Microsoft Accused of Hindering Firefox Browser | Hacker News Reader

Microsoft Accused of Hindering Firefox Browser

online.wsj.com

27 pointsssclafani41 comments

I really love my iPad, but I wish Apple would let Firefox into the garden. Apple is getting away with it because Safari is a webkit browser and is staying "on the edge", but there is no difference between what Microsoft is doing here and what Apple is doing.

For consumers, competition is very rarely a bad thing, and in this case, I can't imagine a case where it could be considered bad for users.

>there is no difference between what Microsoft is doing here and what Apple is doing.

There is a difference and the difference is that Windows RT will allow Firefox and Chrome and other browsers to run in Metro mode, just not in the desktop.

Edit: I was wrong.

However, the restrictions on the sandbox for Metro style apps mean that alternate browsers would either have to be skins around the IE engine, or be very slow (because it's not possible to run dynamically compiled aka JITted code). That is why there is a special exemption for "Metro style enabled desktop browsers" (which appear to the user as Metro style apps but have all the capabilities of desktop apps) on Windows 8 (x86), which is what Metro style Firefox will use.

Interesting, I stand corrected in that case. I assumed that the x86 Metro app would work on the ARM version as well.

Microsoft isn't letting any non-MS applications run on the ARM desktop. The ARM classic desktop essentially just exists to run Office. It's quite likely that if they ever get around to building a Metro version of Office, the classic desktop will disappear from ARM entirely.

Yea, it has been interesting to me too that MS isn't treating this port similarly to Windows NT for Alpha.

Apple isn't entirely staying "on the edge" with mobile browsers, nor do I expect them to because of their interest in native apps and lock-in. They're already only the 3rd best mobile browser for HTML5 compliance (beaten by Firefox and Opera) and they'd be sixth (behind Chrome, Blackberry and Tizen) if you include development browsers as well. That's a pretty big step back from the iPhone's launch or even the recent past.

This is probably going to become a major point of contention. There is a demonstrable security benefit to restricting applications to a subset of available APIs and vetting or at least signing all applications that are installed. The iOS platform is very secure because of this. Android also does well by gating its app store. But if you restrict apps in this way, you are setting up an environment where it is easy for a first party to control a de-facto monopoly.

Openness is great for competition and innovation, but it has inherent security problems. There will always be a tension here.

That's an interesting way of framing it. I generally come down on the side of openness, but it makes me wonder if something like a "right to be available absent proof of maliciousness" (with part of the hurdle being that a developer would have to demand their right to be included in some non-trivial way) would be a useful compromise.

Given that Microsoft has already moved to ban Linux from ARM devices at the UEFI level, it seems like they believe strongly that ARM is going to be an important battleground for them:

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2012/01/16/microsoft-block...

[edit - changed "BIOS" to "UEFI"]

>Given that Microsoft has already moved to ban Linux from ARM devices at the UEFI level..

Uhh, Microsoft cannot and hasn't done anything like that.

They can't stop Android tablets from shipping can they?

They're more likely going to subsidize Windows RT tablets by charging a smaller license fee, and trying to compensate that with the money from Windows App Store/Bing/Music etc.which they lose if users are allowed to change the OS.

That's like saying Microsoft banned all other consoles, just because they have a locked bootloader on the XBox.

Microsoft is at the very least trying to ban dual-booting of Windows RT tablets. To me, that is very significant.

Also, Microsoft certainly can provide OEMs financial incentives for not making Android tablets. As you note, they're already talking about subsidizing Windows RT devices (one of the justifications for blocking dual-booting) and Microsoft has done worse before...

I do not know why there is this expectation that if something runs Windows it should be able to run other OSes. First of all this is not Windows, and none of the millions of Windows programs will run on it. Why should Microsoft be denied the freedom to do the same things that Apple is succeeding very well with(and supposedly killing MS in the post-PC world, if you see posts on here) ?

Some of us think that Apple shouldn't be permitted to do some of those things either (e.g. banning side-loading and locked bootloaders).

