
It's OK for Apple to block Firefox, but wrong when Microsoft does it - tomkin
http://blogs.computerworld.com/20159/mozillas_hypocrisy_its_ok_for_apple_to_block_firefox_but_wrong_when_microsoft_does_it
======
wvenable
A lot of people, including the author of this article, seem to think it's
unfair that Mozilla is not giving equal complaint time to both platforms.
That's the fundamental issue here.

Maybe, _all things being equal_ , that would be a fair complaint but all
things are _not_ equal.

First of all, the limitations of iOS and app store are well known and retread
at least once a month on HN since the site opened. Mozilla certainly did
complain about iOS _years ago_ and decided ultimately to abandon the platform.
We're talking about Windows now because Windows 8 is due to be released.

Secondly, Firefox's primary platform is Windows and they already have working
version of Firefox for Windows 8 with a Metro UI for x86. Only a minor
technical limitation keeps them from releasing it for ARM -- that's not true
of iOS.

Lastly, there is a still a chance Microsoft might cave on this issue. We know
from years of experience that Apple won't.

~~~
ajross
Post-lastly: there's the simple point that Firefox for Windows is an actual
product that could be shipped near-immediately. There is no Firefix for iOS,
precisely because Apple has never allowed it.

I think the broad point is valid though: Apple's platform control is no more
morally justified than Microsoft's. And at least in the abstract they deserve
equal scorn. But the specifics here are that Windows 8 on ARM won't run an app
that can clearly be shipped (and will be for x86). That's a problem with a
reasonable hope of being fixed, so it makes practical sense for Mozilla to
whine about that first.

Post-post-lastly: it bears mentioning that if Safari was as bad as IE, Apple
might draw more fire. It helps a lot to have a browser that doesn't lag the
state of the art.

~~~
billpatrianakos
What you're missing here is that Apple bans everyone equally while Microsoft
does not. What I mean by that is the App Store doesn't discriminate on an
individual basis. Apple is generally consistent in their "unfairness". Looking
at what Microsoft is doing, their decision to restrict Firefox immediately
struck me as an anti-trust monopoly issue. They're not restricting Firefox on
the basis of some policy that applies to everyone but singling out one piece
of software.

The argument in this article is a red herring. This isn't about fairness. It
plays on the whole Apple v. Microsoft thing and tries to drum up sympathy and
or guilt by playing the "you're just hating on MS because it's trendy" card in
a way. It really looks like Microsoft has decided to restrict Firefox
capabilities on ARM devices so their browser can have a leg up and
deliberately and negatively impact the user experience of Firefox on certain
devices.

Framing this using Apple and it's policies/practices are an attempt at
misdirection. If you take this attempt to play the Apple v. Microsoft card out
of the equation and for a moment pretend Apple never banned FF and FF never
even tried to get on iOS what you're left with is Microsoft unfairly
discriminating against one company in an obvious attempt to stamp out any
competition. It's a pretty cut and dry case of ant-trust once you weed out all
the distractions.

Edit: clarified the first sentence of last paragraph. Added the words "Framing
this using".

~~~
wvenable
> What you're missing here is that Apple bans everyone equally while Microsoft
> does not.

You could not have this more backwards. The fundamental issue that Metro apps
cannot write to executable memory pages. This is a fundamental security
feature of both WinRT and of iOS. Browsers download code off the Internet JIT
compile it to native code and execute it. This is what Firefox needs to do.
It's not like Windows 8 is checking for Firefox.exe and refusing to load it.

What Mozilla wants is an exception to the normal rules for applications on ARM
Windows 8.

Microsoft makes exceptions for their own applications (Office and IE) but
that's it. These are the same sort of exceptions Apple make for their apps on
iOS.

~~~
notatoad
>What Mozilla wants is an exception to the normal rules for applications on
ARM Windows 8.

