Dear EU

[Deekin_Scalesinger]

I was of the understanding that the reason Firefox hasn't been ported to iOS because it is open source. Same reason that VLC got yoinked from the App Store. Since there is no method to distribute the source from the same location as the finished product, it violates the F/OSS nature of the product.

Not saying I agree or disagree with it, just reporting what facts I know. Anyone who has different, factual information, please correct me.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Since there is no method to distribute the source from the same location as the finished product, it violates the F/OSS nature of the product.

You don't need the source and binary at the same place to be F/OSS.

Re:Dear EU

[FuzzNugget]

No, but they've already said that it doesn't apply to Apple because they create "premium" or "niche" products (which is really just a nice way if saying their too insignificant to be relevant ... so I'm kind of OK with the subtle insult to Apple)

That was a few years ago, however, and I suspect that may have changed by now.

Re:Dear EU

[TFAFalcon]

I don't think Apple has enough of a market share (yet) to be treated like a monopoly. But if they do manage to get it, the lawsuits should start pouring in.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that is inaccurate.

The reason there is no Firefox port on iOS is that Apple will not allow Firefox on iOS to actually be a port of gecko. Apple requires browsers on iOS to use their webkit backend, all browsers on iOS use the same rendering/javascript/etc engine.

The VLC snafu is due to the fact that Apple adds DRM and further more restrictive licensing terms on all appstore apps that are not compatible with GPL -this is a situation that could be fixed by allowing app authors to upload their own licenses, but so far that is not possible.

Re:Dear EU

[Globe199]

My understanding is that all browsers on iOS are required to use WebKit. Mozilla uses Gecko. Being open source isn't the issue.

Re:Dear EU

[Teun]

If the EU ever wants to step up to the Apple store it's more likely going to be about the non-negotiable monetary conditions they foist on programmers and publications.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

I was of the understanding that the reason Firefox hasn't been ported to iOS because it is open source. Same reason that VLC got yoinked from the App Store. Since there is no method to distribute the source from the same location as the finished product, it violates the F/OSS nature of the product.

Not correct. It does not have to be the same location. As far as I understood it, the very unfortunate VLC situation came about when a purist developer of VLC demanded that Apple would release VLC without DRM on IOS. But all apps on IOS use DRM, it is quite naive to assume that they would make an exception. And let's face it: IOS is a USER operating system, whether a free VLC has drm or not is even invisible.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with GPL software and some app stores is that the GPL requires distributors to also provide the source code (for at least 3 years after they distribute the binaries), with Apple's app store they are the distributor but are unwilling to accommodate the distribution clause of the GPL, this is what causes issues with certain FOSS apps. I think, though I'm not sure, that Google sets up the relationship of their app store and developers differently, which would leave the responsibility of source code distribution under the GPL with the app developer and not the app store.

I haven't checked Mozilla's license for Firefox, so I don't know if source code distribution is an issue like it is for GPL software. But the real issue Mozilla have here is that Apple do not allow apps that can run random code*, this includes emulators and browser engines. All the browsers on iOS either use the built-in HTML and Javascript engines, or they have to do that processing on a server, like Opera does. Mozilla feels that if they can port a proper version of their browser to iOS, then it isn't worth doing.

* I'm aware of a Python IDE being available for Apple's app store, and I'm not sure how this squares with that policy of not allowing apps that run random code, I think they relaxed this policy a bit at some point, but not to the extent of allowing third-party web browser engines.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

wait wait wait... "It's for security reasons"? What kind of alcohol are you drinking for you to parrot that explanation?

Having a monoculture (all webkit) is significantly worse for security since all someone has to do is to find one security vulnerability and BAM, all browsers are affected.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Antitrust law doesn't state you have to be a literal monopoly before the government can act. In fact you can have a small marketshare. You don't have to have greater than 50% marketshare for the government to act.

Re:Dear EU

[ifiwereasculptor]

Not on the desktop nor mobile markets, no. However, given that IOS, due to its widespread adoption, constitutes a big market for apps itself, and one that's artificially limited by Apple to have only one store - theirs. It could be argued that Apple's SDK provides a means to installing third-party apps, but it's not freely available. I don't see it as a big issue for consumers because it's easy enough today to jump to another similarly capable mobile platform (unlike moving away from PCs with Windows, which is/was a de facto standard).

Re:Dear EU

[MMC Monster]

There are open source apps on the Apple iOS App Store. Only one that comes to mind is xpilot, but there's probably others.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite a thorny matter. It's just a matter of deciding wether the reasons that brought those fines to microsoft apply to apple too. And i don't see why they shouldn't. DISCLAIMER: i personally can't wait for the total demise of apple.

Thanks butthead, I make my living off Apple products

Re:Dear EU

[elashish14]

It is. But since Apple don't have an overwhelming share of the mobile space, that's allowed:

This may be changing - in terms of usage, Android market share seems to be progressively taking more and more Apple market share (correct me if I'm wrong). However, in terms of developer mindshare, I would think Apple is still beating out Android, particularly in tablet space (source: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/07/divine-intervention-googles-nexus-7-is-a-fantastic-200-tablet/3/-lasttwoparagraphs).

customers got other options.

It's not inconceivable that someone would be in a position where they have to buy an Apple product. I know of schools that have forced students to buy them. So no, customers don't always have other options.

Re:Dear EU

[MMC Monster]

The problem with GPL software and some app stores is that the GPL requires distributors to also provide the source code (for at least 3 years after they distribute the binaries), with Apple's app store they are the distributor but are unwilling to accommodate the distribution clause of the GPL, this is what causes issues with certain FOSS apps.

I don't think that's it. A simple link pointing to source code on the description page in the App Store would be enough to fulfill the requirements of either Apple or the developers.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple's claim is it will not allow "code execution" in any non-Apple apps for security reasons. Since browsers need to execute Javascript, well, they're just not going to happen.

There are alternate browsers in iOS, but they are all based off Apple's "blessed" webkit.

Re:Dear EU

[BasilBrush]

However, given that IOS, due to its widespread adoption, constitutes a big market for apps itself, and one that's artificially limited by Apple to have only one store - theirs.

You don't come under monopoly laws for having control of your own product. That's why printer manufacturers are allowed to control inks for their printers, razor manufacturers are allowed to control blades for their razors and console manufacturers are allowed to control games for their consoles. Microsoft was different, because many manufacturers manufacture PCs, and they had monopoly levels of OS on all of them. If they manufactured their own computer, and just put their own OS on it, as Apple do with Macs and iOS devices, then they would have been in the clear.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

But the real issue Mozilla have here is that Apple do not allow apps that can run random code

I think you mean "arbitrary code." In my experience, random code tends to not run very well!

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not webkit - all browsers on iOS are required to be thin wrappers around Safari. For example, Chrome is Safari with Chrome's tabs and branding.

Re:Dear EU

[BasilBrush]

There's no law saying you have to haggle.

Re:Dear EU

[Kjella]

As far as I understood it, the very unfortunate VLC situation came about when a purist developer of VLC demanded that Apple would release VLC without DRM on IOS. But all apps on IOS use DRM, it is quite naive to assume that they would make an exception.

So what? He wrote the code, he released it for use under certain terms and conditions and those conditions were being violated. He wanted Apple to stop and Apple stopped, was he unhappy with that outcome? Did he expect something else? Of course it was annoying for everybody else but if people could just ignore the license when it was incompatible or inconvenient the GPL would have died out long ago.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

VLC was pulled because one contributor among hundreds decided to insist that Apple respect the terms of GPL and filed a complaint as partial copyright holder.

There, FTFY.

All Apple had to do was allow an exception to their TOS for GPL'd software, and everything would have been cool. There's nothing in the GPL that keeps Apple from distributing. It's Apple who were being dicks.

Re:Dear EU

[davester666]

I believe that the claim is that the GPL (both v2 and v3) say you can't add additional licensing restrictions on end users when you distribute it, which distributing via the App Store does [as you have to agree to Apple's licensing terms to download apps].

Re:Dear EU

[interval1066]

. As far as I understood it, the very unfortunate VLC situation came about when a purist developer of VLC demanded that Apple would release VLC without DRM...

That one prefers to respect users & developers alike makes him a "purist"? I'm feeling better about my 20 year descision to avoid Apple products more and more.

Re:Dear EU

[Threni]

He could go thermo nuclear on that too. For all the difference that mate.

Re:Dear EU

[node 3]

There's tons of GPL software on the App Store. The only reason VLC was pulled was that one of the developers complained. An Apple hater didn't want his software on the App Store.

Re:Dear EU

[node 3]

The GPL doesn't require DRM removal.

Re:Dear EU

[node 3]

Yes, he respects users so much, he won't let them use software he helped with.

Re:Dear EU

[node 3]

Quite a thorny matter. It's just a matter of deciding wether the reasons that brought those fines to microsoft apply to apple too. And i don't see why they shouldn't. DISCLAIMER: i personally can't wait for the total demise of apple.

Apple isn't a monopoly, but more to this specific point, they aren't abusing the market, which is what MS did. There's nothing wrong with being a monopoly, but when you abuse your monopoly, you open yourself to legal intervention.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I understood it, the very unfortunate VLC situation came about when a purist developer of VLC demanded that Apple would release VLC without DRM on IOS. But all apps on IOS use DRM, it is quite naive to assume that they would make an exception.

It's not naive to think Apple should abide by the terms of the GPL if they want to distribute. Of course, they don't have to distribute (and ultimately chose not to) but what they were doing was illegal. There was no option for Apple to keep distributing with their TOS in place.

Likewise, there is no way to grant an exception under GPL for distribution with DRM. The TOS of the App Store are incompatible with GPL. The only way around this is for the authors to dual-license VLC. I suppose you think that's what they should have done?

Re:Dear EU

[sribe]

It's not webkit - all browsers on iOS are required to be thin wrappers around Safari. For example, Chrome is Safari with Chrome's tabs and branding.

Uhm, no, it is webkit that is the requirement. The phrase "thin wrappers around Safari" does not even make sense. Safari is a complete application, not a framework/library; there is no way on iOS to create an app that is a "thin wrapper" around another app.

Re:Dear EU

[petervandervos]

The only reason VLC was pulled was that one of the developers complained. An Apple hater didn't want his software on the App Store.

Yes, because by the GPL license / VLC license or something, you should be able to give the software to anyone. If you download it using the App Store you can only give it to five other people. (I never give/take software to/from anyone, just download a fresh copy).

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

All Apple had to do was run their business completely differently from how they've decided to run it in order to accommodate a handful of nattering critics, and everything would have been cool.

There, FTFY.

If you choose to license your software under the GPL, and then start demanding that Apple change its rules to accommodate you, expect this to happen. It's not Apple "being dicks," it's Apple making a business decision that is incompatible with your software licensing terms - and there's nothing wrong with that. You could change licenses to another "free" license that's compatible - say, BSD. But what you're trying to do is use the GPL as a wedge to "break open" Apple's walled garden. You want it to change? Stop trying to play "gotcha!" with them. Write a fucking GREAT piece of software that everybody wants, and then explain to all your potential iOS users why they can't have it, unless they start screaming and shouting at Apple to change the terms of their app store.

If you can't generate market pressure that way... it's not Apple's fault that you're serving a niche market whose interests don't align well with the interests of the rest of the user base.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

All Apple had to do was run their business completely differently from how they've decided to run it in order to accommodate a handful of nattering critics, and everything would have been cool.

Um, I hate to say it, but Apple has the power to run their store differently if they choose, and having a "free app" section of the store doesn't mean they'd have to change anything else about how they run their business.

And they shouldn't care about accommodating "nattering critics," they should care about accommodating their customers.

Of course, Apple have never been very willing to change to satisfy customers. As soon as the first user said "we want a two-button mouse," Apple should have offered one as an option... but NOOoooo, the customer is wrong at Apple!

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

If the DRM restricts any of the "four freedoms," then yes, it does - if you choose to distribute.

It's important to be careful with terminology here: GPL doesn't "require" anything; it only allows things (with certain conditions).

Re:Dear EU

[gnasher719]

I was of the understanding that the reason Firefox hasn't been ported to iOS because it is open source. Same reason that VLC got yoinked from the App Store. Since there is no method to distribute the source from the same location as the finished product, it violates the F/OSS nature of the product.

That's quite clueless. All MacOS X and iOS apps are stored in "bundles", which are basically directories with a flag that tells the OS to show them to the user as one unit. You can put _anything_ into a bundle. Including the complete source code. So it is quite easy to distribute the source code to _everybody_ downloading the app, without giving them even the choice to get it.

VLC was pulled because one of the developers of one of the libraries that it uses threatened to sue Apple, so Apple pulled it. Whether distribution on the App Store is a GPL violation is an open question, but clearly Apple is right to respect the wishes of the copyright holder (whether they are required to do so legally or not).

Re:Dear EU

[beelsebob]

Dear person who doesn't understand what anti-competitive behaviour is. The reason MS had to change things was because they were leveraging a monopoly in the OS market to gain a monopoly in the browser market. Apple is not doing this. In fact, if anything, google is the most likely next on the chopping block, because of exploiting their search monopoly to heavily advertise and drive into the browser market.

Re:Dear EU

[catchblue22]

If the EU force Apple to have a browser ballot on iOS, I do believe Steve Jobs will be turning ever so violently in his grave :D

On a more serious note: couldn't the fact that Apple forces all apps to be purchased through their own app store just as well be seen as anti-competitive?

