Mozilla says no plans to return to iOS until Apple removes restrictions | Hacker News Reader

Mozilla says no plans to return to iOS until Apple removes restrictions

news.cnet.com

55 pointsbooruguru68 comments

I don't see how Apple's attitude here is any better than Microsoft's stand regarding browsers on Windows, a few years ago, and for which they got a huge fine in Europe. If anything, Apple's attitude ("The company prevents its users from making any other application the default browser") is worse.

Microsoft got a fine for breaking its promise to offer consumers using its Windows system a choice of rival internet browsers (the browser choice screen). That offer was made by Microsoft to stave off an investigation by the EU in the bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows. That possible investigation was requested in light of earlier convictions of Microsoft for abusing its dominant position in the market (and earlier broken promises).

Apple has no such dominant position in the market, nor has it ever been fined for abusing it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/mar/06/mirosoft-eu...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_compet...

Apple's tablet market share is big enough to qualify.

IANAL, but according to Wikipedia, it comes down to 'market definition' [1]. The computer market as a whole was recognized to be a 'relevant market', in which Microsoft was found to have a dominant position [2].

It's up to lawyers and economists to decide whether the current tablet offerings make up a market in that sense, separate from the cell phone market or the computer market.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_definition

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law#...

Microsoft's original legal defense of its browser monopoly was that it was an intrinsic feature of the OS (a bunch of graduate students proved this to be false and most viewed the claim at the time as disingenuous -- MS had sewn IE into as much of Windows as possible seemingly with this defense in mind). The user benefit of security (which Microsoft did not use) could be used by Apple today as a far more legitimate defense.

Also bear in mind that the case against Microsoft showed a pattern of behavior including its treatment of Java, QuickTime, Borland, and so on.

Next, the only significant platform for browsers was desktop computers. So it wasn't a case of MS owning one category of platform among many. It owned the only game in town.

Further to this, Netscape had been the dominant player on the Windows platform, and Microsoft had undermined it. Apple has closed its platform to rivals who give away their software on other platforms. Apple doesn't stop Google or Yahoo or Bing from making money from advertising on iOS, all it blocks is, essentially, middlemen.

Finally, Netscape was a browser vendor who suffered material damage from having its commercial product undercut by MS bundling policies. No-one sells browsers any more.

> The user benefit of security (which Microsoft did not use) could be used by Apple today as a far more legitimate defense.

Relative merits of two bogus arguments aside... It's pretty easy to argue against. Chrome & Firefox would help security (and this additional consumer choice would probably go well with the pro-market regulators). And they could lift the JIT ban on a per app basis.

Windows users have always had a choice of browser, since they have always been able to download an alternative to IE.

The deal with the EU didn't add any choices, it just used Windows to promote alternative browsers to Windows users.

I don't see how Microsoft's fine was justified. Did Apple support it?

Google and Opera requested it. Apple tends not to get involved much with these antitrust proceedings.

http://bgr.com/2013/03/07/microsoft-fine-google-tattled-3626...

It's not a question of attitude, or meanness - Microsoft is a monopoly in desktop OS, so they must obey antitrust laws. Apple is not, so they don't have to do anything.

So is Mozilla going to let us implement JIT and performant JS runtimes with alternative browsers on Firefox OS? As I understand it -- like Apple -- they going to sandbox apps.

In Mozilla's case, there are even more restrictions due to their forcing developers to target only the browser's VM, rather than running as native code.

you cannot compare this. for b2g apps the browser is the os.

so you will only be able to provide a different shell to the browser if you so desire.

firefox os is not going to be the something you can extend in any way. that's a design goal.

This creates a two-tier caste system that separates out 'platform developers' from 'app developers'. In this system, something like Firefox could never emerge in the first place. All language, runtime, VM, and similar innovation could only come from Mozilla themselves.

Apple is doing the same things today with safari on iOS that MS did with IE back in the Day.

Not a good comparison. IE's core wasn't available open source, as WebKit is, so others could build on the rendering engine. I agree that iOS should be open for other browsers though.

The core being open source does not change the user experience though. Apple locked Safari as the default browser.

In this context, I don't see how that's relevant. Whether IE was open source or not wasn't relevant to them bundling it with the OS to establish a dominant market position.

A stark reminder that "Open Source" and "free as in freedom" do not necessarily go hand in hand.

IE's rendering engine wasn't open source but other browser developers were welcome to use it. The award-winning Maxthon browser did that well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxthon

I'd say it's much worse (what Apple is doing), since there's no way to change the default browser.

