Microsoft creates special application class for Windows 8 browsers | Hacker News Reader

Microsoft creates special application class for Windows 8 browsers

osnews.com

45 pointsjhack17 comments

If you want to understand what's going on, then go to the source. Either read the Microsoft documentation or read the documentation coming from an actual browser vendor working on this. At Mozilla, we talk about what we're doing so you're likely to get the best information with us.

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2012/02/building... and http://www.brianbondy.com/blog/id/129/

[author of the OSN article here]

Which is exactly why I always link to the source. Always check the source material, whether you agree with an article or not. Most people on HN (and OSNews) do so, luckily.

Since the Metro environment imposes numerous restrictions that would hinder the development of a decent browser, Microsoft has created a new application class, called "Metro style enabled desktop browser".

On the one hand the author seems to be criticizing Microsoft for insisting on a set of ecosystem standards, on the other hand the criticism is for creating a kludge.

It's 2012 and the OS is in beta, any comparison of the development of of third party browsers to those of the Netscape days is absurd. These days Microsoft provides a browser to round out their product line and to facilitate the user's ability to engage the internet immediately following a fresh install.

Browsers are so ubiquitous as to appear on feature phones. They are commodities, not strategic tools in the quest for OS market share.

I'm pretty shocked that Microsoft hasn't been better at maintaining appearances for the EU. If I was on that team (easy to say, I know), I'd make darn sure that third party browser developers were kept in the loop. Publish the info on MSDN. Shower them with emails asking them if they need help. It's good for the OS, the public, and it would be a good proactive measure toward maintaining regulatory compliance.

The OS isn't even ready yet and they're probably tweaking the brand new full fledged API that's probably full of bugs and issues and has to run on a completely new platform for Windows, ARM and also has to be battery efficient. You're underestimating the amount of work it takes port tens of millions of lines of code into a new platform and then to make sure things work and still have the ability to radically change things to get the last bit of performance out without having to worry about third party developers who have already invested significantly in the beta APIs.

Since they have already committed to allowing 3rd party browsers, I guess they will be coming forward with the information when it's ready. Till then the desktop browsers will continue to work for x86 based machines.

They are at public beta now; fundamental things like API interfaces should have been fully baked months ago.

The API for WinRT is fully baked since it's a sandboxed API, but the native code that browsers need is still somewhat in flux I think.

Also, that's for x86 only. ARM devices are nowhere as polished. In fact they seem to have specifically made them unavailable and locked them up in glass boxes at BUILD and also didn't allow reporters to play with them at MWC.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/14/nvidias-kal-el-reference-...

Maybe they're concentrating on Metro apps first since the browser developers have significant resources to ramp up development unlike the small app developers, I am not sure though.

I'm pretty sure the IE and Firefox teams get together regularly. I don't think the same sense of comraderie exists between the IE and chrome teams.

Not that I know any of the parties, but what makes you think that?

Perhaps the (formerly) regular release cakes that they exchanged: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefox#Response_from_Microsoft

It's really hard to parse articles from OSNews, Groklaw, and by Redhat employees about Microsoft and Windows 8, specifically, to try and filter out the bias and hate and cut to the chase.

First, the very first line.

>And thus, Microsoft bites itself in its behind with Metro.

Uh what? Putting the supposed conclusion as the first line as if the the headline says everything? (BTW the headline is pretty obtuse, even for a geek like me).

> Microsoft has had to define a separate application class [.docx] - aside from Metro and desktop applications - just to make third party web browsers possible for Windows 8.

Isn't that a good thing? Microsoft is already one step better than Apple that it's making special allowances in the security sandbox for browsers? Try developing a real browser for the current post-PC iOS devices.

Why is this being spun into a bad thing? The problem is that allowing everything will allow malware/spyware to come into the picture. Then these very same people disparaging MS for this move would then disparage Windows devices as insecure and virus-prone and recommend people switch to other platforms! Not to mention very real battery life concerns.

Also, all the desktop browsers will continue to work the same on Windows 8 x86 PCs and tablets. You can even have them as the only app pinned in the default start screen!

>This stuff all came out because the Firefox team has announced it's working on implementing such a Metro style enabled desktop browser. However, Microsoft has provided very little information on this obscure third application class as of yet, making it very hard for browser developers to properly target it. Of course, Windows 8 is still in development, but considering the company's past behaviour, it's easy to assume they're doing this on purpose.

Right, and when Microsoft has to change something in Windows 8 that will affect 3rd party browsers, these very same people will be yelling about an intentional conspiracy to break those browsers and slow down development. In short, you can never satisfy these folks. So why even bother trying? They will dislike MS at any cost, so it's better for MS to do things the right way and at their own pace.