i think where the frustration is coming from is that windows gave them exactly
that exception on x86 windows 8. they created a special class of applications
for third party browsers, that can run JIT'd and native code in metro mode.
now, with ARM, they've decided to revoke that exception for no apparent reason
other than "because we can", and it seems more than a little unfair.

~~~
wvenable
It's not quite the same because Windows 8 x86 already lets you run every kind
of Win32 application that has ever existed. The door is already wide open.
Allowing Firefox to run in Metro mode with more compatibilities than the
average Metro app actually changes very little.

It certainly more complicated than "because we can".

------
ozten
(Disclaimers: I work for Mozilla)

There is a huge difference between iOS and other platforms.

Apple, in legal terms, makes Firefox on iOS impossible. This was not the case
with Windows; Microsoft was using covert means to undermine user choice.

To make a blanket statement that Mozilla thinks Apple's banning Firefox from
iPad and the iPhone is 'not a problem' is wrong and disingenuous.

We have active projects around ways to give users choice within the
constraints of Apple's licensing.

Mozilla fought and won against Microsoft's anti-competitive efforts, under an
entirely different technical and legal landscape.

As a Mozillian, I'm pissed and have been pissed off since iOS's launch, but we
also have to choose our battles on where we can fight to keep the web open.

To apple's credit, they've provided a web standards based browser to a mobile
landscape that didn't have one (at the time) and which spawned many other web
standards based browsers like Chrome.

Do I wish Safari on iOS have a freaking file input so I could upload photos
from the gallery? YES! Would I want a Firefox browser that was proxy based to
get around iOS licensing.... hell no. Is it worth the Mozilla community's time
maintaining an iOS based port just for the people who jailbreak their iOS
devices... probably not, but no one from Mozilla would stop you from doing the
work.

~~~
kalleboo
> To apple's credit, they've provided a web standards based browser to a
> mobile landscape that didn't have one (at the time) and which spawned many
> other web standards based browsers like Chrome.

As I recall it, Nokia started using WebKit on Symbian before the iPhone came
out.

~~~
RandallBrown
Apple forked KHTML to create WebKit. They kept it open source though and now
lots of companies (Nokia, Google, etc.) contribute to it.

------
sriramk
My feeling here (ex-MSFT employee, so maybe biased one way or another) is that
Mozilla is going after the soft underbelly of Microsoft, because they _can_.

Mozilla is already locked out of iOS and they have failed at getting Apple to
budge. If WinRT locks them out, they'll be locked out of two out of the three
major tablet platforms (it's a safe assumption that WinRT will get some
marketshare at least).

Microsoft is an easier target than AAPL - Win8 is still under development so
it's still early days and the company has a history with various governmental
organizations (the DoJ, the EU). My guess is Mozilla is attempting to rattle
Microsoft into opening up Win8 to get Firefox to run. Or drum up enough press,
get the DoJ to make a quote or two and really get Redmond to worry.

If I were Microsoft, I would hold my ground. Strategically, it makes a lot of
sense to own the browsing experience e2e and I think Mozilla's case is weak
given MSFT's lack of marketshare, the existence of Chromebooks, Boot2Gecko,
etc.

~~~
randomfool
"Strategically, it makes a lot of sense to own the browsing experience e2e"

Can you expand on this?

There are a couple of benefits I can think of, but no major ones. \- Quality
of experience: owning the browser ensures that sub-par browsers don't degrade
the overall experience (such as destroy battery life and overall platform
impressions). \- Controlling innovation: If Microsoft feels threatened by HTML
then it can limit certain features until native apps catch up. I believe that
this is a double-edged sword though, as Chrome and Firefox steadily push
forward people are stil unsure if IE can keep up.

Allowing third-party browsers ensures that your platform always has the best
browser and the browser is an incredibly important part of the platform.

Personally, I see not allowing alternate browsers as an attack on the browser
ecosystem at a time when Microsoft has been trying to be very standards
friendly with IE10. For tablets, I use the browser a _ton_ , and being allowed
to run the latest and greatest browser of my choice, with WebGL, Web Intents,
etc, and not be tied to IE or Safari, is a selling point.

The cynicist in me says that Mozilla's Boot 2 Gecko Phone project most likely
will not support other browsers, and Chrome OS doesn't either, so why should
Win8. And I think this really sucks.

~~~
sriramk
I don't think Microsoft will make the mistake of falling behind on the web
platform again. In fact, their latest moves (both tech, organization-wise)
show them throwing more weight behind IE/HTML and less behind .NET/SL/Win32
(this is from me reading the tea leaves from the outside, not any inside
scoops).

~~~
randomfool
I'd argue that MS is still falling behind- IE10 is just catching up but has no
leapfrogging and how far out is IE11?

Even more critically, look at all of the users MS is leaving behind- no XP
support for IE9, will they abandon Win8 users when there's still a massive
number of them?

Unless IE ramps up their release cycle I see no way they can stay on the
leading edge.

------
koeselitz
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.

~~~
azakai
> 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.