The behaviour is worse, but the effects on the consumer is not. This since they are not locked to their platform since they can vote with their feet in a whole different manner than they could back when MS were accused. MS had almost the entire market back then, whereas iphone sits beneath 50% market share.

How? You can build only WebKit based browsers for iOS and only Safari can be the default. Also, the Javascript engine used by Safari is not available. All MS did was include IE as part of the OS. You can build browsers for Windows without any restrictions and any browser can be default.

Correct me if I'm wrong: Microsoft was a monopoly and leveraged that to pursue the browser market. This was a big no-no. Apple is not a monopoly.

Thats true, Apple isnt, but they wish they were!

No, in that Apple doesn't have a monopoly on smartphone OSs, which was the whole point back then.

And we are going to have Chrome on Firefox OS when?

That wouldn't be much different than asking if you can use Chrome inside the PC Firefox. When the browser is the OS itself, then you can't ask for that.

Like Google Chrome Frame does in Internet Explorer, you mean? I would like for that to be available on other browsers too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome_Frame

You can build it anytime you want. It doesn't make any sense, though.

How can you build it without native code?

If you want to build a browser in a browser, it's just a matter of time. But that feels kind of unnecessary.

Far from unnecessary.

If your mobile platform is defined in terms of HTML5, it's easy to mix up the layer of mobile platform with the layer of browser user experience.

The think that probably couldn't technically happen is to install chrome and run firefox OS apps on top of the chrome engine, but that's a completely different issue.

(I wrote "probably" because, well, we've seen all kind of hacks and many impossible things will be made)

All they're doing there is making their browser less relevant on the desktop. It's an expectation now that your phone and desktop should stay synced so that article you were reading on your phone is right there on your desktop too, and that bookmark you saved on your desktop is available whilst you're on the bus - this is just going to cripple Firefox further.

Keeping bookmarks in sync between Mobile Safari, Safari and Firefox could be done without Mozilla having to create a Firefox that is just a reskinning of Safari on iOS.

Not all Smartphone users are iPhone users.[1] I use Firefox for Android as my primary mobile browser and am mostly pretty happy with it (I stay on the Beta channel so occasionally there are stability problems). In addition, Mozilla will soon have an entire mobile OS[2] based on their browser.

HN always seem quick to jump on the whole "Firefox is dying" meme, but Firefox still seems to to have about 20% market share in most usage reports I've seen[3][4]. I think it's great to see the Mozilla Foundation continue to standup for their principles.

[1] http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2335616

[2] http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/partners/

[3] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/03/chrome...

[4] http://gs.statcounter.com/

"Not all Smartphone users are iPhone users."

Not all mobile computing devices are smartphones. If you add tablets and PMPs to the mix, iOS has quite a presence.

"Firefox still seems to to have about 20% market share"

If 20% is enough to be called a major player (and I think it does), then surely you agree it's hard to ignore iOS.

The rules under which Mozilla would have to play to put Firefox on iOS would mean they are not putting Firefox on iOS. All Firefox would be, under Apples rules, would be a wrapper around Safaris WebKit. Firefox is not just a window, Firefox is its rendering and javascript engines.

I would say it is very easy to ignore iOS when you basically can not put your product on it.

It's not just about putting your product on it, though. It's about creating a nice experience for those using your product. I don't think that iOS users will really mind if it's Gecko or not.

Mozilla wouldn't be creating a nice experience for its users though, the experience would be as nice as Apple makes it. Any problems with Safaris WebKit though will indeed be blamed on Firefox for the very same reason that they don't care or know if it's WebKit or Gecko, all they'll see and complain about is 'Firefox fucked up.'

I agree that it's unfortunate that there isn't be a Firefox on iOS, but it's a problem with Apple and their App Store rules and not with Mozilla.

We have to remember that Mozilla is a non-profit foundation with a specific manifesto[1] that espouses principles directly in opposition to the closed nature of Apple's App Store. Chrome on the App Store is a different beast than Firefox would be.

Google's primary mission, all the 'Don't be evil' stuff not withstanding, is to make money, so they need to go where users are. Mozilla's goal is to help build a free and open Internet to create choice for users, and a skinned UIWebKitView isn't real choice for users.

[1]http://www.mozilla.org/about/manifesto.html

Of course not. Up until recently I was an Android user myself. That's why I said "less relevant", rather than "completely irrelevant" (after all, it's not as if no iOS sync will kill firefox itself - but it's certainly another reason why I won't pick it).

"Rosenblatt queried the audience to find out how many people were iOS users, and a majority of hands went up. By contrast, when he asked how many of them were suffering, just a few hands surfaced."

Do people expect a full browser in Firefox for iOS or a skin atop the UIWebView? If its the latter (which, as I understand it, is what Chrome for iOS is) then is Firefox for iOS really important on any level?