Apple's tight control over their iOS operating system has creeped me out so much that I have ditched my Macbook Pro of five years for a Linux laptop. I know OSX is not so tightly controlled, but I believe that iOS shows Apple's long term intentions for operating systems, and I don't like it one bit. I don't like the idea of a single company controlling what I can run on my own computer. I don't care if they are permissive or restrictive. The very fact that a single company controls what can run on computers is I believe quite dangerous.

Re:Dear EU

[beelsebob]

No, it requires all browsers to be a thin wrapper around safari's engine which is WebKit. So it very much is WebKit that's required – specifically the WebKit shipped on the device.

Re:Dear EU

[beelsebob]

Actually, quite the reverse. If you have more than one browser, the attacker has to find a vulnerability in either, making it much easier to attack.

That said, the argument "it's for security" is still bullshit.

Re:Dear EU

[gnasher719]

I believe that the claim is that the GPL (both v2 and v3) say you can't add additional licensing restrictions on end users when you distribute it, which distributing via the App Store does [as you have to agree to Apple's licensing terms to download apps].

I think it is more complicated. I think copyright allows you to do almost nothing, and a license gives you rights to do things. Like the GPL license gives you the right to do certain things, the App Store license gives you different rights. To distribute through the App Store, a developer must agree that anyone downloading from the App Store will have (at least) the rights that Apple states; if the developer has their own license that gives more rights, the user will have those rights as well.

Clearly Apple will not help you to exercise the rights that GPL would give you, but I don't see why they have to.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

I knew from the moment Apple announced "Darwin" that they were only paying lip service to Open Source. Based on their track record (and Steve Jobs's control freak history) they were only pursuing it from the angle of "what's in it for us," rather than promoting a shared effort to benefit the user community.

They were just biding their time until they had a killer product (iPod, then iPhone) so they could get away with the thumbscrew treatment.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

And they shouldn't care about accommodating "nattering critics," they should care about accommodating their customers.

And as soon as a non-zero number of their ACTUAL customers express a desire to see a "free app" section of the store, it's going to become a lot more likely to happen than a bunch of non-iOS users wasting precious pixels declaiming that they "do not, will not, and will NEVER use, support, or develop for iOS, because Apple is evil," and then in the next breath, suggest that "Apple should change their business model to how I would run it."

If you're not a customer, don't be surprised when the actual customers have more say in the features of a product.

As for the stupid "two button mouse" argument, Mac OS X has ALWAYS supported multi-button mice natively. Apple chose to ship 1-button mice with its computers until 2006, but there was NOTHING stopping you from buying a USB mouse and plugging it in. There's a difference between "factory default hardware" and "what the software supports." And it's pretty clear that Apple DID listen to users, by building in the support for users who wanted it and chose to take advantage of it.

Re:Dear EU

[sFurbo]

In which market does Apple have a monopoly which they use to gain an advantage for their browser?

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

a bunch of non-iOS users wasting precious pixels declaiming that they "do not, will not, and will NEVER use, support, or develop for iOS, because Apple is evil," and then in the next breath, suggest that "Apple should change their business model to how I would run it."

Who submitted VLC to the app store? Obviously they didn't regard Apple as evil or they wouldn't try to sell the app through them... unless the sole purpose was to force Apple to defend themselves on the issue, which I admit is possible. Personally, I think the developer who submitted it was probably not an anti-Apple zealot.

As for the stupid "two button mouse" argument, Mac OS X has ALWAYS supported multi-button mice natively. Apple chose to ship 1-button mice with its computers until 2006, but there was NOTHING stopping you from buying a USB mouse and plugging it in.

Demand for a two-button mouse goes back WAAAAY before Mac OS X arrived. Besides, Mac OS X came from NeXT. Have you ever seen a NeXT Cube or NeXTStation? Did you count the mouse buttons?

There's a difference between "factory default hardware" and "what the software supports."

Exactly. Just as there's a difference between "we have to spend extra money to get 2 buttons on a Mac" and "we want to buy a Mac with a two-button mouse."

Seriously? All it should have taken is a hint of demand for Apple to jump to supplying it. Instead, Apple said "You don't need two buttons. Two buttons is bad for you. Trust us."

Re:Dear EU

[angel'o'sphere]

That is nonsense. First of all the only thing mildly problematic is GPL and no other F/OSS license.
On top of that, every iOS application is bundled as a 'directory'. You can easy put the sources into it. The 'backup' on the Mac or on windows youcan simply open with Finder or Explorer and browse to the included sources.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it's anti-competitive. However, since Apple is a minority player in virtually all markets it competes in (the exception being standalone MP3 players --remember those?-- and possibly tablets, at least for now) there is nothing actionable about that anti-competitive behavior.

Indeed, market theory would suggest that a minority player acting in a way that harms its customers would only damage itself. This suggests that Apple's anti-competitive behavior is not actually harmful. Again, according to pure theory.

Re:Dear EU

[spire3661]

Its quite naive to think Apple will be able to continue to force everyone through the APP Store. Its an untenable situation that will eventually be broken either by the market, or regulation. There are simply WAY too many use-cases that Apple flat out ignores due to their DRM stance.

Re:Dear EU

[Alain Williams]

Posting to undo an accidental (wrong) moderation - I wish there were a way to undo/change a moderation -- within, say, 30 seconds.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Put simply, no, there's no requirement to distribute the source directly with the binary, but in the case of VLC it was probably a slightly different issue with the FOSSiness, to do with the fact that the code is under the GPL, which is banned from the app store and incompatible to begin with, when it comes to firefox, the licensing situation is quite different, having previously been trilicensed and now being exlusively MPL, even the official firefox binary installer, for windows at least, used to provide a non-free derivative built from the open source code, a bit like chrome vs chromium, whether or not this is still the case i'm unsure.

Firefox probably hasn't been ported because they don't want to be a skin for safari, which is the best they can hope for under the current app store terms.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Taking away software from your users for religious reasons is hardly respect.

Re:Dear EU

[larry bagina]

Your understanding is wrong.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really, just because you don't know English doesn't make it any less correct to say random code.

On a side note, why is it that pedants like you are such fucking morons.

Re:Dear EU

[Kjella]

The GPL doesn't require DRM removal.

If I recall correctly the specific issue was that Apple's standard terms and conditions limits use to 5 "authorized devices", which is more restrictive than the GPL and so in violation of "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." Of course you can have as many iTunes accounts as you like so infinite*5 ~= infinite, but technically he was entirely correct.

Re:Dear EU

[jo_ham]

As far as I understood it, the very unfortunate VLC situation came about when a purist developer of VLC demanded that Apple would release VLC without DRM on IOS. But all apps on IOS use DRM, it is quite naive to assume that they would make an exception.

So what? He wrote the code, he released it for use under certain terms and conditions and those conditions were being violated. He wanted Apple to stop and Apple stopped, was he unhappy with that outcome? Did he expect something else? Of course it was annoying for everybody else but if people could just ignore the license when it was incompatible or inconvenient the GPL would have died out long ago.

That's not the point. The point is that it's *apple* who gets the bad press and the blame for VLC not being on the App Store because people do not understand the story and just assume that Apple pulled it. They removed it by request of one of the developers, and as you explained, because he did not consent to it being there.

The iOS App Store's policies were changed to make it compatible with the GPL before that (due to a different case) and there are plenty of GPL apps up in there to this day.

The lack of VLC has nothing to do with it not having a compatible licence, or Apple being "hostile" to open source, as is so often repeated; it's merely the choice of one of the original developers to not allow it to be distributed that way (as is his right).

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, "random" has a very specific technical meaning. "Random code" would be any old instructions picked at random and stuck together. So you are the one who doesn't know English.

Also, you're a jerk. A complete knee-biter. Piss off.

Re:Dear EU

[jo_ham]

. As far as I understood it, the very unfortunate VLC situation came about when a purist developer of VLC demanded that Apple would release VLC without DRM...

That one prefers to respect users & developers alike makes him a "purist"? I'm feeling better about my 20 year descision to avoid Apple products more and more.

Who says purist is a pejorative term? It's simply an accurate descriptor of the developer in question who did not agree that supplying the source separately to the downloaded app was an acceptable interpretation of the GPL. Others have disagreed, and GPL apps have been up on the store before and since. This particular developer's stance is more of a purist one, however. It's not a bad thing, just a different thing.

Stop looking for reasons to justify your decision to avoid Apple. Either do or don't, it's your choice, but twisting people's words to suit your opinion is just silly.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I understood it, the very unfortunate VLC situation came about when a purist developer of VLC demanded that Apple would release VLC without DRM on IOS.

Your understanding is totally wrong.
What happened is that the copyright holder of VLC found out that Apple were not complying with its license.
They were given the option to either comply or cease distribution of the product.
They chose the latter option.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

You Sir, are a prick.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

So, Apple gets a free pass on the whole ITMS monopoly abuse? That's nice, granted at this point that's over, but it's ignorant to suggest that Apple hasn't abused the hell out of its monopolies in the past.

Re: Dear EU

[OldSpiceAP]

You can craft the interface however you want however by matter of policy, apple restricts 3rd party browsers to using UIWebView component to render HTML which is the internal WebKit rendering engine. Gecko is not allowed on iOS. This means the JavaScript engine as well. In fact the newer JavaScript engine used by safari is also not accessible. UIWebView only exposes a slower older js engine. This means outside of the interface itself, all browsers by default will have inferior performance to Safari. It is simply a restriction imposed by Apple. One can argue about whether this is good policy or if they have good reasons or not, this is completely fair. But it is a matter of simple fact that you cannot use any other rendering engine.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

My understanding is that all browsers on iOS are required to use WebKit. Mozilla uses Gecko. Being open source isn't the issue.

That's not it either.

The issue is downloading executable code from a remote server and running it. You are only allowed to use the built in WebKit API to execute remote code.

It's perfectly fine to write your own browser, and theoretically it can be done, but the javascript must be executed by WebKit.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Missing the point. It does not matter what Apple does, it does not affect all pc-users.

Re:Dear EU

[miroku000]

As far as I understood it, the very unfortunate VLC situation came about when a purist developer of VLC demanded that Apple would release VLC without DRM on IOS. But all apps on IOS use DRM, it is quite naive to assume that they would make an exception.

So what? He wrote the code, he released it for use under certain terms and conditions and those conditions were being violated. He wanted Apple to stop and Apple stopped, was he unhappy with that outcome? Did he expect something else? Of course it was annoying for everybody else but if people could just ignore the license when it was incompatible or inconvenient the GPL would have died out long ago.

That's not the point. The point is that it's *apple* who gets the bad press and the blame for VLC not being on the App Store because people do not understand the story and just assume that Apple pulled it. They removed it by request of one of the developers, and as you explained, because he did not consent to it being there.

The iOS App Store's policies were changed to make it compatible with the GPL before that (due to a different case) and there are plenty of GPL apps up in there to this day.

The lack of VLC has nothing to do with it not having a compatible licence, or Apple being "hostile" to open source, as is so often repeated; it's merely the choice of one of the original developers to not allow it to be distributed that way (as is his right).

If what the App store is fully compatible with the GPL, and VLC is released under the GPL, then in fact the original developer has no right at all to stop you me or anyone else from releasing it there. So, why then has no one released it if it is compatible?

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Who submitted VLC to the app store?

Applidium, a third party who took the VLC code and ported it. The reason it was pulled is because a VLC developer filed a takedown request due to licensing incompatibilities.

Demand for a two button mouse goes back WAAAAY before Mac OS X arrived.

Yes, and older versions of Mac OS also supported two button mice as well. Why do you keep harping on this? You could either buy a 2 button mouse, or ctrl-click with your one button mouse to get the "second button click."

Instead, Apple said "You don't need two buttons. Two buttons is bad for you. Trust us."

And in reality, they were MOSTLY correct - two buttons makes the interface to software much more complex, and less user friendly - not because "OH ITS SO HARD TO CLICK 2 BUTTONS," as you're about to respond with sarcasm set to high, but because it makes the interactions made available by each button non-intuitive. The Apple HIG recommended that "all features" of software be available via one-button clicks on the menus - rather than (as many Windows programs used to do) burying and hiding the functionality by making it only available via right-click "context menus."

There is a measurable impact to usability when you do this, and Apple's HIG was an attempt to solve this. Enforcing these guidelines is why they made single button mice - unfortunately, the multi-button mouse was already ingrained with Windows users, so people rebelled in favor of what they were comfortable with. It's not the first time that the market has chosen in favor of less-efficient ways of doing things simply because they were the way the incumbent technology worked, and it certainly won't be the last. Apple was right in that the one-button mouse made for markedly more usable software. They were wrong in assuming that that would matter enough to people that they'd adjust.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

On a more serious note: couldn't the fact that Apple forces all apps to be purchased through their own app store just as well be seen as anti-competitive?

Only if Apple had a monopoly on the smart phone market, which they don't.

Re:Dear EU

[Cabriel]

I'm curious. Who put VLC on the Apple App Store? Was it not the other developers or some subset of them? So when the developers lack concensus, Apple is to blame? This is interesting. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and older versions of Mac OS also supported two button mice as well.

Only after Windows 95 came out and Apple licensed Mac clones and their market share took a dive.

Besides, the way Apple did it allowed them to keep selling single-button mice and maintaining that one button was enough, while tacitly admitting that they were wrong and there was a place for two-button mice on the Mac.

Why do you keep harping on this?

Because you suggested that if customers demand a "free app" section, then Apple will provide one. Not likely. The single-button mouse is just one example of hundreds where Apple chose to simply ignore customer demand, basically saying "we know better than you do what you need."