~~~
rbanffy
WinRT is not a new product - it's a new API sitting on top of mostly the same
Windows kernel they use for Windows 7.

~~~
recoiledsnake
Windows RT = New product meant for ARM devices (the current topic of
discussion)

WinRT = New runtime API for Metro apps that will run on both Windows 8 and
Windows RT.

~~~
rbanffy
So, it's as much a new product as were Silverlight, WPF and .NET - all layers
that allowed apps written for them to run on Windows-based devices.

The kernel underneath is the same.

------
cletus
I wonder how many people throwing opinions around this were "of age" in the
early-to-mid 90s and thus remember what an unstoppable behemoth Microsoft was.

This was a time when they had 95%+ of the desktop OS share and you basically
couldn't run a home computer with Windows. This was the early days of Linux
(IIRC in ~1994 I downloaded SLS running Linux 0.99.x onto ~30 floppy drives
over a 2400 baud modem!). Macs were an expensive niche product. Personal
computing just wasn't possible without Microsoft.

Microsoft very much used this position to kill Netscape as they saw the
Internet as an existential threat (fearing Netscape would be the new OS). They
tried to subvert Java (the threat of "write once run anywhere" being a threat
to the Windows lock-in) and partially succeeded. It was at this time that the
DoJ stepped in.

I can't overemphasize the perception the tech community had of Microsoft then.
Windows was rapidly evolving. Windows 95 was, I believe, a major turning point
for the company (and where it achieved at least technical superiority over
MacOS having preemptive multitasking and dynamic memory management). Microsoft
really had an aura of _invincibility_.

We are not in this situation today. Apple seems unable to do no wrong (in the
marketplace; there are what are still fringe elements criticizing them for any
number of things) but don't have the market position Microsoft did.

In fact, Microsoft doesn't have the position Microsoft did in the 90s. At this
point I believe we have viable alternatives to personal computing between
mobile devices, Macs (you can get a Mac Mini for $600), netbooks and--dare I
say it--even Chromebooks (you'll note that I left Linux off that list as I
believe it will never be a viable mainstream desktop OS and of course I know
it powers Android/ChromeOS).

I certainly don't see an issue (yet) with Apple blocking alternative browsers.
Don't like it? Buy an Android. Or a Windows Phone 7. Or a Blackberry (OK, I
couldn't keep a straight face with that last one).

Windows and Office are the geese that lay the golden eggs in Microsoft.
Everything is beholden to them. As an organization, Microsoft seems terrified
they'll die and as we've seen time and time again it's that fear and that
switch from innovation to defending your turf that ultimately leads to the
death of companies.

I believe the whole Metro API browser thing is just more evidence of
Microsoft's stagnation. Let them I say. It'll probably, at least in some small
way, hasten either their demise or them attempting to turn the boat around
before they go off the cliff.

EDIT: yes Netscape was complicit in its own destruction. I used Netscape up
until version 3. By Netscape 4 on a 486DX4/100 at least, IE4 was
_significantly_ better and faster and I never switched back (not until Firefox
1.5/2 years later).

Netscape eroded at both ends (IMHO). At one end obviously was Microsoft giving
away the equivalent to their consumer product for free (as well as bundling it
with the OS, making it harder to use non-IE browsers and so on). At the other
end was actually Apache. The Apache Webserver I believe it incredibly
difficult to build their server software platform (anyone else remember
Netscape's Web servers?).

It wasn't until the rise of search engine advertising some years later that
Microsoft's hold could be broken, it being the only thing that makes Firefox
and Chrome possible.

As an aside to all those who are anti-ads: how exactly would non-OS browsers
exist without advertising?

~~~
georgemcbay
I was around during the time period you're talking about and in my personal
experience, Microsoft had plenty of help in killing Netscape from Netscape
itself.

I switched to MSIE3 not because of bundling or FUD but because it was a much
better browser.

Microsoft has been a bad actor at times when it comes to business practices,
but I think a lot of people overestimate how much that helped them and
underestimate how much competitor mistakes helped them. Netscape Navigator
post-2.0 was a piece of garbage until Firefox rolled around.

~~~
cooldeal
Quite true, Netscape's rewrite was a pretty bad mistake and when it was
actually released it was still bad.

Must read articles by Joel about it.

<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html>

<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000027.html>

~~~
jt2190
Brendan Eich has a different take than Joel:
<http://techluminaries.com/2008/12/15/episode-1-brendan-eich/>

~~~
GFischer
Is there a transcription available? I can't listen to podcasts at work (and
don't listen to them in my free time as a personal preference).

