Microsoft Removes Google’s Chrome Installer from the Windows Store
theverge.com
theverge.com
Why is this restriction allowed? Isn't this a violation of the browser choice consent decree, or has that expired?
Edit: I see this is "Windows S", which inherits from the failed "Windows RT" the attempt to jam everything into the walled garden of the store. This is unlikely to work and I hope it doesn't; only Apple have succeeded in doing this so far, but a world where every application developer has to give 30% to the platform feudal lord and suffer arbitary restrictions on development is going to have a lot less innovation.
I use quotes as I much prefer the ARM Chromebooks I've owned over the years to any other computer I've used, regardless of price.
Thin, light, cheap and with battery life for millenia.
Microsoft is trying to address this now with running x86 code on Snapdragons (which may well be too little too late), but at the time it would have been trivial for them to build a basic laptop with a 15" form factor and three full days of battery life. I'd have thrown money at that.
I disagree. I think it's a fantastic idea. Windows has a lot of legacy software, which I'd guess is mostly closed source.
If you want to have a laptop with all-day battery life, but run the application from your defunct vendor that's x86 only, then this is a great solution.
For Microsoft, it's the best of both worlds. Lower power consumption of ARM and all the backward compatibility of x86, in one piece of (low cost) hardware. The only other ARM productivity OS (IMHO) is Chrome OS, but it's lacking backward compatibility with pretty much everything. Unless you're going to use a Linux chroot, but that's something only power users will do and not at scale.
The potential of this combination (ARM+x86 emulation) is so huge that Intel is threatening Microsoft/Qualcomm over it. [1]
[1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/06/intel...
Absolutely I think it's great for all the reasons stated above, I just think it would have been a lot better if Windows RT either would have had this at the time (I realize it wasn't ready then and must have been a massive job), or would have been less restricted with the advertised caveat that apps would need to be compiled with ARM support - somewhat akin to how Apple managed the whole PowerPC -> Intel transition with universal binaries back in the day.
Is this real Windows or a crippled app store only version?
Honestly, I think if they would just buy Nox (https://www.bignox.com/) and bake it into Windows 10/S as a side channel in the Windows store they would start to control the PC narrative again.
I'm currently on a slick Dell XPS 13, using the linux subsystem _and_ android apps through NOX without issue. This is also my dev machine and I get 9 hours consistently.
As to what they'll fix/implement when. I only have my opinion which is - Microsoft has been chasing this dragon for sometime and they love to redefine and confuse terms as they go.
This link is the root of my confirmation bias though -> https://www.thurrott.com/windows/windows-10/142649/microsoft...
It's expired (sadly, and rather than the better option which would have been that it should apply to all operating systems).
It obviously hasn't been trying that hard.
This is not a mobile version of an OS where the browser doesn’t really matter because there aren’t many things you can do with only fingers anyway. This is a full blown desktop OS to be used by laptops.
[edit] actually how would the Chrome installer work in the first place? I thought the very definition of Windows 10 S was that it only allows apps from the store. How would that download app install anything?
I agree with your comment in general, but Edge really is significantly better than IE. It supports most modern web stuff, it's much faster and the UI is pretty nice and clean. Sure, the latter is a matter of taste too but it really beats IE on all fronts.
Opinions clearly vary on whether it can compete with the likes of Chrome and Firefox, but it's not a "low feature Internet Explorer". It's a decent piece of work.
Though I admit it seems weird for a browser that's apparently designed for mobile.
The only suggestion for fonts is maybe using the ClearType font tuner tool in Control Panel.
FWIW I prefer Chrome but dig what MS is doing with Edge.
Good work, but I'm still not going to use it, given I've already had A-grade browsers for many years.
My big beef with it is that it tries to force feed me Bing wherever it can (even after switching the default search engine). That's a big no-no.
But I did notice google is trying to force feed me Chrome when I visit google’s web sites. I click “No I don’t want Chrome” in these popups, the popup disappears for a few days and then pops up again.
