

Windows On ARM Users Need Browser Choice Too - Braasch
http://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2012/05/09/windows-on-arm-users-need-browser-choice-too/

======
LocalPCGuy
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.

~~~
cooldeal
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.

~~~
yuhong
Not to mention that iOS is not as similar to Mac OS X as Windows RT is to
Windows x86.

~~~
maybe_someday
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.

~~~
makomk
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.

------
fierarul
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.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
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".

~~~
Ygg2
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.

------
Deregibus
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.

~~~
yuhong
Reminds of how AnyCPU EXEs in the .NET Framework are loaded by the Windows
loader.

------
greentrack
This frankly isn't any different than my iPhone where no other browser can
become the default!

~~~
apendleton
Opera Mini is available for iOS devices in the app store:
[http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/opera-mini-web-
browser/id3637...](http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/opera-mini-web-
browser/id363729560?mt=8)

~~~
untog
It still uses the Safari rendering engine, because Apple mandates it.

~~~
vetler
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.

There's a bit more info about this here: <http://www.opera.com/mobile/specs/>

In particular, _"The rendering engine is on Opera’s server."_

------
jacktoole1
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?

~~~
zmmmmm
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.

~~~
freehunter
To be fair, Apple originally wanted web apps to be the only form of third-
party software. There was a huge fuss, and that brought us the App Store.

------
randomfool
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.

The ARM excuse is bogus.

------
fleitz
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.

~~~
revorad
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.

~~~
ralfd
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.

~~~
revorad
If you don't have any real options other than IE, you cannot imagine a Firefox
is possible.

Microsoft : IE :: Apple : Safari

~~~
ralfd
The triumvirat of the future Web:

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.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
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).

------
angersock
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.

~~~
pooriaazimi
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.

~~~
_seininn
"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.

~~~
eli
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.

------
kogir
Given that right now there are already two more popular (extant) choices, iPad
and Android Tablets, I fail to see how this is an issue.

Back in the day when Microsoft got in trouble you couldn't really argue it was
feasible to get a PC without Windows.

------
gouranga
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...

~~~
josteink
_...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.

[http://www.freelists.org/post/luajit/FYI-No-JIT-on-
Windows-8...](http://www.freelists.org/post/luajit/FYI-No-JIT-on-
Windows-8-for-ARM)

~~~
jamesgeck0
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.

1\. [https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/native-
cl...](https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/native-client-
discuss/karmYg8XACI)

------
rsanchez1
When you don't have an OS choice (in order for a tablet to be approved for
Windows 8 ARM), browser choice is the least of your worries.

------
gringomorcego
This is unforgivable: [http://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2012/01/window...](http://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2012/01/windows-8s-locked-bootloaders-much-ado-about-nothing-or-
the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it/)

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...

~~~
ComputerGuru
_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.

~~~
gringomorcego
Can you point me to where it works with an ARM Windows 8 device? I don't doubt
it, I just don't see it anywhere in the documentation.