I mean, they held out on two-button mice for 13 freaking years.

And in reality, they were MOSTLY correct - two buttons makes the interface to software much more complex, and less user friendly

Doesn't matter. Customers wanted it. Third parties found it economical to sell 2-button mice, so like I said... if Apple were tuned to customer demand, they should have introduced a two-button mouse as soon as paying customers asked for it.

Re:Dear EU

[oldlurker]

It's not webkit - all browsers on iOS are required to be thin wrappers around Safari. For example, Chrome is Safari with Chrome's tabs and branding.

Uhm, no, it is webkit that is the requirement. The phrase "thin wrappers around Safari" does not even make sense. Safari is a complete application, not a framework/library; there is no way on iOS to create an app that is a "thin wrapper" around another app.

This is incorrect. The requirement is that alternative browsers use the *built in* webkit and javascript engine. This is a very important distinction. Chrome on iOS is not allowed to supply and use its own webkit and javascript engine that Chrome is using on all other platforms, on iOS it is using the ones built in to iOS. Apple do not allow anyone to supply a rendering engine and javascript engine to iOS, regardless if it is webkit or not. This is why some call them just gui wrappers to the built on browser, which is basically what they are.

Re:Dear EU

[Teun]

Indeed, nor does the law encourage the type of rape we see here.

Apple might not be a de-facto monopoly as was MS in the days of the browser wars.
Nor does say Ford have a monopoly for car tyres. Yet would Ford claim a 30% cut every time you want to sell your tyres to a Ford owner you'd tell them to see you in court.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

When faced with the truth, reply with an insult. Classic. (Nice double post by the way).

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

However, given that IOS, due to its widespread adoption, constitutes a big market for apps itself, and one that's artificially limited by Apple to have only one store - theirs.

If they manufactured their own computer, and just put their own OS on it, as Apple do with Macs and iOS devices, then they would have been in the clear.

No, they wouldn't, necessarily. Hardware and software being bundled or separate has nothing at all to do with how antitrust/monopoly law work. If you have a dominant position and misuse it, to keep out competitors or strong-arm into "new" market segments, then you can be convicted. Before Android really took off multiple antitrust agencies had started investigation of Apple smartphone/app market dominance, and whether Apple was using their position unlawfully. If not for recent Android success, what Apple is doing on denying alternative browsers access to iOS would most likely have been highly problematic in regards to antitrust/monopoly actions in EU (and possible US).

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

The iTunes monopoly being established by what evidence? (70% of the market by itself does not a monopoly make.) Even if we assume there is a monopoly, what precisely is the alleged abuse?

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear lesincompetent,
"Anti-competitive behaviour" is not itself illegal. Microsoft has and continues to do plenty of things that are "anti-competitive" like this without legal issues, even after US and EU competition law violations subjecting it to higher standards than other similarly-situated corporations.

"Things people wished were different" or "things competitors would like to be true" aren't enough. It'd be great if printers all used a standard toner cartridge container and interface so you could pick any toner brand or change printers at any time. The refusal of printer manufacturers to do so limits consumer choice and competition, but is not illegally anti-competitive.

The level of incompetence surrounding what's permissible self-interest and what violates competition law is staggering, but at least you're living up to your user name.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be noted that every major mobile platform, Android included, uses a webkit-based browser by default. This really is not really of any interest to anyone, except for OCD's grasping at nitpicking another reason that Apple is evil and stifling innovation. I wonder how many of them have installed a gecko-based browser on the non-evil mobile platform of their choice that presumably allows it.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

. As far as I understood it, the very unfortunate VLC situation came about when a purist developer of VLC demanded that Apple would release VLC without DRM...

That one prefers to respect users & developers alike makes him a "purist"? I'm feeling better about my 20 year descision to avoid Apple products more and more.

Typical slashdot to rate this as insightful.

No, it wasn't respect for the customers. Now Millions of IOS users are out of VLC. Don't expect that this will make people switch as there are now a number of VLC clones (it wouldn't surprise me if at least one of them has the developer's library in it).
Indeed, Apple has in my opinion a reasonable DRM, normally you will never notice it, not even in a family use.
And in this case, in practice the standard drm doesn't matter because it is a free product. How difficult is it to download an app from the app store?

No, the developer's purist attitude means a loss for many potential users and an missed opportunity for the VLC project.

It is popular to blame Apple for all the woes in the world here, but they didn't pull VLC on their own accord. It was pulled because of this holier than thou developer complaining.

Luckily there are many good FOSS products that are being ported, Wesnoth for example (not free, but a low price which will even help the further development).

Re:Dear EU

[collet]

Where I speak English "random" also means something you don't know of. Usually we refer to that group of people over there as "randoms".

Re:Dear EU

[Rosyna]

Of course it was annoying for everybody else but if people could just ignore the license when it was incompatible or inconvenient the GPL would have died out long ago.

Nothing to do with that. VLC doesn't require developers to assign copyright to the main project (unlike most other GPL software). The jerk claimed his own copyright rights in order to pull VLC from the App Store because he didn't like Apple.

Re:Dear EU

[Rosyna]

In which market does Apple have a monopoly which they use to gain an advantage for their browser?

The market in the land of make-believe in which every competitor is actually a market unto itself. Like claiming Apple has a monopoly on Macs or a monopoly on AppleTVs despite the fact Macs and AppleTVs are competitors to others.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple has a 100% market share of the distribution market for iOS devices. Sure, it's not the same market, but it's hardly not a monopoly.

Re:Dear EU

[node 3]

You can give the binary to as many people as you want. They can't run it, but you can give it to them. But more to the point, you can get the source, which is the main requirement. No one is obligated to give away the binary.

Re:Dear EU

[narcc]

Can't read the article?

There are few reasons because of which third party browsers are not so comfortable with the iOS environment. First and foremost may be the hurdle of not able to carry their rendering techniques and javascript engines over to iOS

Can't use Google?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57439936-93/browser-choice-a-thing-of-the-past/

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jwherrman/the-problem-with-chrome-for-ios

http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/945460

It's like you're not even trying. I don't think a "rogue" mod is responsible for your karma.

Re:Dear EU

[fireman sam]

I think the problem arose due to the fact that if someone links a piece of proprietary code (A) to a GPL'd piece of code (B), piece of code (A) will fall under the GPL (excluding run time linking through process communication mechanisms). It was this issue that resulted in the LGPL (library or lesser gpl) which allowed dynamic linking of (A) to (B) and not have (A) become open source.

If VLC is licensed under the GPL, then any code that Apple attach (ie, the DRM module) would result in the Apple code becoming GPL'd. This was also the essence of Mircosoft's comments on the GPL being viral.

Re:Dear EU

[mjwx]

Yes, he respects users so much, he won't let them use software he helped with.

No, he will let them use the software. It's Apple that's saying no, it must all be locked up.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it wasn't respect for the customers. Now Millions of IOS users are out of VLC.

Well, money wasn't the issue, so what motivated him? Just arrogant pride?

No, I think he did the right thing in saying "I won't bend over for Apple, and I won't let Apple bend you over either."

Re:Dear EU

[Guspaz]

Firstly, there are zero restrictions against the rendering engine. Mozilla could use Gecko if they wanted, and Google could use their version of Webkit. The restriction is against the javascript engine, and Gecko/Webkit would not be very useful in a web browser without one. That's why they have to use Apple's library. There is at least two browsers out there that don't use Apple's library. Opera executes the javascript on their remote proxy and their local rendering engine communicates with that to feed the results in. Then there's that other one that actually does the rendering itself server-side and sends the results as images.

In terms of Chrome, it's no more a gui wrapper than Firefox is a GUI wrapper of the Gecko engine... Yes, the API being used to access it is likely more restrictive, but not enough to stop them from adding a whole bunch of features not available in Safari. The key one for me is unlimited tabs, but the interface in general is better, incognito mode is sometimes useful, you get a little bit of user-agent control (they only expose it as a "request desktop site"), syncing with your google accounts (including automatic authentication to google sites, which implies deeper integration than a GUI wrapper), the benefits of the "omnibox", etc.

There are obviously a bunch of features that they could implement if they could use their own rendering and javascript engine (and getting a full-speed javascript engine would be nice, only Safari gets that), but if they implemented the current feature set with their own rendering and javascript engine, there probably wouldn't be any differences noticeable to the user.

I'd love for Apple to remove those restrictions, but Chrome on iOS is not a thin GUI wrapper, and more people should check it out; it's a lot better than Safari.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Where I speak English "random" also means something you don't know of.

There's your problem right there.

Re:Dear EU

[Guspaz]

Because Apple doesn't want to get in the middle of a copyright fight between people posting the content and people issuing C&Ds for the content. Apple was happy enough to post it, and when they got a C&D, they pulled it. If anybody else tried to post VLC, the zealot would just C&D Apple again.

There's a ton of GPL content in the app store, and there's nothing about the way it does DRM that violates the GPL. But that doesn't matter to some people, they just plain hate Apple and will send a C&D regardless.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a ton of GPL content in the app store, and there's nothing about the way it does DRM that violates the GPL.

How can you say that with a straight face? The GPL specifically states that "the act of running the program is not restricted" and that you have the right to redistribute the software to ANYONE under the same conditions (meaning they have to be able to run it too).

Apple's DRM locks the app to certain "authorized" machines and will not run if transferred to an unauthorized machine. Apple can also pull the app from your iDevice (de-authorize it) for any reason any time they feel like it. If that's not a restriction, I'd like to know what the hell is.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

hahahahahahahahaa... whew

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, the way Apple did it allowed them to keep selling single-button mice and maintaining that one button was enough, while tacitly admitting that they were wrong and there was a place for two-button mice on the Mac.

Or, viewed in a way that doesn't automatically assume Apple can do nothing right, "the way Apple did it allowed them to continue arguing that the one-button mouse was a technically superior interface design, while still allowing users the ability to do things in a less efficient manner if they chose to."

Because you suggested that if customers demand a "free app" section, then Apple will provide one.

No, I said that if Apple's ACTUAL customers demand a free app section, they're much more likely to consider it than if a bunch of twattish neckbeards who preface their demands to Apple with, "I'm not an Apple customer, I hate you, and I will NEVER be your customer, but here's how to run your business:"

Doesn't matter. Customers wanted it. Third parties found it economical to sell 2-button mice, so like I said... if Apple were tuned to customer demand, they should have introduced a two-button mouse as soon as paying customers asked for it.

Why the fuck would Apple spend time designing a 2-button mouse when you can trivially buy one yourself? They built in support for a 2-button mouse, and said, "If you want one, go get one." Customers also demand external hard drives, should Apple also provide one of those in the box, housed in a case meeting the exact specifications of each individual customer? Jesus christ, if Apple provided a 2-button mouse, you'd bitch that they didn't provide a 12 button gaming mouse, and that their inclusion of a 2-button mouse was just underhanded dealing to steal profits from third party hardware manufacturers.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

they're much more likely to consider it than if a bunch of twattish neckbeards who preface their demands to Apple with, "I'm not an Apple customer, I hate you, and I will NEVER be your customer, but here's how to run your business:"

You are wrong. FSF told Apple they would "be happy to see Apple distribute these programs under the GPL's terms." Your talent for hyperbole is strong, and nearly matched by your denial over your bias. It's very amusing.

Why the fuck would Apple spend time designing a 2-button mouse when you can trivially buy one yourself? They built in support for a 2-button mouse, and said, "If you want one, go get one."

That's accurate but in no way addresses my point about Apple's attitude toward customer demand. In fact, it reinforces it.

Look, Apple has long had a reputation for arrogance and self-aggrandizing marketing. That is nothing new. Read What's a Megaflop? for an example. In this instance, we see Steve Jobs exhibit:

1) arrogance regarding Apple's quality ("You're going to have to wait a long time to find something better than the Mac!")

2) cluelessness about customer needs ("What's a megaflop?")

3) dishonesty and bluster ("Oh, we believe in that, too. Apple will have an affordable 3M machine before anyone else.")

Sorry, but Apple has always had a practice of introducing products they think are great, and can't understand why anyone would disagree. Their dismissiveness toward customers was arrogant, and of developers was foolhardy. And it almost killed them in the '90s, when they got a thorough pasting in the market.

Re:Dear EU

[shutdown -p now]

I'm aware of a Python IDE being available for Apple's app store, and I'm not sure how this squares with that policy of not allowing apps that run random code, I think they relaxed this policy a bit at some point, but not to the extent of allowing third-party web browser engines.

All IDEs/REPLs for iOS that I know of have one thing in common: they don't let you download code. You have to use the provided examples, type it in yourself, or copy/paste.

Re:Dear EU

[davidshenba]

Lot of my friends who use Android have Firefox installed. Some of them use "Opera Mini" (not Opera Mobile), which reduces the data consumption. That said, it is silly to argue over how many actually make use of freedom against is there freedom at all!

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

He was only able to do so because the distribution on the app store was in violation of the GPL under which he'd licensed the code.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Lot of my friends who use Android have Firefox

Oh, are all of them also up in arms about iOS only having webkit-based browsers? No? Then your statement is irrellivant to GP's (rhetorical) question.

Re:Dear EU

[davidshenba]

Oh, are all of them also up in arms about iOS only having webkit-based browsers? No? Then your statement is irrellivant to GP's (rhetorical) question.