Already MS loses the VIOLA! Steve Jobs type unveiling moment because of the constant sharing of information with developers and users via extensive blogs and pre-release versions which will likely reduce the hype and sales at launch.

>Another uncertainty at this point is the ARM version of Windows 8. A Metro style enabled desktop browser must be distributed the old-fashioned way as opposed to through the new Windows Store, and since the traditional desktop is locked down on the ARM version (i.e., it is not possible to install applications outside of the Windows Store on ARM), this currently means Mozilla and Google will not be able to distribute Firefox or Chrome for the ARM version of Windows 8.

We are constantly reminded here and everywhere that there is no tablet market and there is only an iPad market. Why don't these same people complain about third party browsers being completely banned on the iPad which has a huge share in the tablet market? Why pick on WoA that is essentially starting from zero and has a mountain to climb before getting any share and has the odds stacked against it with 200K iPad apps etc. (and will likely fail according to many pundits) ?

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/03/...

Going back to the first line and conclusion of the article:

>And thus, Microsoft bites itself in its behind with Metro

How? Is that because they have specially allowed 3rd party browsers unlike the super successful iPad>? The IE10 in the previews released so far seem pretty fast and decent. I feel dimmer after reading the article and for the people who accuse Microsoft of FUD, all this smells very much like misleading FUD against Metro.

I am also having a hard time trying to understand the author.

The author seems to think that Firefox is in big trouble in the post-PC world but then tries to blame MS for that, when MS has specifically made allowance for third party browsers? I know MS is the favorite whipping boy in the blogosphere but why does MS deserve blame for Firefox being in trouble?.

He seems to realize that Firefox will have a good chance if Metro/Windows 8 succeeds, so calls for a EU intervention but then seems to vehemently wish that Win 8/Metro be dead.

Edit: After some more thinking, it's beginning to make more sense. Linux/FOSS all these days have been made possible in part due to Microsoft licensing DOS/Windows to IBM clones made by Compaq.

This allowed "open" PCs on a large scale competing with Apple and Microsoft did not have control over what ran on them. This allowed OSes like Linux and BeOS to show up and flourish since the hardware was cheap and readily available. Much of the other platforms were very closed and OS vendor controlled. Interesting that the object of hate and ridicule, Microsoft, is what enabled the platform in the first place.

Coming to the Post-PC world, because of the top-down vertical integration by Apple and Android/Ubuntu/Boot to Gecko etc tablets not really taking off, Linux/Firefox. are being squeezed out of the market. There is no place for them on iPads and if that's what people buy and desert PCs, they are in real danger. One way is to continue on to Metro and piggyback again on Microsoft's success but that means arch-enemy Microsoft needs to succeed which is indeed a Catch-22 for many folks.

To be fair, IBM and Microsoft didn't invent the open PC market.

Before the IBM PC showed up, there already was a thriving ecosystem of 8-bit PCs running CP/M by Digital Research. These had compatibility on several levels: CPU architecture (Intel 8080 + clones like Zilog Z80), operating system calls (CP/M had a simple API in the form of interrupts), user interface (same CLI everywhere) and also hardware expansion (a standard bus for add-on boards).

The MS-DOS ecosystem largely followed this model. Large parts of MS-DOS, including the API and the CLI style -- those drive letters too -- were in fact borrowed from CP/M to make porting existing software easier. (There was a thriving CP/M productivity software market with apps like WordStar and VisiCalc.)

IBM wasn't really happy that their PC had been cloned and turned into an open market, and a couple of years later they tried to regain control with a semi-closed platform called PS/2. It also included a new OS co-developed with Microsoft called OS/2. The whole strategy never quite came together and eventually Microsoft went their own way.

>Why don't these same people complain about third party browsers being completely banned on the iPad which has a huge share in the tablet market?

There are many third party browsers available on the App Store for iPad. I'm not sure where you got the idea that they're "banned"?

Those are Safari skins, not browsers.

Third-party browsers cannot do core things like implement their own JavaScript engine (which is why you're not going to see Firefox or Chrome for iOS unless Apple changes the rules).

I don't think any of your responses justify or explain the lack of documentation. MS is inviting developers to their new OS and Win8 now has a customer preview, with the developer one being out for a while. Pointing to a potential situation where MS might be criticised over hypothetical changes still doesn't negate the criticism of the very real problem of missing information right now. I find the idea that this can also be explained away by a desire to surprise/woo customers totally absurd given the release of installable Previews of the entire OS.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com