This is a bit silly. So the point of this article is that Mozilla "should be criticizing Apple?" Why waste a whole article saying someone else should criticize Apple? It seems more worthwhile to do it oneself.
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.
> Likewise, the fact that Mozilla neglects to criticize Apple
Good points, and furthermore that bit isn't even accurate. Mozilla has been critical of Apple too. But Windows RT is a new product, so there is new cricitism; the criticism of Apple is old.
Care to link to them? I am not being facetious, I am genuinely interested in seeing their official statements on this and if they've publicly called Apple to open up iOS to Firefox. Bonus points if they've alluded to antitrust law.
Do they not have what is essentially a monopoly on the tablet space? I'm not up to date on Android tablet market share, but it seems to me that there isn't so much a market for tablets as there is one for iPads. Everything else is pretty much nonexistent. I might be wrong about that, I guess.
Using percentages to decide monopoly status isn't relevant. There are far greater factors involved, as the DOJ/MS trial established precedent in that respect.
> The trouble with trying to dismiss an argument with accusations of hypocrisy is that hypocrites can be right
Touché!
Also, iOS was closed from the start and Microsoft is closing Windows down now because it feels that if it doesn't, it will lose the Win8 ARM market too.
And, obviously, Firefox is not the only target - they must be much more worried about Google owning the WOA web space.
>Also, iOS was closed from the start and Microsoft is closing Windows down now...
Err what? You do realize that every single program that will run on Windows 7 will run on Windows 8 right? What do you mean by MS is closing Windows now?
Also, Windows RT hasn't even started shipping yet, so you can say "Windows RT will be closed from the start". Which will make it equivalent to iOS in that regard.
That's because they're not running under WinRT on x86. Apparently there's a special exemption in the x86 version of Windows 8 which allows the default web browser to provide a Metro interface even though it's still a Win32 application.
Win8 is Windows kernel + Windows API + Windows RT. Win8 on ARM is Win8 minus Windows API. It's not a new product - it's a castrated version of the latest version of an old product.
>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.
Bad analogy. A better analogy would be to believe that stealing is wrong, but only loudly blame A for stealing, but be quiet when B does the exact same thing. Maybe the article should've said bias instead of hypocrisy.
>Likewise, the fact that Mozilla neglects to criticize Apple doesn't mean their criticism of Microsoft is incorrect.
The article didn't say that, no; the fact that the whole article is a criticism of Mozilla would seem to be an implication that that criticism would extend to Mozilla's argument, but that's an indirect implication, to be sure. But the trouble is that, if that wasn't the point of the article, then once again it seems like a rather silly topic for an article. If the author is really purely interested in people who criticize one company but not another for arbitrary reasons, well, I'm not sure I can see much that's very compelling in that.
To put it bluntly, if he's not actually talking about the software or freedom or the market or anything of substance - if he really is just saying Mozilla should either shut up or criticize Apple, without any regard to whether the criticism is right or the companies being criticized are wrong - then he is being petty, plain and simple.
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.