Few of them complained about the lack of "upload" button in Safari for iPhone and switched to Android back in 2011. I know it is due to restrictions on apps to read filesystem of the device, but why they don't allow their own browser to do that? Again, I am asking, no matter what one uses or hates, there should be freedom to choose!

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not a browser restriction, it is the universal filesystem restriction in iOS. User does not have access to the filesystem in iOS (unless you jailbreak, which is trivial and easier than complaining about lack of filesystem access in a /. post).

Re:Dear EU

[serviscope_minor]

No one is obligated to give away the binary.

No, but you are obligated to allow others to give away the binary, if you distribute it yourself.

Re:Dear EU

[serviscope_minor]

he point is that it's *apple* who gets the bad press and the blame for VLC not being on the App Store

And rightly so: they get bad press because of the draconion restrictions they insist on putting on apps even when it is completely unnecessary. That is 100% Apple's fault.

Basically, they're getting bad press for having a particularly restrictive walled garden.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that Apples anti-competitive behavior is preventing Apple from being able to compete with Android, by preventing Apple from having the applications that (some) people want.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

There's tons of GPL software on the App Store.

That doesn't make it legal.

The only reason VLC was pulled was that one of the developers complained. An Apple hater didn't want his software on the App Store.

No matter his motives, he complained that Apple was distributing VLC in breach of the GPL. Apple agreed and removed it from the App Store.

Re:Dear EU

[davidshenba]

You fail to answer this one

no matter what one uses or hates, there should be freedom to choose!

Don't just tell me why it doesn't work on Apple and how to fix it. Just tell me why can't I run a Gecko based browser?

unless you jailbreak, which is trivial and easier than complaining about lack of filesystem access in a /. post

why can't you just buy an Android device which is cheaper, more customizable, trivial and easier than spending money on fancy iToys and defending them here?

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that mean that no other App is allowed to open or save documents, and all content you create is gone once you turn the device off?

Or does every other program simply implement this functionality in a different way that letting the user directly access the filesystem, and the browser simply lacks this different way?

I.e, can I take a photo on an iDevice, look at it, and then it disappears when I turn the device off? Or can I take a photo, attach that photo to an e-mail, and send it to someone, but when "someone" is a person on a social networking site, rather than a person in my address book, I can't send him the photo, because the browser lacks functionality that the e-mail client has?

Re:Dear EU

[davidshenba]

Does that mean that no other App is allowed to open or save documents, and all content you create is gone once you turn the device off?

No

Or does every other program simply implement this functionality in a different way that letting the user directly access the filesystem, and the browser simply lacks this different way?

No, it is a restriction that only images, videos and other "allowed" files can be accessed.

I.e, can I take a photo on an iDevice, look at it, and then it disappears when I turn the device off? Or can I take a photo, attach that photo to an e-mail, and send it to someone, but when "someone" is a person on a social networking site, rather than a person in my address book, I can't send him the photo, because the browser lacks functionality that the e-mail client has?

Why you assume all uploads are just to send a photo to someone? Can't it be uploading a photo to a job search site? or, uploading a pdf to a file sharing site? Oh! Apple hates sharing ;-)

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Taking away software from your users for religious reasons is hardly respect.

I agree 100%. Even worse if you do this after your users payed you hundreds of dollars to use your product. It was Apple who decided to remove VLC instead of ditributing it in a way that doesn't violate the GPL. Rémi Denis-Courmont didn't force Apple to remove applidium he just insisted that Apple honors the GPL. Apple decided against it.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Applidium (VLC for iOS) wasn't done by the original VLC Team but by a seperate group.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Steve Jobs will be turning ever so violently in his grave

No, he'll be turning smoothly and stylishly in his grave.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

I wondered why Chrome on iOS seemed so stripped-down compared to the Android version. That makes sense.

Re:Dear EU

[interval1066]

Stop looking for reasons to justify your decision to avoid Apple. Either do or don't, it's your choice, but twisting people's words to suit your opinion is just silly.

All high and mighty... what a dick. You don't know me from Adam. As if I'm shivering in a basement somewhere looking for reasons to hate Apple... I'm damn proud of it; APPLE SUCKS. And I'm obviously right to do so. Fanbois... lordy...

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Do people still buy iCrap?

Re:Dear EU

[obarthelemy]

You're right on both counts, but

- Even if devs favor iOS, they don't do so in an overwhelming fashion. General-public stuff is available, and OK, for both OSes. Some vertical markets will be much better served by one platform or another, but the general market isn't.

- Companies may standardize on one supplier, but not all companies have to standardize on the same one. This is nowhere near the same as desktops PCs, where there are no real alternatives to windows+office+... I know Linux, Chrome OS... are trying, but Windows still has around 95% of the total market for desktops. That's monopoly. Not around 50%

Re:Dear EU

[BasilBrush]

Somebody's claiming more than 30% every time you buy a tyre. There's one or more levels of middlemen between the type leaving the factory, and you buying it from the merchant.

There's nothing wrong with 30% being taken by the merchant/distribution chain. Indeed that's quite low, in the days before the Apple App Store it was usual for the developer to get less than half the retail price on apps. And on shrink wrap? The developer would generally end up with 5% at most.

If it's the monopoly itself you're whinging about... printers, razors, games consoles - there's all manner of precedent for the manufacturer of the base device being in control of the items that fit it.

Re:Dear EU

[Shirley Marquez]

The division of labor between the left and right buttons is sensible in most Windows programs. The left button gives you global choices; things that go across the entire application. The right button gives you context sensitive choices; things that pertain specifically to the thing you are pointing at, and where the available choices will change depending on what you are pointing at.

Steve Jobs claimed for many years that people would find having more than one mouse button to be confusing. The experiences of Unix users disproved that, but he could claim that they were geeks rather than typical users. But once Windows proved that the user interface could be improved by well planned use of a second button, and that ordinary users could make use of that improvement without confusion, Apple had to concede and start offering mice with more buttons. And a scroll wheel (though Apple used a small ball instead), another UI innovation that had shown its worth on Windows.

Re:Dear EU

[jo_ham]

he point is that it's *apple* who gets the bad press and the blame for VLC not being on the App Store

And rightly so: they get bad press because of the draconion restrictions they insist on putting on apps even when it is completely unnecessary. That is 100% Apple's fault.

Basically, they're getting bad press for having a particularly restrictive walled garden.

It's Apple's fault that a developer requested that they pull an app that has copyrighted code belonging to that developer, and Apple complied with their request?

So, Apple can't win in this situation then.

Got it.

Re:Dear EU

[jo_ham]

Stop looking for reasons to justify your decision to avoid Apple. Either do or don't, it's your choice, but twisting people's words to suit your opinion is just silly.

All high and mighty... what a dick. You don't know me from Adam. As if I'm shivering in a basement somewhere looking for reasons to hate Apple... I'm damn proud of it; APPLE SUCKS. And I'm obviously right to do so. Fanbois... lordy...

Right, as I said, you can hate apple as much as you want, just don't attempt to justify it by deliberately misinterpreting what people say and using that as proof of your hate.

I don't know you from Adam, but I do know you've been on a 20 year boycott of a single company, which clearly started back in the distant computing past. 20 years ago was 1993 - Apple didn't even have PowerPC chips at that point, and was several years before Gil Ameilo was appointed CEO. Apple was virtually at the bottom of the well and practically dead. If you've carried a grudge for that long then I can only assume you have a seething hatred that burns more than a thousand suns. What could they have possibly done all that time ago that enraged you so much? Was the partnership with IBM and Motorola really that bad? Did the original PPC 603 offend you somehow?

Your "obviously righteous" hatred clearly defines you. Have you thought about perhaps... chilling out?

Re:Dear EU

[Guspaz]

The part of the GPLv2 that you're quoting is stating that the *GPLv2* does not restrict this, not that it requires that nothing else do so. You're quoting the part of the license that says what the GPL applies to... Indeed, the preceding sentence to what you're quoting says "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License", which means that "the act of running the program" is completely outside the scope of the GPLv2.

The GPLv2 does not prohibit the use of Apple's app store just because people want it to. If they do want this to be the case, there are other licenses that do have this sort of restriction. I believe the GPLv3 has this sort of restriction.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

The part of the GPLv2 that you're quoting is stating that the *GPLv2* does not restrict this, not that it requires that nothing else do so.

That is some interesting mental gymnastics there. If you want to impose further restrictions, you have to put those restrictions in a license (otherwise you have no say over how someone else uses their copyrighted work) and even GPLv2 prohibits sublicensing.

Re:Dear EU

[collet]

Random as...

Re:Dear EU

[Guspaz]

The App Store is a distribution platform, is there any part of the App Store license that specifically requires a modification to the application license, or does it merely govern the use of the App Store as a distribution platform? If so, there is no sub-licensing occurring. This is not mental gymnastics, conditions for the use of a distribution service don't mean the license of the program itself is changing.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

The App Store is a distribution platform, is there any part of the App Store license that specifically requires a modification to the application license, or does it merely govern the use of the App Store as a distribution platform?

The requirement that apps be digitally signed and only run on authorized hardware is in conflict with the GPL's requirement that apps must be freely redistributable. This isn't rocket science.

Re:Dear EU

[Guspaz]

How does the device refusing to run the code equate to preventing distribution? In fact, the GPLv2 specifically does not cover that, which was the whole reason that the "tivoisation" clauses were added to the GPLv3.

Re:Dear EU

[angel'o'sphere]

Dear narcc,
I really appreciate your continious effort to enlighten me.

However you are not harsh enough in your punishment against my mistakes and missunderstandings.

First of all with your superior google fu I had assumed you would link me an Apple Page that indeed clarifies that Apple only allows WebKit based browsers on iOS. (Having the PDF of the developer ruels in front of me, at the first glance I can not find anything stating this. However as you mnow, english is not my first language. Perhaps I'm just to dumb to read it, or to use the find in document function ... )

So, lets recapitulate. Google Chrome runs on iOS only under WebKit? Google is not allowwd to use their "own" rendering engine on iOS.

Yeah ... thats a shame. Perhaps you could use your superior google fu to figure what rendering engine Google Chrome is using on OS X. And on Windows, and on Linux.

The result might be a little bit surprising for you.

So, no offense intended, but do you really get your bright knowledge about computerscience in general and browser technology in particular from cnet.com and buzzfeed.com? (Sorry, I have now this buzzing noise in my ears and need to hit submit)

Re: Dear EU

[angel'o'sphere]

it would be intersting to point to an official Apple document confirming your stand point. So far I only dsaw dozens of 'claims' like yours and no one had a correct citation.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I realize Tivo exploited that loophole, leading to GPLv3. However, the point of redistributing software is so that people can run it. If you prevent them from doing so, that violates the spirit if not the letter of the GPL.

In short, if you don't want people running or modifying your software as they please (or other people's software you distribute), stay away from GPL. Just don't even touch it, because it's really not for you.

Re:Dear EU

[Guspaz]

Well, the spirit of such a license is open to interpretation. We seem to now agree that the VLC C&D is against the letter of the GPL, but disagree as to if it's against the spirit of it. For my part, I think that holding back the proliferation of open source software (emphasis on the "source" part) in such a manner is against the spirit of the GPL, while others feel that it is not.

Re:Dear EU

[narcc]

but do you really get your bright knowledge about computerscience in general and browser technology in particular from cnet.com and buzzfeed.com?

It was to illustrate that a simple google search was all that was necessary to confirm the parents claim. Even you should have been able to figure that out!

So, lets recapitulate. Google Chrome runs on iOS only under WebKit?

Wow, apparently you don't even understand the question you asked! That's astonishing... Perhaps you should try reading the links I posted?

Sigh...

You're just not worth the effort. Ignorance is tollerable; that can be corrected. You, however, are willfully ignorant. From your last post, it looks like you put a lot of effort in to being as uninformed as possible.

Re:Dear EU

[interval1066]

I'm chilled, cool cat. Still haven't changed my opinion on Apple though.

Re:Dear EU

[angel'o'sphere]

Hm ... seems we are on quite different intellectual levels.

It was to illustrate that a simple google search was all that was necessary to confirm the parents claim. Even you should have been able to figure that out!

So, when cnet.com and buzzfeed.com write something about Apple, it is right? if Apple does not write the same thing, it does not matter?

IFF there is an Apple policy, the first thing I would expect is a statement from Apple. Not from cnet or whomever.

Obviously you disagree. Isn't it surprising that random people on the internt know more about Apples policies than Apple them selve?

You are still invited to bring up an Apple link to Apples documentation regarding this matter.

Re:Dear EU

[narcc]

Hm ... seems we are on quite different intellectual levels.

Oh, yes. We are in no way intellectual equals. I'm amazed that you are able to understand and admit to that.

So, when cnet.com and buzzfeed.com write something about Apple, it is right?

I understand that Germans are generally pretty stupid, but you take the cake! The parent's claim is common knowledge. It's been widely reported. The only one who disputes this claim is you. I presume it's all part of the effort you're making to remain as ignorant as possible. I posted several links to show that it's common knowledge, and thus easy to confirm the claim in seconds with a simple search!

IFF there is an Apple policy, the first thing I would expect is a statement from Apple.

If you weren't a total moron, you could find it.

You are still invited to bring up an Apple link to Apples documentation regarding this matter.

I doubt you'll even be able to understand it, as you apparently can't even manage to do a simple google search!

Here it is anyway. Hopefully, this will put an end to this ridiculous "conversation": https://developer.apple.com/appstore/guidelines.html

Re: Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Rogue modding me down for 10 months

Maybe you were repeatedly modded down for being a dumb jackass. There's some food for thought, made freely available.

