Don't know why Mozilla isn't making a bigger deal about the iPhone/iPad browsers. Apple pretty clearly still holds a monopoly position, at the least a majority position, but their platform is locked down. But it's ok for Apple, but bad for Microsoft?
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.
Except that Apple doesn't have a monopoly position or even a majority position in phones. And Microsoft has a history of legally enforced access for alternative browsers on their platform.
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>
OK, I am using FF and love it, but what's Microsoft's market share in tablets? Practically zero. Windows RT and Windows are different, just as Windows and Windows Phone are different.
Mozilla needs to speak up about Apple and hopefully all of major tablet OS change their stance.
The point is, why raise a big stink about it when Microsoft does it (which at this point, affects no one), when Apple has been doing the same thing for the past 7 years, which affects millions?
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.
Because if they do, no one will care except a few FOSS fans and it would get flagged to death on HN.
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.
ARM Windows will only be the Metro version with all the isolated processes, etc. While Win x86 might have that, it shares nothing else with the traditional Windows model and is it to all intents and purposes as different as OSX and iOS.
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.
Windows RT will apparently have an implementation of the classic Windows desktop with all the traditional Windows APIs, but only Microsoft applications will be allowed to use it. In fact that's the entire point of Mozilla's complaint - the bundled IE has an unfair advantage by being allowed to use the more powerful classic Windows APIs whilst other browsers are stuck in Metro.
Mozilla should make more fuss about this because it's important.
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.
Is having one "blessed" implementation of the web stack on a platform such a bad thing? Ultimately I think the notion of the "browser" and "operating system" as we know them today will disappear, and we'll be left with OSes that boot straight into a rendering engine. There will be no such thing as a "native app".
I'd say yes it is a bad thing. Why is Web so hot? Because it works on all platforms and is always up to speed. If my browser doesn't render a site properly I can fire up another web browser and try again. Imagine what would happen if each browser was locked into the computer. There would be browser war and someone would win. That means more people will use that browser/computer which will make developer hesitant to support other browsers. Circulus vitiosus and you'd have the same issue like with IE from ten years ago. Without competition dominant browser would stagnate and we'll be up to our necks in molasses.
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 key argument here is the same as Microsoft's previous issues with undocumented APIs. I think it's fairly clear that Microsoft wants Windows RT to be an iOS and Android competitor, not "Windows 8 on ARM". If you subtract the Classic mode from Windows RT it's in the same OS category as iOS, they just took a different approach to get there by basing it on their desktop OS.
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.
Opera Mobile (Opera's much more comprehensive browser) isn't and for the same reason Firefox and Chrome aren't: Apple iOS ban on third-party interpreters of downloadable code (in the case of a browser, JavaScript).
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).
No, Opera Mini doesn't use Safari. The reason for this is that with Opera Mini, the rendering engine isn't on the browser - it's on the server. This is what enables Opera to ship Mini as a tiny client, on a wide range of different devices.
How long have you been on HN? I assure you that a colossal amount of virtual ink has been spent complaining about Apple's closed OS, their opaque app store policies, etc. Stories about iOS apps getting rejected dominated the front page for many weeks.
I'd say the community here is far more understanding of Microsoft than, say, the Slashdot crowd.
I'm not sure why Microsoft wants to exclude other browsers from Windows RT. Since many people hate IE, wouldn't having more browser choice be a benefit? Mozilla or Google could probably offer a better browser on Windows RT than Microsoft. Does Micrsoft make much money off IE? Wouldn't it be a better value to focus on their comparative advantage creating operating systems to help others make the web browsers?
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?
Because letting in FireFox means letting in Chrome which means letting in Google to entirely subvert their beautiful new OS and turn it into ChromeOS. MS needs to be in a position - just like Apple - to ensure that browser based apps remain at least just slightly worse than native ones so they keep a chokehold on the tollgates to the river of digital money that will come flowing through their app store.
With Microsoft's newfound love for HTML, this adds significant pressure to keep IE decent and updated regularly. IE10 is OK today but will be outdated in a year. Will IE11 ship within 12 months (from now, not Win8 RTM).
Otherwise MS has an OS emphasizing HTML, with a limping browser.
To be fair, there is one element missing from history, 90% market share in tablets. Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly position on tablets which is essentially what Windows on ARM means.
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.
