Windows On ARM Users Need Browser Choice Too
blog.mozilla.org
blog.mozilla.org
I have a bad feeling about Mozilla's prospects going forward. If the mobile platform "single" browser model is allowed to continue, they don't really have a place in that world.
Do you honestly think they do, or were you just trying to be provocative?
But it's open season on MS, that's why we have three different stories on the front page reporting the exact same story, so they know how to get people riled up.
I really don't see the problem with this if people don't have a problem with iOS only allowing Safari as the default browser.
Mozilla's long term bet in the mobile space is Boot 2 Gecko, precisely because of that model.
<disclaimer>I work for Mozilla, but not on mobile or legal stuff</disclaimer>
Mozilla needs to speak up about Apple and hopefully all of major tablet OS change their stance.
Apple sells both hardware & software, one can argue that it's packed together as a whole, unlike PC.
Well, Microsoft are doing something worse than Apple. The iOS browser is based on the open source WebKit, which Apple contributed a lot of the code to. There is nothing open about IE.
Not that that has anything to do with choice, but it'd certainly give me more of an incentive to try replace IE than Safari.
I see my family happily using Linux on their laptops because 80% of what they need is a browser. And Google with ChromeOS also thinks that a browser should, in time, be enough.
So, the fact that we have ecosystems being developed where there is only one blessed browser (be it Safari or IE) is a severe roadblock.
The browser isn't like another app, it's more like another kind of AppStore. If we accept the current situation, they will find a way to monetize that too and there will be no escape.
Operating system as they are won't be going away soon anytime unless the issue network lag, security and availability aren't solved. Otherwise we'll just return again to the desktop paradigm.
The problem is that Microsoft has turned pretty much the entire Windows API into an undocumented API (AFAIK, please correct me if I'm misunderstanding the technical details here) and completely locked it down so that they're the only ones that can use it. It's not necessarily simple to move a large program like IE or Office over to a new architecture, but it's going to be an order of magnitude easier to do so when you don't have to rewrite it to an entirely new API (in this case Metro) while you're at it. Yes, Firefox can still put out a Metro version, but I would imagine that it would be a significantly greater undertaking than if they had the ability to write to Classic.
The unfortunate thing here is that this isn't necessarily an underhanded plot by Microsoft. There are definitely some benefits to the more sandboxed-style apps pushed by iOS and Android vs. what you can do with a desktop OS, especially when it comes to non-powerusers that just want stuff to work. From that point of view the Classic mode in Windows RT really shouldn't even be there at all, but if you want something like Office on ARM anytime soon then it's probably the only option. The trouble is that Microsoft wants to provide the additional benefits of a few key Classic applications while also trying to avoid having the OS turn into a bunch of poorly-ported desktop applications and I'm not sure they can have it both ways.
Around here, Apple can be as abusive and monopolistic as it likes, and nobody will raise their eyes from their MBPs at all.
I'd say the community here is far more understanding of Microsoft than, say, the Slashdot crowd.
On iOS, the third-party browsers that are available are crippled (no client-side JavaScript unless you use Apple's implementation). And even those crippled browsers, like Opera Mini, can't be set as the default browser (e.g. for when you click on a link in an email).
There's a bit more info about this here: http://www.opera.com/mobile/specs/
In particular, "The rendering engine is on Opera’s server."
In the inevitable comparison to Apple: the iPad's browser resembles Safari, which a minority of computer users use, and has poor support for HTML5. If Mozilla could make Firefox for Windows RT, which would be the same browser many people are used to, and could potentially have better HTML5 performance on a tablet, would that not be an important advantage over Apple, at least for adoption among technical users?
Otherwise MS has an OS emphasizing HTML, with a limping browser.
The ARM excuse is bogus.
It's interesting to note that on iOS there's no way to really replace Safari. Any links still open in Safari, no matter what else you've installed. Of course Apple does have a monopoly position on tablets.
I'm not trying to say that there shouldn't be browser choice, just that danger is more Apple than Microsoft at this point. If Microsoft changed their policy today it would benefit almost no one, but if Apple changed their policy today it would benefit millions.
People love to talk about how iOS native apps totally win over web apps. But do they stop to think why that is the case? Because, the one native app - a better browser - that could change the situation is not allowed on iOS.
Firefox and Chrome pushed the boundaries a lot when they first appeared on the desktop scene. But now they've become too caught up in standards compliance to actually do radically innovative things (except B2G, I'll admit).
I'm betting on a new kickass browser on Android to either force Apple and Microsoft to open up, or make them irrelevant.
There used to be a ban on apps in the App Store that share the functionality of the inbuilt apps but this hasn't been the case for quite a while now.
I'm not saying I like how my iPad doesn't provide a way to change default browser or email client (I'd use Sparrow on my iPhone if that was the case). I think it's a huge downside. I'm just saying that at least in the case of Mobile Safari, the un-changeable default is much much better than the alternatives and no harm has been done yet.
