It's OK for Apple to block Firefox, but wrong when Microsoft does it

Maybe, all things being equal, that would be a fair complaint but all things are not equal.

First of all, the limitations of iOS and app store are well known and retread at least once a month on HN since the site opened. Mozilla certainly did complain about iOS years ago and decided ultimately to abandon the platform. We're talking about Windows now because Windows 8 is due to be released.

Secondly, Firefox's primary platform is Windows and they already have working version of Firefox for Windows 8 with a Metro UI for x86. Only a minor technical limitation keeps them from releasing it for ARM -- that's not true of iOS.

Lastly, there is a still a chance Microsoft might cave on this issue. We know from years of experience that Apple won't.

There is a huge difference between iOS and other platforms.

Apple, in legal terms, makes Firefox on iOS impossible. This was not the case with Windows; Microsoft was using covert means to undermine user choice.

To make a blanket statement that Mozilla thinks Apple's banning Firefox from iPad and the iPhone is 'not a problem' is wrong and disingenuous.

We have active projects around ways to give users choice within the constraints of Apple's licensing.

Mozilla fought and won against Microsoft's anti-competitive efforts, under an entirely different technical and legal landscape.

As a Mozillian, I'm pissed and have been pissed off since iOS's launch, but we also have to choose our battles on where we can fight to keep the web open.

To apple's credit, they've provided a web standards based browser to a mobile landscape that didn't have one (at the time) and which spawned many other web standards based browsers like Chrome.

Do I wish Safari on iOS have a freaking file input so I could upload photos from the gallery? YES! Would I want a Firefox browser that was proxy based to get around iOS licensing.... hell no. Is it worth the Mozilla community's time maintaining an iOS based port just for the people who jailbreak their iOS devices... probably not, but no one from Mozilla would stop you from doing the work.

Mozilla is already locked out of iOS and they have failed at getting Apple to budge. If WinRT locks them out, they'll be locked out of two out of the three major tablet platforms (it's a safe assumption that WinRT will get some marketshare at least).

Microsoft is an easier target than AAPL - Win8 is still under development so it's still early days and the company has a history with various governmental organizations (the DoJ, the EU). My guess is Mozilla is attempting to rattle Microsoft into opening up Win8 to get Firefox to run. Or drum up enough press, get the DoJ to make a quote or two and really get Redmond to worry.

If I were Microsoft, I would hold my ground. Strategically, it makes a lot of sense to own the browsing experience e2e and I think Mozilla's case is weak given MSFT's lack of marketshare, the existence of Chromebooks, Boot2Gecko, etc.

The trouble with trying to dismiss an argument with accusations of hypocrisy is that hypocrites can be right. If I make an argument that stealing is wrong and then turn around and steal something, that doesn't mean that stealing is morally permissible. Likewise, the fact that Mozilla neglects to criticize Apple doesn't mean their criticism of Microsoft is incorrect.

This was a time when they had 95%+ of the desktop OS share and you basically couldn't run a home computer with Windows. This was the early days of Linux (IIRC in ~1994 I downloaded SLS running Linux 0.99.x onto ~30 floppy drives over a 2400 baud modem!). Macs were an expensive niche product. Personal computing just wasn't possible without Microsoft.

Microsoft very much used this position to kill Netscape as they saw the Internet as an existential threat (fearing Netscape would be the new OS). They tried to subvert Java (the threat of "write once run anywhere" being a threat to the Windows lock-in) and partially succeeded. It was at this time that the DoJ stepped in.

I can't overemphasize the perception the tech community had of Microsoft then. Windows was rapidly evolving. Windows 95 was, I believe, a major turning point for the company (and where it achieved at least technical superiority over MacOS having preemptive multitasking and dynamic memory management). Microsoft really had an aura of invincibility.

We are not in this situation today. Apple seems unable to do no wrong (in the marketplace; there are what are still fringe elements criticizing them for any number of things) but don't have the market position Microsoft did.

In fact, Microsoft doesn't have the position Microsoft did in the 90s. At this point I believe we have viable alternatives to personal computing between mobile devices, Macs (you can get a Mac Mini for $600), netbooks and--dare I say it--even Chromebooks (you'll note that I left Linux off that list as I believe it will never be a viable mainstream desktop OS and of course I know it powers Android/ChromeOS).

I certainly don't see an issue (yet) with Apple blocking alternative browsers. Don't like it? Buy an Android. Or a Windows Phone 7. Or a Blackberry (OK, I couldn't keep a straight face with that last one).