Re:Dear EU

[angel'o'sphere]

I guess the concept about intellectual equals is a bit difficult to grasp for you.

Anyway, the one who is using insults in every second paragraph obviously is not the superior one ;D

In fact you seem to be a racist, otherwise I can not explain your hate vesus germans.

Regarding the topic, I'm aware that I was wrong about the Apple Policy.

OTOH you claimed you would KNOW something about the Apple policy. However you only recitated third party web sites. In other words: you KNOW NOTHING about the topic itself, you only copy what you have heard.

Here it is anyway. Hopefully, this will put an end to this ridiculous "conversation": https://developer.apple.com/appstore/guidelines.html

This is like it is always with you :D

You did not read that web page, did you? If you had, you had noticed that Web-Kit is not mentioned on it ...

As my developer id is currently expired I can not dig deeper either :D

So go back to your ranting ... I wonder how old you are that you are so easy pissed and so unpolite.

Re:Dear EU

[narcc]

You did not read that web page, did you? If you had, you had noticed that Web-Kit is not mentioned on it ...

I predicted in my last post that you wouldn't be capable of understanding that link.

Not that it was much of a prediction. I know that you're very slow. That might not be your fault. Germans are generally pretty stupid.

Any person of normal intelligence can verify the parent's claims from the link I sent you. It's the source for the claims on the other websites I linked to earlier. You wanted a link directly from Apple, and I provided it. It's not my fault you're not competent enough to understand it.

Re:Dear EU

[angel'o'sphere]

On that link is mothing to understand.
It only has more links into pages that require an apple developer account.
If you did not see that, you did not read it.
Which emphasizes my point that the stupid idot here is you.

Also your insults are tiring me, do you really believe that I stand up and defend my fellow germans or their intelligence against an: idiot, asshole mod point abuser, plain stupid racist, clueless idiot?

You are pissed because you get no mod points anymore. You are pissed because your second and third (and the fourth?) /. account gets no mod points either anymore. Or wherent that alts but true RL friends?

Perhaps I should change my sig? "Narcc, the mod point abuser, will never be able to mod again in the foreseeable future"?

Just piss off with your stupid attitude and get a life. (And an education) If you don't want either learn at least to behave.

Re:Dear EU

[narcc]

On that link is mothing to understand. It only has more links into pages that require an apple developer account.

Yeah, you need an account to read those documents. How is that my problem? You asked for a source from Apple, I provided it to you.

Are you such a stupid German pig that you can't figure out how to create an account on a website?

"Narcc, the mod point abuser, will never be able to mod again in the foreseeable future"?

Ah, you are an especially stupid German pig. You cannot moderate and post in the same discussion. It is not possible for me to be the person who modded your comment down. Also, it's obvious to anyone of normal intelligence that two moderators modded your post down, otherwise it would be scored 0 and not -1.

There is no rogue mod. You're just not capable of making meaningful contributions.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet I would mod him up because troll is an abuse. He merely asked for a citation. And you picked on him. The second down mod was redundant, which could be justified in some minds.

Re:Dear EU

[quadra99]

Yes All browsers must use webkit :-) http://www.ct.se/ Bokföring Lön Ekonomi Macintosh

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

You're an idiot. There are plenty of ways to get software on the Apple store without violating the GPL. It is actually the VLC author who decided to pull the software because he only wanted to comply in one specific way to the GPL, one that wasn't compatible with the Apple store model. Instead of being a zealot fuck he could've just used another way, and got his software on there, but he has no respect for his users.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

It is actually the VLC author who decided to pull the software because he only wanted to comply in one specific way to the GPL

Incorrect. Remi Denis-Courmon is one of the VLC developers, but he told Apple he would be fine with them distributing VLC as long as they complied with GPL. He gave them a choice, he didn't just say "remove the app."

Instead of being a zealot fuck he could've just used another way, and got his software on there, but he has no respect for his users.

It's because he has respect for his users that he insisted on compliance to protect their rights under GPL. If you let Apple get away with violation, the door is open to anyone else who wants to distribute VLC while ignoring the license conditions. The problem with GPL2 software on the App Store is the TOS make you forfeit your redistribution rights under GPL in order to download the software.

As another poster pointed out, App Store binaries are "Tivoized" and can't run on your iDevice without a digital signature. That means a GPL2 app can be sold on the App Store (because it has no guarantee that the binary being distributed will run on any particular platform). If it's GPL3, it's incompatible with the App Store TOS.

Incidentally Firefox is not licensed under GPL.

See: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/why-free-software-and-apples-iphone-dont-mix

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

AC never brought up Firefox, not sure what you're on about here.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but the article is about Firefox. Just clarifying that the VLC issue is separate from the article topic.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

So again, we're back to square one. Freetard developer chooses ideology over common sense and decides to not publish his software rather than have it tivoized, and that somehow counts as respecting your users.

Who cares if the software can get tivoized when the alternative is to not have it at all? Don't kid yourself, this is an egoistic move by Remi so that VLC developers do not waste their effort working on software that could go away any time. It has absolutely nothing to do with showing respect for the users considering they end up with less in the end.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

It has absolutely nothing to do with showing respect for the users considering they end up with less in the end.

Sorry, but this is bullshit. It's entirely up to Apple whether to provide the app on the store or not.

Incidentally, this is a PERFECT example of why Tivoization and walled gardens are bad.

If it weren't for Apple insisting on signed executables, authorized machines, and approved-apps-only, then you could just download VLC from any site and run it on your iDevice. That's what GPL is designed to do - let you obtain, modify, and run the software from anywhere and run it anywhere.

Apple is the bad guy here. You, my friend, are fucked in the head if you can't see that.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but this is bullshit. It's entirely up to Apple whether to provide the app on the store or not.

Lmfao are you shitting me dude?

First article I found: http://www.tuaw.com/2011/01/08/vlc-app-removed-from-app-store/

Apple allowed it. Then Remi had a bitch fit and had it removed. Apple is bad to not allow all software, but when your app lands on there use the fucking opportunity instead of pushing your idealistic shit above all else, preventing millions of users from enjoying your app.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus, could you find a more slanted article?

Remi wants Nokia to have VLC, but not Apple? Gimme a break. People who want a limited distribution for their software don't use GPL. They just don't.

Even Remi says "the incompatibility is resolved... the hard way." Well, what's the "easy way" then? It has to be the case that either Apple's App Store TOS is not in conflict with GPL, or it is. In the first case, Apple has nothing to worry about and can keep selling the app. In the second case, Apple has no rights to distribute the software except by terms of the GPL. Rather than adjust their terms, they pulled it.

Make no mistake. Apple decides if the app is on the store or not. Even disregarding licensing issues, they can sell it or not at their whim. And you can't sell it yourself if they decide against it. "Sell it through us, or not at all." That is anti-competitive, anti-consumer and evil.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you really arguing that authors should just look the other way when Apple or anyone else ignores the license terms? Why have a license at all then?

Or are you arguing that Apple wasn't in violation? Why did they pull the app then?

Apple says signed executables are necessary to prevent malware. Well, no problem - in the case of GPL'd software, just look over the source code and compile the app for your iDevice yourself. Oh, that's right.. YOU CAN'T.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, definitely, authors should look the other way when Apple bends the rules in their favor. It might've actually led to changes in policy, or maybe not, now that Remi sperged all over. The only thing they retain from the experience after that is "we tried to be nice with this piece of GPL software and look what happened".

They pulled the app because Remi caused a shitstorm.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

> Yes, definitely, authors should look the other way when Apple bends the rules in their favor.

Why, because Apple makes cool toys? They limit your freedom to use them in disgusting ways. Besides, if Apple wasn't in violation, they were within their rights to tell Remi to fuck off.

If you let people violate your license, you're basically setting yourself up to be butt-raped. Ask Linus about the Bitkeeper fiasco. If you rely on non-free software, you're at the mercy of the publisher. If you go with free software, you'd better put some effort into keeping it free if you don't want the butt-hurt.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, if Apple wasn't in violation, they were within their rights to tell Remi to fuck off.

They never told Remi to fuck off. Remi told apple to fuck off. I don't know why you can't get that part straight.

If Apple purposely ignores their own rules to let your software on the store then it is an indicative of possible openness. And if it's not, you're still better off than not having the software at all.

Re:Dear EU

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Apple let it on the store, then Remi the sperglord bitched and moaned about it so they took it off.

Cydia please.

[DarkVader]

Dear Mozilla,

Please don't worry about what Apple wants, release Firefox for iOS in Cydia.

Re:Cydia please.

[lesincompetent]

Dear apple customer, since you already shown us that you have more money than brains, please refrain from engaging in illegal (in the US, of course) activities such as 'jailbreaking'. We already know you can afford to pay: don't be a cheap ass! Also, you are unknowingly causing steve job's corpse to spin around its horizontal axis.

Re:Cydia please.

[Richard_J_N]

I agree. Having been given an unwanted present of an iPad (and now I can't get myself a real tablet for fear of offense), I'd really like to see a port of Firefox to Cydia. Actually, given that the GNU utils and X server already exist, why not port a window-manager too, and run a real OS on it?

Re:Cydia please.

[Plumpaquatsch]

Dear Mozilla,

Please don't worry about what Apple wants, release Firefox for iOS in Cydia.

And while you're at it, stop blocking other browser on Firefox OS - not that anybody will care.

Re:Cydia please.

[dreamchaser]

Choice of tablet is a fairly personal decision. Why are you worried about offending anyone? Just buy yourself the tablet you want and be done with it. Just be honest if asked. "This tablet does things I can't on the iPad," " This tablet has better specs than the iPad," etc. There are a LOT of reasons to want an upgrade from an iPad to something non-Apple.

Re:Cydia please.

[ifiwereasculptor]

That's what I hate about perceptive generous people and their expensive and thoughtful gifts. They always manage to get whatever you need almost right. That "almost" part is enough to leave you slightly uncomfortable with what you have but not enough to invest money into something better, since your gains would now be disproportionate to the amount spent. Just give me a cheap, ugly fucking novelty tie I can throw away and we'll both be a lot happier.

Re:Cydia please.

[node 3]

Don't you know? Around here, if you buy something that someone here doesn't like, and it isn't cheaper than the thing the other person does like, you're an idiot who has more money than brains, and should be ashamed of yourself!

Unless its a Pixel or Glass or Galaxy SIII, but otherwise...

Re:Cydia please.

[Belial6]

For poor friends ( which gets to be less as we get older ) I buy durable presents, but for any family or friends that have enough money to buy their own stuff, I always try my best to buy consumables. That way if it is something they like, they will enjoy it, but if it is something they don't like, they have an easy excuse for it being gone a week later.

Re:Cydia please.

[evilviper]

but for any family or friends that have enough money to buy their own stuff, I always try my best to buy consumables. That way if it is something they like, they will enjoy it, but if it is something they don't like, they have an easy excuse for it being gone a week later.

Good god! You're the idiot buying up and distributing all those fruit cakes every year, aren't you? I wish I could hate you to death...

Re:Cydia please.

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, he said consumables. Fruit cake doesn't qualify.

Re:Cydia please.

[styrotech]

Phew that was lucky. We just give booze. If they don't like our choice, not to worry they can just dump it off at the next party they go to :)

Re:Cydia please.

[Sigg3.net]

Washahable condoms. Rinse, lather, repeat.

Family loves me.

Open Source please

[drinkypoo]

Dear Apple customer,

Please don't give money to Apple, they will use it to dissuade competition.

Re:Open Source please

[MightyYar]

Apple IS competition. There are two very strong platforms for smartphones right now, and they both improve almost daily because of intense competition.

Re:Open Source please

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, but Apple is also anticompetitive. Why fight on their terms when they won't fight fair? Better to support the more-used platform and demonstrate that Apple isn't as hot as its cracked up to be, and force them to innovate, rather than wasting resources playing their game on their terms. Mozilla simply has better things to do than release a crippled version of their product on a technically inferior OS that has to be walled off to prevent it from getting any worse. It's a lose-lose proposition to have a Firefox on iOS.

Re:Open Source please

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, but Apple is also anticompetitive.

So as a customer I don't care.

Re:Open Source please

[Anonymous Coward]

By that measure so is Google. If you want to release a phone with googles apps, you have to be a member of the 'open' hand set alliance. If you're a phone company that wants to fork Android, google won't let you produce an Android phone that's already happened in China. That's entirely anticompetitive

http://marketingland.com/google-acer-android-aliyun-21631

Re:Open Source please

[Anonymous Coward]

No, any company is free to fork Android. Take a look at Amazon. They seem to be perfectly content right now.

Oh wait, you're talking being in the inner circle where they're privy to what's being developed before it's released and dropped to the AOSP. Explain why anyone should help the competition? Putting the code to AOSP is currently miles ahead of most other companies.

Re:Open Source please

[Anonymous Coward]

So as a customer, you enjoy paying the 30% in-app tax for *EVERYTHING* (main reason why Amazon nor Google apps have any purchase links anywhere). Enjoy paying for accessories like routers that are twice as expensive as similar or better featured items.

Re:Open Source please

[ifiwereasculptor]

Not the only competition, though, If that's a factor on your choice of phone, wait a bit and buy comething with Tizen, Ubuntu, Firefox OS etc. Because, from an user's - and society's - point of view, there's good and bad competition. And competition that litigates aggressively to ban competitors, like Apple, or to extort competitors, like Microsoft, is surely bad competition.

Re:Open Source please

[petervandervos]

I have 400+ apps on my iPad, never payed anything for them.