------
CountSessine
I'm going to put this question out here for everyone who's had some experience
building a JIT engine of some kind: what exactly is the danger of compiling
code, even unknown code like from downloaded javascript, when the process'
operating environment is supposed to be hardened anyways?

Is it just that the only way to do this is with VirtualAlloc()/mmap()? Could a
'safe' executable page allocator be created for just this purpose?

If the JIT'ing code is tricked into compiling and executing 'malicious' code,
hasn't the operating environment - what libs the process can load, what
syscalls it has access to, etc - already been security-hardened? My
understanding of WinRT is that it's already a bit of a sand-boxed environment,
with limited and measured access to the machine's resources.

If it's possible for the JIT'ed code to do something REALLY bad, like install
a driver or write to arbitrary system files or something, then it was possible
for the JIT'ing code to do that too, and that's almost certainly a really
really bad thing.

Even if it's just a matter of the JIT'ed code violating the trust agreement
between the user and the JIT'ing code (ie doing something that the user was OK
with Firefox doing, like reading the address book, but doing it for malicious
reasons), maybe a new trust agreement can be designed, that would make users
aware that the JIT'ing program is inherently a bit more dangerous?

Or maybe what really needs to happen is we have to treat JIT's as pluggable,
upgradable OS infrastructure, sort of like the image loader or dyld/ld-
linux.so? In that case, if the Firefox would install a browser and the Firefox
JIT'ter as separate components, and then Firefox would ask it's JIT'er to
compile/execute javascript into a separate process - one with much more
limited access to the machine?

~~~
lmkg
First three rules of security: Layers, _Layers_ , _LAYERS_.

To your point, _in theory_ you could accomplish security by totally securing
the JIT, or by totally securing the OS, and then exec's JITed code would be
ok. However, totally secured JITers and OSs are as mythical as sufficiently
smart compilers.

~~~
fpgeek
Totally secure, sure. Nothing nontrivial is totally secure, but...

One reasonable option would be requiring any JIT to be via a typed assembly
language. You should be able to get a good compromise with close to the
performance of native code and the security of verified bytecode from that.

~~~
sirclueless
Well, then you have to carefully vet every JITting assembly language.
Microsoft in fact does this: the WinRT APIs run on .NET, which has an
associated assembly language CIL (formerly MSIL) and JITting runtime, the CLR.

So, if you want a JIT via a typed assembly language you can compile down to
CIL. Firefox could do this, but then they couldn't specialize their JIT to run
JavaScript properly, which is the hard part anyways. V8 and Gecko are very
cool engines, and compiling javascript to CIL wouldn't compete.

------
Zak
This seems like a bad move for Microsoft. Few people see them as the horrible
monopolistic evil empire anymore, but it's not so long ago that people saw
them that way. They got in significant legal trouble just for _bundling_ a
browser with Windows. Blocking alternative browsers, or subjecting them to
restrictions MS considers too crippling for their own browser seems like a
good way to scare off developers and users alike.

~~~
rbanffy
Scaring users off is not that big a problem for them. Microsoft has 5 vital
clients - HP, Dell, Acer, Lenovo and Toshiba. As long as you buy a computer
with Windows installed (and it's hard not to) they're happy.

~~~
Zak
Yes, but those clients are expanding their non-Windows offerings. The version
of Windows in question isn't for traditional PCs but for ARM tablets. There,
it has to compete with Android[1], which has a bit of a head start.

[1] And iOS, when in comes to consumer market share, but that's obviously not
an option for the manufacturers MS sells to.

~~~
rbanffy
> There, it has to compete with Android[1], which has a bit of a head start.

This matters little if MS is able to leverage their power with PC (by
modulating the Windows OEM license price) and phone (modulating their Android
patent tax) makers to convince them they should build Win8 tablets. Even as it
diminishes, the power Microsoft has over the computing industry is enormous
and cannot be ignored.

I have a strong suspicion many phone vendors wouldn't bother to offer WP7
products without some sort of incentive from Redmond.

------
unreal37
A lot of misinformation being spread here. Microsoft has not BANNED Firefox in
Windows 8. There will be a version of Firefox for all editions of Windows 8,
including desktop and tablet as long as Mozilla chooses to make one.

In Windows 8 for ARM-based tablets, applications like this have to run in a
sandbox (Metro UI). Get over it. Either consumers will or will not buy a
tablet that they can't run applications the way they wish. Perhaps a Windows 8
tablet will be a disaster and all this outrage will be for nothing.