Windows and Office are the geese that lay the golden eggs in Microsoft. Everything is beholden to them. As an organization, Microsoft seems terrified they'll die and as we've seen time and time again it's that fear and that switch from innovation to defending your turf that ultimately leads to the death of companies.

I believe the whole Metro API browser thing is just more evidence of Microsoft's stagnation. Let them I say. It'll probably, at least in some small way, hasten either their demise or them attempting to turn the boat around before they go off the cliff.

EDIT: yes Netscape was complicit in its own destruction. I used Netscape up until version 3. By Netscape 4 on a 486DX4/100 at least, IE4 was significantly better and faster and I never switched back (not until Firefox 1.5/2 years later).

Netscape eroded at both ends (IMHO). At one end obviously was Microsoft giving away the equivalent to their consumer product for free (as well as bundling it with the OS, making it harder to use non-IE browsers and so on). At the other end was actually Apache. The Apache Webserver I believe it incredibly difficult to build their server software platform (anyone else remember Netscape's Web servers?).

It wasn't until the rise of search engine advertising some years later that Microsoft's hold could be broken, it being the only thing that makes Firefox and Chrome possible.

As an aside to all those who are anti-ads: how exactly would non-OS browsers exist without advertising?

Is it just that the only way to do this is with VirtualAlloc()/mmap()? Could a 'safe' executable page allocator be created for just this purpose?

If the JIT'ing code is tricked into compiling and executing 'malicious' code, hasn't the operating environment - what libs the process can load, what syscalls it has access to, etc - already been security-hardened? My understanding of WinRT is that it's already a bit of a sand-boxed environment, with limited and measured access to the machine's resources.

If it's possible for the JIT'ed code to do something REALLY bad, like install a driver or write to arbitrary system files or something, then it was possible for the JIT'ing code to do that too, and that's almost certainly a really really bad thing.

Even if it's just a matter of the JIT'ed code violating the trust agreement between the user and the JIT'ing code (ie doing something that the user was OK with Firefox doing, like reading the address book, but doing it for malicious reasons), maybe a new trust agreement can be designed, that would make users aware that the JIT'ing program is inherently a bit more dangerous?

Or maybe what really needs to happen is we have to treat JIT's as pluggable, upgradable OS infrastructure, sort of like the image loader or dyld/ld-linux.so? In that case, if the Firefox would install a browser and the Firefox JIT'ter as separate components, and then Firefox would ask it's JIT'er to compile/execute javascript into a separate process - one with much more limited access to the machine?

In Windows 8 for ARM-based tablets, applications like this have to run in a sandbox (Metro UI). Get over it. Either consumers will or will not buy a tablet that they can't run applications the way they wish. Perhaps a Windows 8 tablet will be a disaster and all this outrage will be for nothing.

Certainly the restrictions Apple places on iOS are in many ways worse. I don't see how you can be mad at Microsoft but give Apple a pass.

The whole lockin is understandable, the plateform is relatively new, and proved to be successful in part because if these extreme protections.

But sooner rather than later, Apple is going to have to open some stuff. Being with something like gae keeper on iOS could allow to (very few) browser vendor to get on the App Store with full access to the sysem. Mozilla and Google build solid products with few security issues (if you factor off the security bugs from plugins)

iOS is a very modern OS, but will deeply profit from competition in the browser space. Apple too. The best tablet for apps and web browsing will win in the long run, because the web will win in the long run, but people will always prefer native apps for specific stuff.

iOS is a locked-down, consistent, homogeneous user experience on specialty devices that should not be and are not marketed as replacements for computers. Apple Store employees will specifically advise against purchasing an iPad as a primary computer.

If Apple tried to tell me what I can and cannot run on OSX, I'd be pissed. On mobile, I currently have a choice between superior UX (iOS) and freedom (Android), which are at this stage in the game somewhat mutually exclusive (part of the iPhone's appeal is that There Is One And Only One Right Way To Do It).

For the record, I run Android, but I still want to the option to select a higher quality product if I'm willing to sacrifice what Android does better (turn by turn directions and physical keyboard on the Droid 3).

Some might see it that way. Personally, I don't think that's Microsoft's goals at all, it's just an unintended consequence of them trying to slowly phase out the Win32 API and Desktop applications, and switch entirely to Metro-style WinRT-based apps.

Mozilla isn't going after Apple because they can't -- they don't have a hammer of government oversight to pound away to get someone else to do things on their behalf. Mozilla is going after Microsoft mostly because they can get away with it.

These complaints were relevant years ago, but much like Microsoft itself, they're reflective of an old mindset that's fading away.

iPhone runs iOS; most people don't even consider it OSX, so expectations about what apps should be there aren't based on precedence.