Re:Open Source please

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, but Apple is also anticompetitive

"Competing vigorously" is now "anticompetitive"? I love this Newspeak. Please give us more.

It is not anticompetitive to have a different model from your competition - in fact, having a different business model is how companies compete. If everybody built the same product and sold it the same way, it'd be a pretty stale, non-innovating, marketplace.

What you want is to legislate Apple out of the fight so your "team" at Google can win. What's funny is that "dumping" of product (flooding a market with subsidized 'loss leaders' at below-cost in order to drive competition out and grow your own market share since your competitors can't match your price) is also considered an "anticompetitive" practice, yet nobody squawks about that when Google does it with Android. Giving away Android for free, subsidizing its development with your advertising profits, in order to secure and grow market share for your advertising business is a pretty shady practice... where's your outrage now?

Re:Open Source please

[Anonymous Coward]

Improving on a daily basis? What was the last improvement on iOS? Security and bug fixes, sure. But else it is essentially still the same OS it was when the first ipad was released.

Re:Open Source please

[spire3661]

The problem is, most of us see that Apple has nowhere to go. As we wire up the world, and computers become ubiquitous, no one is going to need a $2000 laptop. Sure they will always hold a spot in the consumer space, but they really are going to experience a Tarkin's Grasp scenario.

Re:Open Source please

[MightyYar]

Did you mean to say "Microsoft"? Apple is the company that has transitioned most of its revenue to mobile devices. Microsoft is the one stuck on the desktop. Even Google is having trouble monetizing mobile, though I think they are playing it right with their phenomenally successful Android.

Re:Open Source please

[MightyYar]

Litigation is a direct result of IP law in this country/world. Don't hate the playa...

Re:Open Source please

[MightyYar]

I'm out of the loop, so forgive me if iOS has stalled. It looks to me that the iPad shipped with iOS 3, and now they are up to 6. It looks like that includes some pretty big features, such as Facetime, Siri, and full multitasking. When I look at the iOS 6 change list, it looks pretty substantial, and it only came out in September.

Re:Open Source please

[robsku]

You might not, I however do and I'm sure I'm not alone.

Ideals

[Nerdfest]

I wish more large developers would do the same. All they need to do is allow an 'install external app' checkbox to make most happy, but that would break the app-store lock-in. Personally, I think your business should rely on people wanting to use it, not being forced to. The app store has value, but to me it's unacceptable to have no alternatives.

Re:Ideals

[obarthelemy]

the risk to the 99% of users who don't care is too high, for only 1% of users who care (though that 1% is very vocal, especially on nerd sites)

Re:Ideals

[Anonymous Coward]

Then there's still something called disabled by default.

Re:Ideals

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess I am one of the 99% of the users who does not care a damn if mozilla even survives - forget coming on iOS or Mac Os.

The damn thing is like Adobe - there are updates every other day... and chrome wallops it easily!

Re:Ideals

[node 3]

What are you talking about? Apple doesn't force anyone to use Apple products. The WebKit requirement is not about forcing people to use Safari (which isn't a discrete product), but about keeping the quality in the iOS App Store higher.

As an iOS user, I benefit from every app that does web rendering will have a relatively consistently high level of quality. I also don't have to worry about a bug in the app becoming a security risk.

It's ok to not value those two things as much as someone else does. I don't have a problem with how Google does it, it's just not to my liking, but I'm glad they're around for those that do prefer things that way.

I do have a big problem with Mozilla, though. They are the biggest bunch of hypocrites on the planet, and they put ideology ahead of quality. As a user, I can't comprehend why I'm expected to make that trade.

Not a problem for Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow it doesn't seem to be a problem for Chrome, even if Google is competing directly against Apple with Android. Their browser still runs on iOS and pretty much all other platforms. They also have iOS apps for pretty much every other service they have (gmail, maps, search, etc)

Sorry Mozilla but sometimes you just have to suck it up. Especially if you want to get on locked mobile devices.

Re:Not a problem for Chrome

[Predius]

Well, save for the fact that 'Chrome' on iOS is just a skin over Apple's WebKit with the slower JS engine Apple 'graciously' lets apps us vs the faster one their browser can access on the same device.

Re:Not a problem for Chrome

[node 3]

I think you mean the one that has direct memory access in Safari vs the sandboxed one open to other apps to prevent security issues from affecting the platform.

Re:Not a problem for Chrome

[_xeno_]

You mean "writable executable pages," not directory memory access. The reason Safari is faster than UIWebView is because it can use a JIT to compile JavaScript into native code. Doing this requires the ability to create a writable page of memory that can be written.

Apps in the app store aren't allowed to do this. iOS loads the app into memory, marks all the text section pages as read only, marks all the data section pages as no-execute, and only then passes control to the program. This means that an App store program can't run the JIT because it can't create a writable page that is executable.

However, even given that, I find it impossible that there's no way Apple could give UIWebView access to the JIT. It would just take some amount of effort to architect it and write it, and the end result would probably make their own Safari more secure, but why bother doing that when you can just make every other browser on the platform be unnecessarily slower?

Re:Not a problem for Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

WebKit is not Apple's and as a point, Safari is just a skin over WebKit.

Re:Not Objective C

[tehniobium]

So, by that reasoning, Opera is written in Objective C, seen as it does have an iOS version?

Also, Firefox can hardly be said to be written in XUL, it's more than likely written in C/C++ and uses XUL internally for user interfaces.

Meanwhile

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, in Firefox OS, alternate browsers will thrive.

http://samuelsidler.com/2013/03/firefox-os-and-browser-choice/

Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm running chrome on my iOS device right now. I must be missing something about the inability to run third party browsers.

Re:Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

Third party browser engines, actually. Both Chrome and Safari are based on Webkit, whereas FF is based on Gecko.

Firefox - all negative

[Anonymous Coward]

Many years ago I used Firefox almost exclusively and IE just for banking. Firefox rapidly started losing its appeal when Chrome came out. Then just last week the copy of Firefox on my work computer suddenly started hanging for no clear reason. I did a reset, then upgraded it, and it was still non-functional (JS errors). I could have spent an hour or two tracking down the problem but I realized I just didn't need it anymore. Exported my bookmarks and uninstalled it. I used it off and on for almost ten years but at this point I will probably never use it again. There was a time when Firefox was awesome but now it's just a sad example of "too many cooks". Note that Microsoft ripped off Chrome's interface for their latest version if IE. That speaks volumes.

Re:Firefox - all negative

[ricklow]

Counterexample:
My employer has deployed a heavy-handed security environment on all Windows workstations along with an antique version of IE. Chrome consistently crashes and hangs to the point that it's unusable. Firefox runs like a champ and has become my browser of choice at work.

Anyone can find a single sample to prove anything.

Re:Firefox - all negative

[lucm]

My employer has deployed a heavy-handed security environment on all Windows workstations along with an antique version of IE.

Forcing IE5 or IE6 for security reasons is, at least, unusual.

Re:Not Objective C

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox is written in XUL

So that's why it's the shittiest browser in world.

OK then...

[sootman]

... will they allow other browsers on their new mobile OS?

Re:OK then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. Not only that but they're spreading themselves far too thin. Focus on making desktop Firefox better than Chrome, and worry about market share there before looking for crumbs on Andorid, iOS or even worse, their own smart phone platform.

Re:OK then...

[girlinatrainingbra]

re: ... will they allow other browsers on their new mobile OS?
:>)
Why wouldn't they? That's the whole premise of free software: the freedom to be able to do what one wants and needs, not just the "free" aspect of its cost being zero. If it's possible to build a browser in javascript or java, then you could run a browser in a browser. And you could run a browser in the mozilla mobile OS. [warning, i am not a spokesgirl for mozilla, firefox, godzilla, gojira, or any other software projects other than MyOwn ( (tm), moi) ]

Re:OK then...

[Anonymous Coward]

They've neither forbidden it nor made it extra difficult, though it may not be easy.
Have a look at the comments over at http://samuelsidler.com/2013/03/firefox-os-and-browser-choice/.

Re:OK then...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yes and no.

Yes, because you can write a browser in HTML + CSS + Javascript

No, because you'd have to write a browser in HTML + CSS + Javascript.

No, because the browser IS the OS, so changing the browser would mean changing the OS.

Yes, because they'll let you change the OS, both in the sense of installing something different on your physical device, but also in the sense of changing the opensource code.

Re: OK then...

[Anonymous Coward]

does chrome OS allow other browsers? If the browser is the desktop, does it have to be replaceable? This doesn't seem the same as Microsofts tacked-on browser, which they called the desktop, in order to avoid monopoly charges.

Re:OK then...

[93 Escort Wagon]

If it was possible to run a browser in a browser, then you could do it on iOS too.

Yo, dawg! I heard you liked web browsing, so I... Oh never mind.

Re:OK then...

[roca]

The comments here are explain this pretty well:
http://samuelsidler.com/2013/03/firefox-os-and-browser-choice/#comment-183

Summary:
FirefoxOS is roughly an Android kernel, Gecko-based userspace, and the Gaia HTML+JS homescreen apps. Anyone is free to replace the Gecko-based userspace with something else, e.g. a Webkit-based userspace. We (Mozilla) are assisting with this by standardizing the phone-specific HTML+JS APIs so they can be reimplemented by others, by trying to ensure Gaia doesn't have unnecessary dependencies on non-standard stuff, and of course by making everything under our control open source. Your OS should be able to run FirefoxOS apps and we have open-sourced our app store so you might even be able to run our app store (I'm not sure). Apple obviously provides nothing comparable for iOS!

However, if you replace Gecko then the result isn't really FirefoxOS any more and you wouldn't be allowed to use the Firefox trademark (nor would it be appropriate for you to do so).

If you're asking for the ability to install an alternative native-code Web engine alongside Gecko on FFOS, the answer is no; giving Gecko sole control of FFOS userspace simplifies a lot of problems and increases performance and security. See http://robert.ocallahan.org/2013/03/canonicals-new-mir-display-server-and.html for more.

Re:OK then...

[hawk]

Well, if emacs can get an editor http://developers.slashdot.org/story/13/02/16/0251239/evil-almost-full-vim-implementation-in-emacs-reaches-10, why can't firefox have a browser?

:)

hawk

Re:OK then...

[roca]

To elaborate on that last point: supporting native apps or a different engine in FFOS alongside Gecko would require us to write extra code to support new APIs specifically for that --- the APIs and integration points you'd need simply don't exist in FFOS currently. In contrast, the infrastructure for native apps already exists and all Apple has to do to support alternative browser engines is relax some of their rules.

Re:OK then...

[foniksonik]

So the answer is no. In FirefoxOS there will be only one browser engine. They are providing access to the API (for compatibility with apps) and kernel but after that you're on your own and will be distributing your own fork and btw the Firefox browser won't work on it either unless you also fork that and roll your own as well.

Re:OK then...

[BZ]

There is no "Firefox browser" on FirefoxOS. There is a web browser UI (written in HTML+JS+CSS) that uses whatever the system browser engine is.

As roca said, there is nothing in the design of FirefoxOS that prevents someone from dropping in a different browser engine as long as it implements the relevant specs that apps rely on. But then this browser engine would then be used not only for the "web" but also for the various apps on the device. And only one browser engine can be used at any given time.

Re:Not Objective C

[obarthelemy]

It's not so much about language: you have a choice of several. It's about the rendering engine: Apple only allow their own on the platform.

Chrome (and Opera Mobile, if it's available for iOS, not sure) use Safari's rendering engine; only the user interface is different.

Opera Mini (as opposed to Mobile) does its rendering on Opera's servers, which then send over a compressed and simplified version of the page, and apparently that's allowed... or not, and maybe Opera Mini also uses Safari's renderer.

Umm..

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is hardly the only game in town on the desktop... hardly a day goes by when I'm reading tech websites full of uptight Apple fans who declare that they have not touched a Windows PC in so many years.

Re:Umm..

[mabhatter654]

Try to buy a non-MS machine at any retail store other than Apple..... Yup... That's called MONOPOPLY . Microsoft's position is more absolute than when the Feds broke up Standard Oil or Ma Bell.

When I go to Newegg and punch up Desktop Operating Systems the ONLY results are MICROSOFT.

Re:Umm..

[Frosty Piss]

Try to buy a non-MS machine at any retail store other than Apple..... Yup... That's called MONOPOPLY

No, it's not.

Re:Umm..

[guardian-ct]

Er... ok, I bought an Android phone at Walmart recently. No problem. You're mistaking "mass market" for "monopoly". If you're looking for something that only a few people in an area will want to buy (operating system software they don't have experience with), big box stores are not the place to get them.

There are a few companies that tried pre-loading GNU/linux, but almost nobody bought those. In most cases it was cheaper to buy an MS computer, and then put whatever you wanted on it, than to pay more for a similarly speced linux machine.

By the way, trying to buy a free desktop operating system at a retail software store like Newegg will always be difficult. There's this problem with not making a profit when no money is paid.

Re:Umm..

[serviscope_minor]

No, it's not.

Yeah, pretty much is. A monopoly does not have to be absolute for it to be called a monopoly.

Re:Umm..