It didn't:
> [Note to Windows 10 S users] Windows 10 S is incompatible with apps like Google Chrome. To use Google Chrome, upgrade for free (for a limited time) to Windows 10 Pro.
You can still see the cached version at http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:/...
After the whole "Windows 10" thing i seriously doubt there is anything they can do that would result in them losing much of a market share.
Beyond that though, there's very little dependence on Google for apps. The web store opens in a browser window and (if someone were to create one) could easily go to a different store.
Likewise, Android-compatible Chromebooks can use Aptoide same as any other compatible Android device (although Android should be looked at too IMHO - I should at least have the option to say "I trust X app store in addition to Google Play" without removing un-named sources protection altogether. Likewise iPhone.).
That's in Android 8.0: http://www.androidpolice.com/2017/03/21/android-o-feature-sp...
Sounds like the Nespresso business model too.
Only if you're looking to find fault. The analogy to cars works fine but only if you compare like for like.
There's a direct analogy to fueling and that's charging, which can be done from any electric source as long as you have the right connector (like cars).
Apps are more like car modifications. For most modern cars this is very hard to do without using the manufacturers own fitters or preferred suppliers. Some modifications are possible without their consent but they'd definitely void any warranty and they're not exactly encouraged.
BTW I'm not arguing that this is fine. Just that cars are as much, if not more, walled gardens than phones.
To be honest, given the economics of most consumer goods, it's hard to find anything that encourages non-manufacturer modification or repair. If courts were to really start fighting this, they need to fight pretty much everyone.
Android is actually more restrictive, since you can distribute software outside the Google Play Store but hardly anyone does.
I don't remember when they took it away, but I wonder why they stopped producing it? My guess is that they realized what a flop the Windows Store turned out to be.
Personally, I don't use a single Metro app outside of Settings because I don't like walled-gardens and I don't want to give Microsoft anymore incentive to turn Windows into one (Apples profits have already incentive-ized them enough!)
Apple, and Google practices as of late do seem sufficiently profit oriented to the point of poor consumer experience. Throw Facebook and Twitter in the mix for good measure. At the very least MS is no longer the only bully in the room....if they are still a bully at all.
I'm not sure I've seen quite as drastic a shift in fundamental thinking from a company as I've seen from Microsoft in recent years (under Nadella).
tl;dr - Any large and diversified (tech) company has so many powerful stakeholders within the company that decisions bubble up which are in the best interest of those stakeholders and their departments, not necessarily the consumer.
Firefox for Android uses it's own engine.
google refuses to provide a full Chrome app for the Microsoft Store because it requires browsers to use the built-in HTML and JavaScript engines provided by Windows 10. google agreed to let its ios version of Chrome to use Apple's webkit, but apparently it is not happy to do something similar for Microsoft.
now who is the problem here? Microsoft or Google? ;)
They have historically provided a low quality, non-standard rendering and JavaScript experience.
That they are trying underhanded means to stop people opting out of that experience is a reveal that the old Microsoft is still there.
Apple should not to be emulated on this.
I'm sure you can find good reviews from shills, people with a low attention for detail or people with very basic needs. Even if you disagree with my thoughts on Edge reviews - the Edge browser market share speaks volumes: Nobody is using it.
Not sure if I did something wrong but my experience was OK, nothing amazing, but also not total shit like you say.
You also mentioned that you got one extension that you needed, uBlock. Great. How about these: Quick JavaScript Switcher, Don't Track Me Google, Stop Tracking me on Reddit and Google Search Filter. That is just a sampling of the non-developer extensions that I use.
Also, if I go to one page that doesn't work in Edge that's the end of my time with Edge. Since that happened almost as soon as I tried it out, I stopped trying. Despite that, I do open it from time to time to see if it got less crappy and many times I get a bunch of popups from Microsoft begging me to do more with their stuff. No thanks!