"Windows 8 on ARM" /sounds/ like just another platform (out of many) that Windows has been ported to. The expectation is usually based upon what the software vendor can be bothered to port, rather than what Microsoft does.

So to me it's easier to understand why people would have different expectations compared to Apple on this. Change the name and don't include any legacy UI if you want a more direct comparison to be more obvious.

Microsoft on other hand has always grown with partners. They are not a closed castle. So when they try to gag a great software like Firefox I am upset.

This comes at a time when Linux based OS like Ubuntu are perhaps as good as Windows 7. MS is hurting itself.

And why iOS doesn't allow FF too?

This specific instance ignores that particular history, and focuses just on the "browser included, supported, and otherwise enabled with the most features" part of the argument, which by its self does not seem to stand on its own merits. And, in fact, there really is -no- difference here between Apple and Microsoft - both have created a specific version of their software for a specific hardware platform, and both have placed, or are placing restrictions on what software can run on those platforms with the stated goal of controlling the end-customer experience.

There is not yet any evidence of undue influence on the part of Microsoft to prevent, or otherwise make too costly for, other operating systems, with other browsers, to be installed on ARM-based hardware sold in the market place. In fact, at this point, it seems to be exactly the opposite - that all existing ARM-based tablet style devices currently for sale in the market contain non-Microsoft operating systems, and very few ARM-based phone style devices contain a Microsoft operating system. One would do well to remember that it was the sum of all actions which led to the anti-trust case, not just preventing IE from being uninstalled effectively, or preventing Netscape from being installed at the same level and with the same capabilities as IE.

In this case, there is no evidence that MS is taking other actions to prevent people from selling arm-based devices with other operating systems. Given that we accept that it is legal for other entities to restrict what 3rd party software may be installed on their devices so long as they don't apply undue influence on the market outside of their product, I don't see why the reasoning would be so different here.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft "... Microsoft's conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment manufacturer (OEMs), and Microsoft's intent in its course of conduct. "

[2] http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/Pre_96/July94/94387.txt.html

"Exclusionary Per Processor Licenses--Microsoft makes its MS-DOS and Windows technology available on a "per processor" basis, which requires PC manufacturers to pay a fee to Microsoft for each computer shipped, whether or not the computer contains Microsoft operating system software. The complaint alleges that this arrangement gives Microsoft an unfair advantage by causing a manufacturer selling a non-Microsoft operating system to pay at least two royalties--one to Microsoft and one to its competitor-- thereby making a non-Microsoft unit more expensive. "Microsoft has used its monopoly power, in effect, to levy a "tax" on PC manufacturers who would otherwise like to offer an alternative system," said Bingaman. "As a result, the ability of rival operating systems to compete has been impeded, innovation has been slowed and consumer choices have been limited.""

Not this guy again.

Yes, iOS and Windows RT are similar in some ways. The main difference is that Windows RT is a version of Windows, an OS that is a monopoly in its area. Extending a monopoly to other areas is different than a totally new product. Note that Microsoft is using the dominant position of Windows to further Windows RT, for example by having Office on it and various syncing stuff.

Yes, there are grey areas, and all of this is debatable. It does make sense to give Microsoft more leeway given it is fighting an uphill battle in the tablet space. But the article seems to ignore all of that.

"Windows 8 FTW! Dude you are the DON. I really wish there was more people like you writing opinions like this online and make sure Apple gets what they deserved! What a bunch of asshole! Seems to me you should also give Samsung a call, see what they think! After all this they do not have browser either yet on iOS and I bet they really wanted it maximum! Apple should be take a leaf from the real Mr Steve book, and stop making mess of themselves. Shameful really, this is why I always buy Samsung product and Microsoft software, it is best for everyone to avoid this Apple who are never good for anybody. Thank you for great article."

1) they've never appeared to have an issue with other browsers on Mac OS

2) there's Android and its browser competing with iOS, so there is not a complete iOS-only monoculture like Microsoft had with Windows - there is still competition between mobile browsers (yes, switching browsers means you have to switch device, but that's better than nothing and will surely prevent one mobile browser from stagnating for five years).

I know this doesn't mean Apple wouldn't do it if they had the chance, but as another commenter pointed out, many people have bad memories of long weekends trying to work with IE6 for the long 5 years between IE6 and IE7. Microsoft have already offended, so they deserve extra special attention, especially with legal agreements possibly still in place due to the antitrust cases.

That's why they're taking it up the butt from Google Chrome, Mozilla does not know how to deal with them. Nor do they particularly care that much about it, it seems (other than switching to increasing the version number every 2 months).