[umghhh]

Indeed if you take a definition of monopoly then Apple is not one and I do not think they neither want to be nor stand a chance of becoming one. The argument the GP brought is silly as the described situation is not a monopoly (other vendor is there even if only one). The situation is not as straight forward as you point out either. It is not the machine that I buy - today I think it is safe to say that majority of the devices public buys has a pre-installed OS. This in itself is not bad but then some of them have made provisions so that it stays so. You may argue that this still is OK after HW like this is traditionally sold with specific OS. The software that runs on top however is usually bought freely where one wants or in quite rare cases (if you look at customer base) can be written by and owner of particular piece of HW. This is actively fought against by Apple. One may still argue (as with OS) that that is OK but is it really? How many smartphones do you expect person to have? I mean if I buy one then normally I would have enough thus by simple act of choosing a mobile phone vendor I select also vendor of products that are completely unrelated to it. This is still not a monopoly but it is not what one wants it to be and it is strangely close to what some call natural monopoly. In our case it is not a water pipe delivering water to your house but a device that you bought that delivers different services some of them restricted to only one vendor. There is a difference here of course - in old good days having said pipe connected meant you could not buy water from anybody else than owner of the pipe. Now you are not forced to do that anymore at least not in places where a commie state supported market competitions on utilities too. Assuming (I do) that such market distortion is desired to ensure that companies and corporations behave one would wander whether buying a phone or a tablet constitutes a situation like one with water pipe owned by a water company. I usually own such piece of HW/SW for 6+ years (yes I threw away my t-39 when smart phones already won). Even if you practically own such phone or tablet max 2y - still once you bought it you are limited. To me it justifies gov or rather law makers intervention.

Re:Umm..

[Anonymous Coward]

Try to buy a non-MS machine at any retail store other than Apple..... Yup... That's called MONOPOPLY

No, it's not.

Yes, it is.

Apple is good

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple takes care of me -- I don't have to thiwnk about words like standards, or openess, to see the content Apple provides. All my friends like Apple too. Apple is the only company whom provides a user esperience -- I don't need anything else -- people think I'm cool.

Re:Apple is good

[Anonymous Coward]

Your sarcasm makes me believe you are likely a rather insufferable person.

Re:Apple is good

[Anonymous Coward]

Your intolerance could lead one to believe you have objectionable relationships with sheep - or should I say Apple users. it's easy to tweek the nose of one so easily offended. Apple acts as parent, and you like it -- so much the shame for you -- others appreciate living free.

Re:Apple is good

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple takes care of me -- I don't have to thiwnk about words like standards, or openess, to see the content Apple provides. All my friends like Apple too. Apple is the only company whom provides a user esperience -- I don't need anything else -- people think I'm cool.

You should more like a fan-droid sheeple to me. Enjoy life as a product for Google to abuse and sell at their convenience. There's word for that - slave.

Re:Apple is good

[SuperKendall]

Apple takes care of me -- I don't have to thiwnk about words like standards, or openess

You say this of the company that gave Webkit momentum, pushed HTML5 heavily, bases an OS around BSD, and has (for most intents and purposes) killed Flash.

Huh.

News?

[caspy7]

How is this news?
a) Why would Mozilla build a browser Apple has already said it won't allow?
b) This same stance has been repeated by Mozilla multiple times.

Switch

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is why I switched to chrome.

Critical Mass Needed

[caspy7]

Firefox may be open source, but Mozilla has demonstrated their need to divert resources where they count the most. This is, for instance, why Firefox is no longer developed on Maemo.

So beyond the potential political or legal ramifications, the sliver of market share that Cydia possesses is simply not worth the engineering effort. And the gamble that releasing it for iPhone would somehow influence Apple to allow third-party browsers, given Apple's stubborn history, would likely be foolhardy.

aside: I have an iPhone and would love if Firefox existed on it.

Samsung Style

[Anonymous Coward]

I said it before and I said it again! Tim Cook has to make licenced mac clones again! A samsung licenced macbook air with ultra high defintion retina is worth the wait!

Now keep calm and carry on. Every day new patents expire, new processors are made, and more new inventions are created. Samsung will be best friends with Apple again one day!

Re:Samsung Style

[Anonymous Coward]

Why make licensed mac clones, when you can simply buy an unlicensed knockoff from HP?

http://www8.hp.com/us/en/ad/envy-x2/overview.html

That the line of HP notebooks that are obvious ripoffs of the Macbook Pro & Macbook Air models would be branded as the "Envy" line is so deliciously rich that I didn't even believe they were real when I first saw them. I was convinced they had to be the result of some engineer at HP managing to sneak a big troll past some clueless managers.

Re:Not Objective C

[mister_playboy]

Opera is not available on iOS. Opera Mini is available, but it is not a browser strictly speaking.

Once Opera converts from Presto to Webkit it may have an iOS version.

what about windows phone and the win 8 app store

[Joe_Dragon]

what about windows phone and the win 8 app store they may hit the same laws.

Mozilla has been in decline due to poor dev

[jnull]

I switched to Firefox so many years ago for innovative features, but both Chrome and Safari have beat them out in performance and integrated capabilities. How many BS Firefox updates were there last year with nothing significant delivered. Once big fan and now I don't care what system they are on. Perhaps they should pull back and focus where they may be able to be good again. (my .02)

Re:Mozilla has been in decline due to poor dev

[Osgeld]

bs updates that I never noticed really effected me!

why does it bother you so much, do you keep score?

Re:Mozilla has been in decline due to poor dev

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, no. They haven't. You just don't like Firefox anymore. They've still been innovating, and working hard. Just because you aren't paying attention doesn't give you the right to pretend they're "in decline". Nor that they don't have as many "integrated capabilities", which is wildly inaccurate.

In fact, one could argue that Chrome is in almost as much disarray. They have numerous bugs that aren't being solved, in favor of working on things that sound cool on paper, but aren't really all that innovative or useful. But you wouldn't know that, because you aren't paying attention to anything except what you want to hear.

Re:Mozilla has been in decline due to poor dev

[jnull]

No need to attack. I stated my personal evaluation and decision. As far as decline: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=1&qpsp=2008&qpnp=6&qptimeframe=Y It's clear they peaked in market share a couple years ago. I believe it is due to quality more than platform integration. You can do your own performance evaluation, but I imagine you will find greater memory consumption with Firefox. Options are good. I wish them well.

Re:Mozilla has been in decline due to poor dev

[Anonymous Coward]

When your personal evaluation is wrong there is every need to attack.
The memshrink project continues to deliver something very significant. Not knowing about it is no excuse.

Re:Mozilla has been in decline due to poor dev

[drinkypoo]

How many BS Firefox updates were there last year with nothing significant delivered.

You know, those of us who work in IT would appreciate it if people would learn to appreciate it when there's maintenance and stuff doesn't break.

Re:Mozilla has been in decline due to poor dev

[serviscope_minor]

I stated my personal evaluation and decision.

Well, in fairness, some of your reasons were really silly. All browsers receive regular updates. For some reason this bothers you more on firefox than chrome, but there's no reason to care. The "incompatibile extensino version" thing disappeared ages ago. These days, a firefox update is no different from a chrome or safari one.

Re:Not Objective C

[mrbester]

Chrome on iOS uses the same WebKit version as Safari?

Yes.

[caspy7]

Anyone is welcome to make their own alternate browser for Firefox OS. (Mozilla would surely encourage it it.)

Still not Chrome

[caspy7]

True, but it's still not really Chrome as it doesn't use their version of webkit or their JS engine.
Just a skin.

Re:Still not Chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

With plenty of "chromey" features on top of it. Like bookmark sync, settings sync, etc. Claiming that the difference is as simple as what your buttons look like is disingenuous.

For the bulk of users, what "rendering engine" the browser uses is irrelevant, anyway.

And Android Rules

[kilodelta]

In terms of shipped mobile operating systems, most of the universe out there right now is Android.

Now Android has it's own issues - namely upgrade paths. But it does run your choice of browser without complaint.

I remember when I got my Android phone - I worked with a bunch of iPhone users. I used to listen to them complain about they couldn't install cool app x, and said I had no trouble putting on my Android phone.

Re:And Android Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

"Most of the universe" also recognize Call Me Maybe before they recognize anything by Beethoven. Most of the universe believe in the flying spaghetti monster. Most of the universe runs Windows. Most of the universe drinks Coors. Most of the universe is full of morons with little to no idea of what they're doing. Somehow I take some level of comfort in not subscribing to what is right and good according to most of the universe. Most Fandroids I know can do nothing more than root their phone but act like they actually are part of the geek culture. I could teach my mom how to root a phone in about 15 minutes. It's not a big accomplishment.
 
As for Firefox not being on iOS? I see that as a positive for iOS if nothing else. Firefox is highly overrated.

Re:And Android Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

You are an idiot and a liar.

Re:And Android Rules

[BasilBrush]

I remember when I got my Android phone - I worked with a bunch of iPhone users. I used to listen to them complain about they couldn't install cool app x, and said I had no trouble putting on my Android phone.

In your dreams.

Re:And Android Rules

[Dave Cole]

So by your excellent logic, the blackberry OS and windows phone 7/8 must be way better than iOS because almost no one uses it.

Re:And Android Rules

[jo_ham]

Out of interest, what cool apps?

Re:And Android Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

No, what I said was that using "most of the universe" is a poor measure of value. I feel good in not using that metric in my decision making. As far as Blackberry or WinPhone? I really don't know. I haven't used a Blackberry in a couple years and the last time I used a Microsoft mobile platform was WinMo 5. Certainly the new Windows Phone looks like they've stepped their game up and I know a few users who do like it. I'm sure it's not too bad off.

Re:And Android Rules

[Anonymous Coward]

and then everyone stood up and cheered for the exalted glory of our Holy Googleness.

No wait, you're a fat fantasist fuckwit.

Re:Not Objective C

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, although with a less optimized javascript engine, as the more optimized Nitro version is only available in native Safari, at least without using a jailbreak tweak.

Re:Good riddance to an anti-consumer product

[EmperorArthur]

Must.... Resist.... Urge... To... Respond.... To.... Troll.....

Competition Laws

[andersh]

the fact that Apple forces all apps to be purchased through their own app store just as well be seen as anti-competitive?

No, not according to the more pro-active EU competition/monopoly laws or similar US laws. Apple's market share is too small to fall under "monopoly" in any or all European countries, where the distribution is quite varied from nation to nation. Scandinavia is not at all representative of the European handset market as a whole, my dear neighbor.

Furthermore the fact that a product only supports its manufacturer's services is not a violation of any doctrine here or there. The cases involving Microsoft has confused the general public, it's not illegal to only provide your own service/software/accessories. It's when that affects the general market to such a degree that it become detrimental to competition in general. US laws treats and views this differently than the EU does.

In the EU a monopoly is by its very definition seen as detrimental to consumers and must be acted upon. Until Apple constitutes a monopoly or is the dominant force it's not realistic to imagine any action by the US or EU. Apple's great influence does not constitute market power. At the moment Google's Android has the clear majority of consumers in their hand, or rather vice versa.

If the EU force Apple to have a browser ballot on iOS, I do believe Steve Jobs will be turning ever so violently in his grave

What? The man who forced Microsoft to settle [the lawsuit Apple brought against them] in return for buying Apple shares, making Office for Mac and bringing Internet Explorer to Mac OS!

No, I'm sorry, Safari is just a "pet project", Apple needed it to for their O/S to stay valid - and avoid Microsoft's grip. The very reason Microsoft was forced to open up by the EU was because their own browser skewed and hindered the market from developing. WebKit is an open source project, as Google and now even Opera proves. Apple doesn't have any greater advantage than say Google Chrome on Mac OS X. What possible arguments do you have?

Re:Competition Laws

[mellyra]

No, not according to the more pro-active EU competition/monopoly laws or similar US laws. Apple's market share is too small to fall under "monopoly" in any or all European countries, where the distribution is quite varied from nation to nation. Scandinavia is not at all representative of the European handset market as a whole, my dear neighbor.

Monopoly questions tend depend mostly on the definition of "the market" - you are talking of the "handset market" which is the view someone who would not like Apple to be a monopolist would naturally choose, others would prefer to talk about "the smartphone market" or (even better) "the tablet market".

With some effort you will always find a market that is narrow enough to rationalize regulation on grounds of a monopoly- the question is whether you want to, and that's a political question first and foremost.

(Under US regulations this is a bit harder as there monopolies in themselves are legal and you have to show that the monopolist abuses his position to the detriment of the customers or competitors.)

Re:Competition Laws

[Anonymous Coward]

With some effort you will always find a market that is narrow enough to rationalize regulation on grounds of a monopoly- the question is whether you want to, and that's a political question first and foremost.

That market would be the one where Apple never sued any Android manufacturer over Android devices looking too much like Apples products in the same market.

Why do I feel that sometimes...

[thatbloke83]

...were I to own an Apple device, it would be like living in North Korea?

Re:Why do I feel that sometimes...

[BasilBrush]

Because you're a drama queen with no sense of proportion?

Re:Why do I feel that sometimes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you've never owned one, and you get your perspective exclusively from pseudo-crusader nerds on Slashdot.

Re:Why do I feel that sometimes...

[gnasher719]

...were I to own an Apple device, it would be like living in North Korea?

You are confused. It's Samsung, and it's not North Korea, it's South Korea. Apple devices make you feel like Southern California. Which is on an altogether different continent on the other side of the world.

Re:Why do I feel that sometimes...

[drinkypoo]

Apple devices make you feel like Southern California.

They really don't, because southern california has hookers and blow.

Re:Why do I feel that sometimes...

[shutdown -p now]

Not quite - you can't leave North Korea, but you can always throw your iPhone away.

Re:Why do I feel that sometimes...

[Anonymous Coward]

What does Apple have to do with SoCal?