I really wish they change this policy in iOS 6, though.
Opera Mini is based on Webkit and does any custom processing in the cloud, which is far from ideal for users.
Why doesn't Apple allow third-party browsers? Because they might soil the oh-so-beautiful garden of apps that Apple is carefully curating. Imported roses are strictly prohibited, because - gasp - the thorns might prick the little soft fingers of these lovely obedient children.
Trillion dollar cash piles don't come about by playing nice with competitors.
Microsoft : IE :: Apple : Safari
Microsoft : IE :: Apple : Safari :: Google : Chrome
It will be a hard place for Firefox and Opera.
I read the blog post again, and I understand it so, that Mozilla can make a Windows 8 RT (ARM) version of Firefox, but only in a sandboxed version (no plugins/extensions?) and without access to the classic environment. So Microsoft is more lenient than Apple, but the result is perhaps the same, that it will be too tough to compete with the built in IE browser and its privileged features.
There doesn't seem to be the notion of changing the "Default" browser but you certainly can load them up, put them in the doc, etc.
Folks feel ashamed of his words, are outraged at his lack of tact and manners, and constantly and publicly denounce him as an anachronism, an inconvenient throwback to the bad old days of the free software movement. We drink beers, sip coffee, hack web apps, compare term sheets, and chuckle at this old goofball.
And then shit like this happens.
And you know what? Maybe he's right to be that crazy, and maybe we're wrong to be so dismissive and consider him so alarmist, and maybe everyone should take a good, hard look at what we value in tech and what we can do to protect it.
Do you honestly think that truth needs to be discussed and decided? The man - as much as I dislike him and his behavior - got it right. and it isn't the first time too. Sure some of his statements might seem too outlandish at first, but many of them happen. Anyone remember this http://gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html ?
I simply cant fathom the reasoning of people who are quick to ridicule any idea that does not fit in their image of how the world works.
I think it's totally fair to look at something he's said or written in the context of a guy who has been right in the past. But that doesn't mean everything he says is beyond reproach.
Back in the day when Microsoft got in trouble you couldn't really argue it was feasible to get a PC without Windows.
I've written a proof of concept HTML to WPF parser/renderer that worked fine inside WinRT. It wadls written in c# which is where the issue is I think...
You can write WinRT in C++ as well. This was shown again and again on the Build Windows launch conference.
Edit: I don't know how restricted the WinRT APIs are though and how being restricted to those (as opposed to the traditional Win32 APIs) affects what you can implement and not.
Edit2: This post seems to answer it. Browsers will have issues.
http://www.freelists.org/post/luajit/FYI-No-JIT-on-Windows-8...
1. https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/native-cl...
Basically, all ARM Windows machines will have an encrypted boot loader. The concessions you might have read about are for secure boot on other systems.
They also have been threatening Linux distributors with patent infringement lawsuits. Every ARM phone has a windows license paid for it, it's just not installed.
This is truly the sign of desperation and insanity. Once you get scared of the competition that much, you might as well show yourself to the door.
I want to make myself clear: Microsoft has done great things. But now; well now they are finally having to bleed. And we, the customers and competition, are going to see just how fearsome a desperate, dying cornered animal it truly is.
That patent library and legal team aren't going to go unused...
I haven't been able to test it myself yet, but some of my users tell me that EasyBCD is able to work around this issue.
iPhone is an ARM phone.
>Basically, all ARM Windows machines will have an encrypted boot loader
All iOS ARM machines have a locked bootloader. All 200M+ of them. But somehow the sky falls only when MS does it, even when they haven't sold one single ARM tablet.
iOS does not have an ENCRYPTED boot loader. Right now cracking one is tough. But you CAN install other things on it. This goes for all devices so far in all of history. It's only a matter of persistence. These new ones will never, ever allow you to install another OS. Not without the magic key.
You're right pragmatically; who gives a shit, less than 0.00001% of people run something besides iOS on their iPhone. That isn't the issue at all. The issue is that although their isn't a perceived choice, it still exists. Just because it's ignored by the majority doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I mean, aren't people worried about this? Intel is trying to sell CPU's with DRM for unlocking cores basically; if hardware limitation gets paired with encrypted boot devices, overclocking could literally become illegal. At least under the DMCA and most likely ratified super-ACTA/CISPA.
At the current time, there is no known vulnerability in this chain of trust for iOS devices released after September 2010. Comparing this to Android "locked" boot loaders or Windows 8 is severely devaluing the security infrastructure Apple has in place here. I'm not going to even argue they Apple has done a good job — compared to something like the Xbox 360, they clearly haven't — but it's a step up from what you are describing.
Also, at this time, iOS is the only operating system that will run on iOS devices released after June 2008. The iPhoneLinux project attempted ports to the original iPad, but s far has only been successful on devices through e iPhone 3G.