
Microsoft Accused of Hindering Firefox Browser - ssclafani
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052702304070304577394760696347108-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwOTEwNDkyWj.html
======
SoftwareMaven
I really love my iPad, but I wish Apple would let Firefox into the garden.
Apple is getting away with it because Safari is a webkit browser and is
staying "on the edge", but there is no difference between what Microsoft is
doing here and what Apple is doing.

For consumers, competition is very rarely a bad thing, and in this case, I
can't imagine a case where it could be considered bad for users.

~~~
recoiledsnake
>there is no difference between what Microsoft is doing here and what Apple is
doing.

There is a difference and the difference is that Windows RT will allow Firefox
and Chrome and other browsers to run in Metro mode, just not in the desktop.

Edit: I was wrong.

~~~
contextfree
However, the restrictions on the sandbox for Metro style apps mean that
alternate browsers would either have to be skins around the IE engine, or be
very slow (because it's not possible to run dynamically compiled aka JITted
code). That is why there is a special exemption for "Metro style enabled
desktop browsers" (which appear to the user as Metro style apps but have all
the capabilities of desktop apps) on Windows 8 (x86), which is what Metro
style Firefox will use.

~~~
recoiledsnake
Interesting, I stand corrected in that case. I assumed that the x86 Metro app
would work on the ARM version as well.

------
sirclueless
This is probably going to become a major point of contention. There is a
demonstrable security benefit to restricting applications to a subset of
available APIs and vetting or at least signing all applications that are
installed. The iOS platform is very secure because of this. Android also does
well by gating its app store. But if you restrict apps in this way, you are
setting up an environment where it is easy for a first party to control a de-
facto monopoly.

Openness is great for competition and innovation, but it has inherent security
problems. There will always be a tension here.

~~~
fpgeek
That's an interesting way of framing it. I generally come down on the side of
openness, but it makes me wonder if something like a "right to be available
absent proof of maliciousness" (with part of the hurdle being that a developer
would have to demand their right to be included in some non-trivial way) would
be a useful compromise.

------
koeselitz
Given that Microsoft has already moved to ban Linux from ARM devices at the
UEFI level, it seems like they believe strongly that ARM is going to be an
important battleground for them:

[http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2012/01/16/microsoft-
block...](http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2012/01/16/microsoft-blocks-linux-
arm-hardware/1)

[edit - changed "BIOS" to "UEFI"]

~~~
recoiledsnake
>Given that Microsoft has already moved to ban Linux from ARM devices at the
UEFI level..

Uhh, Microsoft cannot and hasn't done anything like that.

They can't stop Android tablets from shipping can they?

They're more likely going to subsidize Windows RT tablets by charging a
smaller license fee, and trying to compensate that with the money from Windows
App Store/Bing/Music etc.which they lose if users are allowed to change the
OS.

That's like saying Microsoft banned all other consoles, just because they have
a locked bootloader on the XBox.

~~~
fpgeek
Microsoft is at the very least trying to ban dual-booting of Windows RT
tablets. To me, that is very significant.

Also, Microsoft certainly can provide OEMs financial incentives for not making
Android tablets. As you note, they're already talking about subsidizing
Windows RT devices (one of the justifications for blocking dual-booting) and
Microsoft has done worse before...

~~~
recoiledsnake
I do not know why there is this expectation that if something runs Windows it
should be able to run other OSes. First of all this is not Windows, and none
of the millions of Windows programs will run on it. Why should Microsoft be
denied the freedom to do the same things that Apple is succeeding very well
with(and supposedly killing MS in the post-PC world, if you see posts on here)
?

~~~
fpgeek
Some of us think that Apple shouldn't be permitted to do some of those things
either (e.g. banning side-loading and locked bootloaders).

------
fpgeek
I wonder if Microsoft would have let Firefox onto Windows-on-ARM devices if
they'd decided to take Bing's money instead of Google's. I could see them
doing that, but I could also see their desire to emulate Apple trump their
desire to work more closely with a new partner.

~~~
recoiledsnake
How is allowing Firefox in Metro mode on Windows RT tablet "emulating Apple" ?

Edit: I was wrong.