The expectation was set by Microsoft. This is the first time they've made this move to eliminate dual booting entirely. They are making other unprecedented (for them) moves on the ARM platform in relation to JIT compilation and the other restrictions which make Firefox an impossibility. Imposing these kinds of limitations has never been Microsoft's way before.

Above, I noted that they seem to believe this is a battleground; I stand by that statement. Microsoft seems to have made the conscious decision to emulate Apple in locking down ARM in a way that will benefit them. This is not a value judgement; it's an assessment of what seems to be their intention. It may be wholly within their rights, but it's hard to argue that it isn't something of a change for them.

If all they're doing is charging a smaller licensing fee then they haven't lost anything if the user switches to another OS.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Microsoft has actually tried to require that any ARM devices on which Win8 runs cannot ever run Linux. The difference between this and the XBox is that Microsoft doesn't actually manufacture any ARM devices; and moreover Windows as an operating system is more ubiquitous than the XBox firmware. They are clearly intending to use their market share to eliminate Linux on ARM devices. I can see how people might say this is their right, but it's hard to deny that it's their intention, I think - even if you concede (though I'm not sure I'm willing to) that that intention is ancillary to security concerns.

>Given that Microsoft has already moved to ban Linux from ARM devices at the UEFI level

Put that way, Apple has also moved to block Linux from two hundred million+ ARM devices at the bootloader level but I barely hear a peep about it, forget about referencing anti-trust. Why all this clamouring when MS does the exact equivalent?

The triennial clamoring about jail-breaking and DMCA exceptions is closely related to this (and gets pretty loud, IMO).

I suspect the major difference is that most people don't want to dual-boot iOS and Linux, whereas many people dual-boot Windows and Linux on the desktop and can see themselves doing the same on an ARM-based laptop or tablet (so having it prevented feels like something being taken away rather than not just not having something).

I wonder if Microsoft would have let Firefox onto Windows-on-ARM devices if they'd decided to take Bing's money instead of Google's. I could see them doing that, but I could also see their desire to emulate Apple trump their desire to work more closely with a new partner.

> I wonder if Microsoft would have let Firefox onto Windows-on-ARM devices if they'd decided to take Bing's money instead of Google's.

Firefox has a revenue sharing deal with both Google and Bing. Google is the default, though.

I think they probably just don't want to commit to an API for desktop development on ARM yet, because they haven't figured out what it should be. They're trying to make Explorer, Office etc. good citizens in terms of power usage, etc., but are probably doing so in a very ad hoc manner that's not ready to be packaged up for third-party developers (and kept compatible long-term).

How is allowing Firefox in Metro mode on Windows RT tablet "emulating Apple" ?

Edit: I was wrong.

You can't write Firefox in Metro mode. The only way you're getting Firefox with a Metro interface on the desktop is the special "browser mode" that had to be invented. That "browser mode" isn't available on Windows RT (and shouldn't be the way to solve this problem anyway because it is a terrible hack).

Any ideas for a better solution to the problem? (not snarking, genuinely curious to hear your thoughts)

Have user-grantable permissions for escaping from the Metro sandbox? (JIT permission being the most obvious, of course) That might devolve into a "de-facto" desktop permission at the start, but if they were clear that the permission model was in flux I could see incrementally turning it into something reasonable. And saying "your app might/will break in the future" is much nicer than saying "people can't get your app at all".

History has shown that it never works and the users can be coerced to do anything to make their app work and are incapable of deciding what's malware and what's not.Case in point, declaring app access permissions in Android. Most software seems to have no trouble with user adoptions while requesting every permission available like making phone calls.

>but if they were clear that the permission model was in flux I could see incrementally turning it into something reasonable. And saying "your app might/will break in the future" is much nicer than saying "people can't get your app at all".

The problem is that with the first breaking change, users will be annoyed and MS will regardless take the blame for it.

Also the iPad has proven to be a roaring success with the very same restrictions.