Chrome for iOS is a little bit more than a skin on top of a UIWebView - the entire Chromium networking stack has been ported over. The upshot of this is that Chrome for iOS supports SPDY, whilst Mobile Safari doesn't. My understanding is that WebRTC should be going into the iOS Chrome build at some point in the future as well.

A UIWebView is used for rendering, but there's a lot more Chrome code in that app than you might at first think.

Eh, the renderer is the most important part of a browser by far. It's where all of the user-facing innovation happens.

You don't think the JIT is an important part of a browser?

Yeah, you're right, the JS engine as well a the renderer are about equally important. But I was trying to fight off the notion that Chrome for iOS is much more than a skin because it has its own network stack. It's a little more than skin, but the most important bits are off limits.

The fact that only Apple is allowed to use the JIT on iOS is a huge, huge limitation in my opinion.

This just confirms for me that I did the right thing in not choosing Apple.

Not saying I don't respect the decision and I definitely side with Mozilla here, but

> We won't build a competing product on your platform until you make it easier for us to compete!

Yeah I'm sure Apple is going to get right on that. All the negative press from their shenanigans these years has really changed their attitude thusfar.

I'm ok with Mozilla's stance on this. I'd be ok with them raising anti-trust issues over this at DoJ, too.

iOS is at 35-40% marketshare.. so there's no chance of an anti-trust suit working. Mozilla would just be wasting resources by attempting it at this point.

Depends on market definition. It's around 50% of tablet sales in USA. And it was like 90% soon after start of iPad sales.

>Yeah I'm sure Apple is going to get right on that. All the negative press from their shenanigans these years has really changed their attitude thusfar.

Yes, it had.

The negative press regarding the restriction to the "languages used for iOS development" had them revise that.

The negative press around the iOS acceptance process has them make several changes to the whole process.

Even in specific app instances, they have reconsidered inclusion etc after some negative press.

And they have responded to the negative press about the iOS Maps and the antenna thing.

There are other such examples. So this picture that Apple "never changes its ways" is just not true.

Firefox was on iOS?

It's only available by turning allowing "dangerous" apps on kindle (not via the kindle store) and I see it's in Google Play but wasn't for quite a while. I love these "open" platforms.

Now that VP8 is licensed by MPEG-LA I guess it's time for Firefox to drop support for it. Oh, and I'd like Firefox to take the same approach to fonts — don't display anything in proprietary fonts.

Mozilla had an app named 'Firefox Home' in the App Store. It allowed you to view your desktop Firefox bookmarks, tabs, and history - which it would then display in a regular webview. Mozilla pulled the app last year.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/01/mozilla-pulls-firefox-hom...

> I see it's in Google Play but wasn't for quite a while. I love these "open" platforms.

What are you getting at here? It was available on Google Play as soon as Mozilla had it ready.

Indeed. In fact, it was ready so long ago that Firefox was in the Android Market for almost a year.

I've guess I've just been horribly misled by going into Google Play on my Nexus 7 (which I preordered) and searching for Firefox.

You don't see Firefox available on your Nexus 7? Have you modded it in any way? Firefox works fine on the Nexus 7.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.fi...

and the beta:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.fi...

Firefox was never blocked from Google Play. It was up within an hour of Mozilla publishing it on the store.

They had a beta you could manually install before that. That could be what is confusing you. You had to go to a website, click a link and then click install. So I really don't understand your usage of "open".

Would Cydia be an option? Mozilla always brandish themselves and the rebels of the web. This could be a fantastic move for them.

Yeah, I am obviously biased, but I consider this a stupid way for them to play this politically... it isn't like Apple wants them, so picking up their toys and going home is just giving Apple exactly what Apple wants. A much better response would be "ok, we are going to make users want us do bad you have no choice but to let us in", and that's not going to happen with their current strategy, but is easily see-able if they cause a nudge in the numbers of the already large jailbreak community.

Return? Never actually noticed they were there. Google seem to have managed well enough on iOS, Mozilla could be missing out.

Chrome is based on Webkit, so the changes weren't that major for them. But they still suffer by not being able to use V8, and not being able to use Nitro with JIT either.

I'm not sure Mozilla really has the clout with its mobile browser to make much of a difference for Apple. If anything, Mozilla building an open-source mobile OS will help Apple by dividing the Android's "open-source hacker" user base.

guess they won't be returning to iOS then...

>Mozilla says no plans to return to iOS until Apple removes restrictions

Apple says: don't let the door hit you on your way out.

I'm weeping tears of "Mozilla Mobile Browser.. WHO?"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com