
Mozilla says no plans to return to iOS until Apple removes restrictions - booruguru
http://news.cnet.com/8301-14013_3-57573440/mozilla-says-no-plans-to-return-to-ios/
======
bartl
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.

~~~
Samuel_Michon
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://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/mar/06/mirosoft-eu-fine-
antitrust-european-commission)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_compet...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case)

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

~~~
Samuel_Michon
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#...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law#Dominance_and_monopoly)

~~~
Tloewald
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.

~~~
fulafel
> 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.

------
pifflesnort
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.

~~~
ibotty
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.

~~~
pifflesnort
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.

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

~~~
bjelkeman-again
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.

~~~
untog
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.

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

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

~~~
jbk
How can you build it without native code?

------
kaolinite
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.

~~~
bdisraeli
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...](http://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2013/03/chrome-hits-17-month-low-windows-8-still-only-creeping-
upward/)

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

~~~
Samuel_Michon
_"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.

~~~
mhurron
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.

~~~
kaolinite
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.

~~~
mhurron
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.'

------
niggler
"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?

~~~
objclxt
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.

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

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

~~~
MatthewPhillips
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.

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

------
jejones3141
This just confirms for me that I did the right thing in not choosing Apple.

------
JulianWasTaken
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.

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

~~~
rgbrenner
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.

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

------
Tloewald
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.

~~~
myko
> 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.

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

~~~
Tloewald
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.

~~~
myko
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...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.firefox)

and the beta:

[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.fi...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.firefox_beta)

------
dandman1
Would Cydia be an option? Mozilla always brandish themselves and the rebels of
the web. This could be a fantastic move for them.

~~~
saurik
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.

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

~~~
mtgx
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.

------
adjwilli
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.

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

------
coldtea
> _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.

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