I'd say plenty of permissions systems have been a success, including the app permissions system in Android. Does it have tons of rough spots and issues? Absolutely. Handling permissions is a hard problem no one has cracked. But Android's system has also unequivocally has provided a net positive value to users and the platform.

First, there's the baseline transparency. Android hasn't had Path-style surprises because things like whether or not an app is accessing the address book or your location are out in the open.

Second, the permissions system (including negative reviews driven by it) encourages app developers to not just request permissions, but explain why they are needed. Not everyone does that, but plenty of the apps I've used do. Among other things, I can wish that were more integrated and consistent (e.g. a mandatory text string provided along with the request to shift the default), but, even today, this valuable information ends up in the app description where everyone can see it.

Third, there's all sorts of potential for tools you can build on top. It's easy to answer questions like: "Which apps access my location and can send SMSes?" There have also been attempts to revoke permissions that users didn't want to give. This doesn't always work well because apps usually don't gracefully handle not getting an expected permission, but most of the technical infrastructure is there, so it is a logical future step. And so on.

I'm not saying a permissions system will be wonderful out-of-the-box, but it is a good foundation on which you can make things better in the future, rather than settling for a false choice today.

But a Metro version of Firefox is being worked on[1]: in light of that, how does the removal of desktop style apps impact Mozilla? It does not appear to.

[1]: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Windows8

Did you read the "Open issues/risks" section? That makes it clear that any Metro for Firefox on Windows 8 depends on special accommodations from Microsoft that (so far as we know) won't be available on ARM.

I did, but none of that is mentioned in either the original Mozilla blog post or this article. We have no reason to believe that disabling desktop mode precludes an application acting as a Gecko rendering bridge for a Metro UI. They seem completely unrelated: in fact, the only way they could be is if one expects a Desktop Firefox to run in the background and serve pages to Metro. That's not listed in their design plans and, furthermore, is not how IE works on the same platform.

I will admit to not having read the Application development guidelines for Windows RT. It could potentially be a sandbox violation, depending on the aforementioned guidelines - however, that's a completely different issue, and it's not "Microsoft locking Mozilla out of the market by removing desktop mode."

As someone else notes, Firefox needs to break out of Metro to JIT JavaScript, at the very least. For third parties, there's nothing other than Metro on ARM, so how would that be possible (absent special accommodation from Microsoft)?

This is a surprisingly well-written and accurate article.

How is this remotely related to antitrust(any more than the iPad i.e) ?

Desktop Windows gains it's monopoly leverage from running Win 32 apps and people are forced to run it for compatibility. None of those programs will ever run on Windows RT. Windows RT is basiscally starting from zero, just like the iPad did.

Just because it has Windows in it's name does not mean it's subject to antitrust. What next? Insinuating that Windows Phone should be subject to anti-trust restrictions that the iPhone or Android is not?

Um, there's going to be Office for Windows RT. That's certainly leveraging one of Microsoft's monopolies.

That seems to be quite a stretch.

MS is rumored to be working on Office for the iPad. If that's true then will it get them off the hook?

Offering Office on other platforms doesn't mean they're not leveraging it. After all, which platform is it going to work best on?

I don't see how leveraging Office is illegal or can be considered abuse.

In that case, they should already be on the dock for not having a Office for Linux, yet I don't even see anyone making that claim.

Microsoft still has a business software monopoly with Office on the desktop. Using that monopoly to privilege their tablet platform over other tablet platforms (e.g. via better interoperability) can easily be an antitrust issue (depending on what they specifically do, of course).

This is ridiculous. Of course I hope it is going to work best on the MS Tablet. Why not? It'd be a fail if it wouldn't work best on their own OS. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with that, in fact, it is called decent engineering. And if e.g. Apple does not want to provide the same access to iOS as MS has to Windows, it will not work as slick.

Also, I heared Apple is leveraging Safari on iOS, where is the law?

The difference between Office and Safari is Microsoft has a monopoly with Office and Apple doesn't with Safari.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com