Re:Not Objective C

[Anonymous Coward]

Chrome on iOS uses the same WebKit version as Safari?

Yes - but with a worse javascript engine (only Apple's javascript engine is optimised on iOS) and you also get to send all your data and browsing habits to Google for Google to sell.

No-one sensible would use Chrome over Safari on iOS.

Who cares?

[DavidinAla]

As an iPhone user, I can't see why I'd possibly want Firefox. We've really reached the point that browsers are commodities for almost every user. I know some people are so in love with the idea of user-selectible choice that they can't imagine that a unified user experience is a good thing, but for the vast majority it's the best way to go. If you truly have some specialized need for a browser function that doesn't come with the WebKit-based Safari, you're probably already using another platform anyway. This just isn't the big deal it was back in the day when some companies thought they could control the web by controlling the browser. But some people haven't figured that out.

Re:Who cares?

[Dwedit]

My browser blocks ads and scripts, customizes pages with Greasemonkey scripts, and removes tracking elements on pages. The built-in Safari doesn't do anything like that.

Re:Who cares?

[foniksonik]

And those things have nothing to do with the rendering engine or JS engine.

Mozilla could absolutely provide something that could support those features on iOS.

BTW Safari does support extensions and has an adblocker and user script support available via 3rd party, as does Chrome. Clearly you haven't cred to look at options in 2-3 years, being smug and all.

http://safariadblock.com/

http://extensions.apple.com/

https://github.com/os0x/NinjaKit

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

An Iphone user doesn't understand why people enjoy choice. He seems unable to discern why others make different decisions and would feel more comfortable if others just went along with what is obviously best.

Film at 11.

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

My browser blocks ads and scripts, customizes pages with Greasemonkey scripts, and removes tracking elements on pages. The built-in Safari doesn't do anything like that.

Try iCab.

Re:Who cares?

[DavidinAla]

You're not only a moron, but you're rude as well. Interesting.

Re:Who cares?

[robsku]

"Unified user experience" vs. "User-selectible choice" is like "Capitalism" vs. "Socialism" - Everyone with half-brain can see that best 1st word countries (USA not being one of them) have mixed system, and that's how it should work here too.

P.S. What if you company or school mandated students to buy, for example, iPads?

Re:Who cares?

[robsku]

I want my game to Apple App Store, ok? Sure, just use our game engine.

Ok.

Right?

Re:Who cares?

[robsku]

For stating the truth about those here who actually think that way?

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, for ridiculing someone just because they have a different point of view.

There are polite ways to break people out of their rigid thinking habits, you know.

Re:Good riddance to an anti-consumer product

[Anonymous Coward]

How is that a troll? Or are you referring to your own post?

Re:Good riddance to an anti-consumer product

[Anonymous Coward]

wow all those thousands of webkit browsers that let you do innovative things like run flash on a fucking computer

GO HOME TROLL

no, not any ridick excuses for FFox OS here!

[girlinatrainingbra]

re: Interesting how you were prepared to make the most ridiculous excuses for Firefox OS though
.
??? You must be mixing me up with someone else. I was neither "prepared to make the most ridick excuses for Firefox OS" nor "making the most ridick excuses..." nor "making ANY excuses for FFox OS". The GP post to this is my first post on this topic, so must be thinking of someone else's beliefs or belief statements.

Re:Good riddance to an anti-consumer product

[neiras]

I can feed trolls with the best of 'em. Burn, karma, burn!

The fact that the rendering engine would be Gecko on their PC and WebKit on their iPhone just doesn't fucking matter.

Apple limits third party IOS developers to UIWebview, while Safari gets to use the Nitro JIT javascript engine. It's an automatic performance disadvantage for any aftermarket browser. That fucking matters.

It really shows that Mozilla's focus is on themselves and software developers, not on the consumer end user, who has been running Firefox on their PC for years now and Safari on their iPhone for years now and just wants a Firefox interface and bookmark syncing on their iPhone.

No, it shows that Mozilla is smart enough to recognize and avoid pitched battles with Apple. Why fight to have a weird mutant version of their flagship project on a closed device, damaging their brand with artificially limited performance and a rendering engine that doesn't act like Firefox?

If that is Mozilla's focus, then they don't belong on iOS and good riddance.

Mozilla's focus is on opening up the web. You're right - they don't "belong" on closed, controlled iOS. They will, however, try to encourage Apple to let them in.

On iOS, the end user is at the top of the hierarchy, and software developers and content producers all work for the user. The user already has an HTML5 renderer in their iPhone, they already have a TCP/IP stack. You do not need to replace them to build a browser, and in fact, it is much better security that you can't replace them. That is what is best for the consumer: a secure renderer that is highly-optimized specifically for their device.

Who decides what's in your interest? If it's Apple, then Apple is at the top of the hierarchy, not users as you say.

As a user myself, I value the ability to use Firefox over Chrome on my Android device. With Android, I can decide what's in my interests. The defaults work for "most consumers", and for everyone else there is a measure of freedom.

There are plenty of reasons that software monocultures are bad, and Google is your friend there.

There are hundreds of 3rd party browsers on iOS, many with very innovative features. Like Skyfire, which converts Flash Video to ISO standard video on a server and essentially enables you to run Flash on iPhone or iPad. There are browsers that are exploring lots of gestures, or deep social integration.

Cute little user-interface experiments are one thing, but that's all niche-market small time stuff. Deep social integration and gestures? Tee hee. Calling a UIWebview wrapper a browser is kind of endearing.

Mozilla is missing out on all of that because they are pouty, entitled developers who want their feet rubbed and cheeks kissed before they deign to bless us with their bloated, mangled code.

You realize that Firefox is the best browser on the memory usage front, and near tops in performance right? If your gut feeling about Mozilla is based on a 2006-era opinion, you might want to look at what they've done lately.

And of course, Mozilla knows better than Apple what Apple users want. As if.

Most users want options and the ability to use their devices as they see fit. Mozilla has only ever supported users' rights. Apple can't say that.

And finally, Mozilla's hypocrisy: note that the one and only HTML renderer on Firefox OS is Gecko. And Firefox OS has zero 3rd party browsers as of right now.

Hey now, third party browsers can just wrap Gecko (actually, it's more like just opening an IFRAME, since the UI is all HTML.) In your world, using the system renderer is a good thing, right? What are you complaining about? /s

In all seriousness though, it could be done with some work. I

Re:boo fucking hoo. fine stay away

[beelsebob]

Given that a typical netbook is slower than an iPhone, and significantly slower than an iPad, it's maybe not such an issue.

What is unfriendly regarding thrid party browsers?

[angel'o'sphere]

Looking at the app store I see roughly 2 dozens of browsers for iPads/iPhones. Most of them iOS only. So independend developers easily can make a browser for iOS ... and even make money from it, but Mozilla can't?
Sorry this claim is ridiculous.

I just wish...

[C0dey]

... the iPad browser didn't crash so much on me...

In the only metric changing, Apple not monopoly

[SuperKendall]

Android market share seems to be progressively taking more and more Apple market share

In that case there's even less of a call to force Apple to provide alternate browser choice, since overall they still have no-where near a majority of the market nor a trend to do so.

Re:In the only metric changing, Apple not monopoly

[elashish14]

Indeed. But I would sure hate if someone forced me to buy an Ipad.

Re:Not Objective C

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. It has no choice but to use the Webkit that is shipped on iOS.

Re:What is unfriendly regarding thrid party browse

[jo_ham]

Looking at the app store I see roughly 2 dozens of browsers for iPads/iPhones. Most of them iOS only. So independend developers easily can make a browser for iOS ... and even make money from it, but Mozilla can't?
Sorry this claim is ridiculous.

The limitation is that those browsers must use the Webkit built into iOS, so Chrome was an easy one - they already use Webkit. All of those other browsers also use it, but Firefox uses Gecko as their engine.

They just don't see the need to create an iOS version that would be considerably different to what they currently have.

No browser file uploads support

[Anonymous Coward]

Is kind of obvious that apple developed a strategy to prevent developers from doing web applications that require file uploads to work with iOS, while the android web browser supports file uploads, on the other hand safari on ios doesn't.

One can think that they want developers forced to create native applications and pay for inclusion on the appstore, so another browser that adds missing functionality missing on default browser can be a threat.

Beside the poor hardware on first incarnations of iPhone, one can also think that the exclusion of flash support on ios was due for the same strategy of preventing developers easily doing interactive web applications that work from the browser, people started taking side with steve jobs decisions, but it could have all been part of a buisness strategy.

GOOD.

[TravisPlace]

Good. As much as I like Firefox on the desktop, it has even become horribly slow, even on a decently powered PC. I would hate to imagine how bad it would run on an iPhone or iPad, and how fast it would consume my battery.

Re:GOOD.

[robsku]

Good in my opinion too, but for other reasons.

Re:What is unfriendly regarding thrid party browse

[Anonymous Coward]

Looking at the app store I see roughly 2 dozens of browsers for iPads/iPhones. Most of them iOS only. So independend developers easily can make a browser for iOS ... and even make money from it, but Mozilla can't? Sorry this claim is ridiculous.

You should be careful calling something ridiculous when it so easily backfire due to cluelessness. Hint: None of those "browsers" you see in your store are allowed to bring their own rendering engine or their own javascript engine to iOS, they have to use what is built in. Basically making them just gui wrappers to the built in iOS browser, not separate alternative browsers. This is what Mozilla don't like.

Re:Not Objective C

[Anonymous Coward]

Chrome use the same webkit. As in, the libraries, the runtime, the entire thing is Safari. CHROME IS SAFARI.

You know how you can add "skins" to firefox, chrome and opera? 10 years ago, it was fun to install firefox on other computers and change the skin to look like IE and change the icon to a big blue "E.

The Chrome or opera browsers are the exact same thing, Just a skin over safari.

Re:boo fucking hoo. fine stay away

[serviscope_minor]

I'm not commenting on the relative performance of the two processors, but there are some awfully strange results in geekbench.

For example on the iPhone stdlib copy is faster than wither reading OR writing. That seems a little odd to me.

Also the iPhone has very fast image bluring but really slow dot products. That strikes me as very strange.

Also, the primality test comes under floating point performance which is a really weird choice.

This sounds kind of silly

[Bartles]

Restaurant: We don't like people with glasses eating here, so were going to be unfriendly to them.

People with glasses: We don't like your unfriendly ways towards people with glasses, so we won't eat at your restaurant.

Restaurant: Thanks.

Yep

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the only way to counterbalance the sinking market share, shun the growing market.

Firefox Nazi

[Pec]

No soup for you. One year.

Fine with me!

[alphastar]

I'll just continue to use Safari and Chrome on my iPhone. I plan on swapping out to something with Android in a few years anyway.

Troll mod for parent comment?

[jo_ham]

Out of interest, what cool apps?

Troll mod for this comment? Really?

Can someone point out to me exactly what part of the above comment is at all trolling?

and...

[smash]

.... nothing of value was lost.

Re:What is unfriendly regarding thrid party browse

[BZ]

If you're willing to deliver a browser with no JIT and all the same web rendering bugs as Mobile Safari, doing that on iOS is easy enough.

It's when you think that you want to do better than that that you run into trouble.

Re:What is unfriendly regarding thrid party browse

[robsku]

Because mozilla want's to keep their browser theirs, not using iOS 3rd party accessible version of rendering & JavaScript engine. Even if they actually had access to optimized webkit/NitroJS Safari use they won't want that. Now you complain that someone doesn't want to change their product to something else because you won't get it on iOS?

Re:What is unfriendly regarding thrid party browse

[robsku]

Looking at the app store I see roughly 2 dozens of browsers for iPads/iPhones. Most of them iOS only. So independend developers easily can make a browser for iOS ... and even make money from it, but Mozilla can't?
Sorry this claim is ridiculous.

The limitation is that those browsers must use the Webkit built into iOS, so Chrome was an easy one - they already use Webkit.

They are also limited to inferior Webkit/Javascript engine while Safari uses optimized (like NitroJS for JavaScript while inferior javascript engine is available for 3rd party apps.

Re:offtopic mod for parent comment?

[jo_ham]

Out of interest, what cool apps?

Troll mod for this comment? Really?

Can someone point out to me exactly what part of the above comment is at all trolling?

An offtopic mod for a comment directly asking how a comment about identifying mobile apps that are not being available iOS, in a thread about iOS apps and availability of said apps, could be modded troll?

If this carries on, I'm going to start getting the feeling that people around here just don't like me.

Re:What is unfriendly regarding thrid party browse

[angel'o'sphere]

No, misunderstood me.
I was of the opinion that Apple does not allow third party rendering engines was FUD. (Like the claim you may not use interpreted languages on iOS, which was only true in the first year of the AppStore is now long outdated)

After all most posters here only linked "claims" about the requirement of Web-Kit from other news sites, no one linked an official Apple statement (on a first glance such a requirement from Apple makes not much sense. After philosophing a bit about it however I could imagine one or two reasons ...)
I only have old developer notes as PDFs on my Mac, in which nothing about web kit is stated, so I could not quickly verify this my self.

Now you complain that someone doesn't want to change their product to something else because you won't get it on iOS?

I don't really care about Mozilla, I don't use it anymore since it automatically blocks itself from Flash and other Plugins when it thinks it is unsafe (this might be the right approach for the general public, but is not for me. When I'm developing a web site and like to check my own page, Firefox suddenly says: uh, oh, Flash is outdated: update? Yes/No? [Forcing me to close ALL OTHER browsers]).