~~~
fpgeek
You can't write Firefox in Metro mode. The only way you're getting Firefox
with a Metro interface on the desktop is the special "browser mode" that had
to be invented. That "browser mode" isn't available on Windows RT (and
shouldn't be the way to solve this problem anyway because it is a terrible
hack).

~~~
contextfree
Any ideas for a better solution to the problem? (not snarking, genuinely
curious to hear your thoughts)

~~~
fpgeek
Have user-grantable permissions for escaping from the Metro sandbox? (JIT
permission being the most obvious, of course) That might devolve into a "de-
facto" desktop permission at the start, but if they were clear that the
permission model was in flux I could see incrementally turning it into
something reasonable. And saying "your app might/will break in the future" is
much nicer than saying "people can't get your app at all".

~~~
recoiledsnake
History has shown that it never works and the users can be coerced to do
anything to make their app work and are incapable of deciding what's malware
and what's not.Case in point, declaring app access permissions in Android.
Most software seems to have no trouble with user adoptions while requesting
every permission available like making phone calls.

>but if they were clear that the permission model was in flux I could see
incrementally turning it into something reasonable. And saying "your app
might/will break in the future" is much nicer than saying "people can't get
your app at all".

The problem is that with the first breaking change, users will be annoyed and
MS will regardless take the blame for it.

Also the iPad has proven to be a roaring success with the very same
restrictions.

~~~
fpgeek
I'd say plenty of permissions systems have been a success, including the app
permissions system in Android. Does it have tons of rough spots and issues?
Absolutely. Handling permissions is a hard problem no one has cracked. But
Android's system has also unequivocally has provided a net positive value to
users and the platform.

First, there's the baseline transparency. Android hasn't had Path-style
surprises because things like whether or not an app is accessing the address
book or your location are out in the open.

Second, the permissions system (including negative reviews driven by it)
encourages app developers to not just request permissions, but explain why
they are needed. Not everyone does that, but plenty of the apps I've used do.
Among other things, I can wish that were more integrated and consistent (e.g.
a mandatory text string provided along with the request to shift the default),
but, even today, this valuable information ends up in the app description
where everyone can see it.

Third, there's all sorts of potential for tools you can build on top. It's
easy to answer questions like: "Which apps access my location and can send
SMSes?" There have also been attempts to revoke permissions that users didn't
want to give. This doesn't always work well because apps usually don't
gracefully handle not getting an expected permission, but most of the
technical infrastructure is there, so it is a logical future step. And so on.

I'm not saying a permissions system will be wonderful out-of-the-box, but it
is a good foundation on which you can make things better in the future, rather
than settling for a false choice today.

------
DHowett
But a Metro version of Firefox is being worked on[1]: in light of that, how
does the removal of desktop style apps impact Mozilla? It does not appear to.

[1]: <https://wiki.mozilla.org/Windows8>

~~~
fpgeek
Did you read the "Open issues/risks" section? That makes it clear that any
Metro for Firefox on Windows 8 depends on special accommodations from
Microsoft that (so far as we know) won't be available on ARM.

~~~
DHowett
I did, but none of that is mentioned in either the original Mozilla blog post
or this article. We have no reason to believe that disabling desktop mode
precludes an application acting as a Gecko rendering bridge for a Metro UI.
They seem completely unrelated: in fact, the only way they could be is if one
expects a Desktop Firefox to run in the background and serve pages to Metro.
That's not listed in their design plans and, furthermore, is not how IE works
on the same platform.

I will admit to not having read the Application development guidelines for
Windows RT. It could potentially be a sandbox violation, depending on the
aforementioned guidelines - however, that's a completely different issue, and
it's not "Microsoft locking Mozilla out of the market by removing desktop
mode."

~~~
fpgeek
As someone else notes, Firefox needs to break out of Metro to JIT JavaScript,
at the very least. For third parties, there's nothing other than Metro on ARM,
so how would that be possible (absent special accommodation from Microsoft)?

------
contextfree
This is a surprisingly well-written and accurate article.

------
cooldeal
How is this remotely related to antitrust(any more than the iPad i.e) ?

Desktop Windows gains it's monopoly leverage from running Win 32 apps and
people are forced to run it for compatibility. None of those programs will
ever run on Windows RT. Windows RT is basiscally starting from zero, just like
the iPad did.

Just because it has Windows in it's name does not mean it's subject to
antitrust. What next? Insinuating that Windows Phone should be subject to
anti-trust restrictions that the iPhone or Android is not?

~~~
fpgeek
Um, there's going to be Office for Windows RT. That's certainly leveraging one
of Microsoft's monopolies.

~~~
cooldeal
That seems to be quite a stretch.

MS is rumored to be working on Office for the iPad. If that's true then will
it get them off the hook?

~~~
fpgeek
Offering Office on other platforms doesn't mean they're not leveraging it.
After all, which platform is it going to work _best_ on?

~~~
replax
This is ridiculous. Of course I hope it is going to work best on the MS
Tablet. Why not? It'd be a fail if it wouldn't work best on their own OS.
There is nothing whatsoever wrong with that, in fact, it is called decent
engineering. And if e.g. Apple does not want to provide the same access to iOS
as MS has to Windows, it will not work as slick.

Also, I heared Apple is leveraging Safari on iOS, where is the law?

~~~
fpgeek
The difference between Office and Safari is Microsoft has a monopoly with
Office and Apple doesn't with Safari.