It hurts and annoys me to no end that web developers don't take a stronger stand against Apple for its ridiculous policies against allowing browsers. To me, the browser is the single most important piece of software on any computer.
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.
But Apple also thinks the browser is the single most important piece of software on iOS. Because of that, they don't want to be dependent on a third party. They want to have their own optimized webkit engine used, so the users have the best experience. And it worked at least for the last 5 years, I greatly preferred Safari or iCab on iOS to the Android browsers.
While Mobile Safari was a trailblazer in terms of mobile browser experience, I get the impression Apple no longer cares about it since doing a 180 from their "no native apps" stance. It's phenomenal how often that thing crashes on my iPad (and just as often, apps displaying web pages inline via a UIWebView). I've had a look around to see if there are any alternatives for jailbroken devices, but all the other "browsers" seem to be UIWebView based. At least, leaving aside Opera Mini, which has its uses, but isn't really a full browser. Having a working Gecko or Chrome port or so would be a reason for me to jailbreak (or install it myself every 3 months via ad-hoc distribution using my developer account).
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.
Mozilla can't make web applications run fast because they aren't allowed to JIT JavaScript code. That is by far the most important thing (and it's true on both iOS and Windows RT).
Do you know why Chrome and Firefox are not on iOS? Because Apple only allows Safari Webkit. V8, Gecko or any other rendering or JS engines are not allowed.
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.
Not entirely true. Opera has its own rendering and JS engines (nothing to do with Webkit). Opera Mobile (which has both client-side) is banned from the app store, but Opera Mini (which does the JS server-side, and renders a compressed format delivered by the server on the client) is OK.
Opera Mini on iOS does all of it's rendering in the cloud and passes compressed images to the phone. I'm pretty sure they use their own rendering engine, not WebKit.
However you can't supplant Safari as the default app you, and as such the app in which other apps without any knowledge of the rest of the system, can send links to. Granted it's possible with custom URL schemes, but that means apps wishing to open URLs in external browsers need to know about those external browsers up front. You can't ask the system for a list of apps that handle URLs, and choose one.
You are aware that Mobile Safari (on iPad, I mean) is possibly the best mobile browser by far? All other browsers (I've tried tons) are much much worse.
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.
You realize that none of the alternatives are processing JavaScript? Of course the browser that runs JavaScript natively on the device is significantly better than all the
gimpy alternatives, that's no surprise.
Long time firefox user,and critic of Microsoft practices I agree with fleitz. Apple's extremely closed ecosystem unfortunately worked against openness and choice in all aspects. Now that Apple is ruling the tablets, and most of the profits of smartphones, they must be targeted by Mozilla too to allow them to use the Firefox renderer.
What Power has Firefox over Apple, though ? Once the public has no issue with using locked-up devices, there is not much you can do to leverage the benefits of openness.
I agree, ff doesn't have much power, but we users have the power to help, and it was shown again and again how users may affect policies even government policies.
You know, every so often, a Stallman item or quote or something shows up on HN and there is much wailing and laughing and mocking and gnashing of teeth.
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.
Just because some of Stallman's predictions have become true, doesn't mean every stupid BS he says is true. As civilized people we should discuss and decide what is true and what is BS, which is what many do on HN.
"discuss and decide what is true and what is BS"?!!
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.
Stallman's opinions for how the world should work and his predictions for what will happen in the future are not "truth."
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.
There is actually nothing preventing anyone from writing a browser for windows on arm. The issue is that the API makes it inconvenient for existing browsers to be ported.
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...
Alternative browsers are allowed in the Metro interface, but not on the desktop in RT, that's what this article is about. Mozilla needs to be able to run binary code, and Microsoft has blocked all third party code from the desktop in RT.
...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.
Why is the ability to make code executable at
runtime unavailable? JRuby can run in the browser, and NativeClient runs applications that use JIT[1], so I assume the ability isn't inherently at odds with sandboxing.
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...
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.
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.
>Every ARM phone has a windows license paid for it, it's just not installed.
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.
Sorry, you're right, every Android or device with Linux preinstalled.
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.
I'm not sure what you mean, the iOS boot loaders are encrypted and signed. There is a fairly strict chain of trust running from the physical ROM on the chip itself to the apps on the home screen, with each stage signed and verified. Some are "encrypted" (all are when installing, but some in flash storage as well), all are signed.
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.
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.