Certainly the restrictions Apple places on iOS are in many ways worse. I don't
see how you can be mad at Microsoft but give Apple a pass.

~~~
sp332
The "sandbox" disallows JITs. That means JS performance in any browser (other
than IE) will be basically unusable, effectively banning browsers from ARM
Win8.

~~~
rbanffy
... and irreparably damaging their reputation when compared with IE.

So, no. I don't buy that "We don't want to ban your app, we just want to make
sure it disappoints your users" as fair.

------
Karunamon
Considering that Apple hasn't been legally ruled to be an illegal monopoly and
Microsoft has, the faux-righteous-indignation in the headline completely
backfires.

~~~
rmk2
Apple also has a lot more...vocal (dare I say 'zealous'?) followers trying to
quell criticism. Those very same people will however gladly take every stab
they can at Microsoft.

(I think both companies deserve every bit of criticism for trying to repeat
history all over again...)

~~~
pohl
Microsoft had an abundant supply vocal apologists back then. Moreover, they
had the tech press (which was on paper at the time) in their pocket.

------
thomasjoulin
As much as I love iOS, I'm sad of some of the comment saying it's normal for
Apple to block Chrome/Firefox for security reasons. Tablets (arguably, only
the iPad, really) are the future of computing, like it or not. Having a single
browser on highly connected machines is shoking.

The whole lockin is understandable, the plateform is relatively new, and
proved to be successful in part because if these extreme protections.

But sooner rather than later, Apple is going to have to open some stuff. Being
with something like gae keeper on iOS could allow to (very few) browser vendor
to get on the App Store with full access to the sysem. Mozilla and Google
build solid products with few security issues (if you factor off the security
bugs from plugins)

iOS is a very modern OS, but will deeply profit from competition in the
browser space. Apple too. The best tablet for apps _and_ web browsing will win
in the long run, because the web will win in the long run, but people will
always prefer native apps for specific stuff.

------
superuser2
Windows 8 is the natural successor to Win7 and XP. It's the next version of
the most popular desktop OS in the world. As with Windows 7 and OSX, it should
run whatever the hell the machine's owner wants it to.

iOS is a locked-down, consistent, homogeneous user experience on specialty
devices that should not be and are not marketed as replacements for computers.
Apple Store employees will specifically advise against purchasing an iPad as a
primary computer.

If Apple tried to tell me what I can and cannot run on OSX, I'd be pissed. On
mobile, I currently have a choice between superior UX (iOS) and freedom
(Android), which are at this stage in the game somewhat mutually exclusive
(part of the iPhone's appeal is that There Is One And Only One Right Way To Do
It).

For the record, I run Android, but I still want to the option to select a
higher quality product if I'm willing to sacrifice what Android does better
(turn by turn directions and physical keyboard on the Droid 3).

~~~
esrauch
> that should not be and are not marketed as replacements for computers.

Interestingly several of my non-technical friends have taken on iPads as full
time replacements for laptops. They only used them to read the news, facebook
or watch netflix the iPad does literally everything that they previously had
laptops for.

> If Apple tried to tell me what I can and cannot run on OSX, I'd be pissed.

I think the distinction that Microsoft is going for here is Win8 arm = tablets
= iOS, Win8 x86 = laptops = OSX. By your argument there should be no problem
with them locking it down then.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
The idea that an iPad can perform all the functions that some people are
(under) using a laptop for doesn't mean that an iPad is an adequate
replacement for a computer. They should not be marketed as such.

~~~
rbanffy
It all depends on what you use your computer for.

For me it wouldn't be an adequate replacement - I like to work on my code
offline and run development servers of my computer, but it's easy to imagine a
simple setup where I log on to a remote machine through the tablet and work
there.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
I'm pretty sure we are agreeing here. If they don't do everything a computer
does, they are not a replacement for a computer. If they do everything _you_
do on your computer then they are a replacement for _your_ computer.

------
TazeTSchnitzel
>"The difference here is that Microsoft is using its Windows monopoly power in
the OS market to exclude competition in the browser market."

Some might see it that way. Personally, I don't think that's Microsoft's goals
at all, it's just an unintended consequence of them trying to slowly phase out
the Win32 API and Desktop applications, and switch entirely to Metro-style
WinRT-based apps.

~~~
sp332
That would make sense except that they specifically exempt their own browser
from the restrictions that will apply to every other browser.

~~~
wvenable
The problem is that third party applications can cause security and
performance issues and it's Microsoft who ultimately takes the blame for it.
They exempt their own browser because it's their own browser.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
I'd say it's more an exemption for their own rendering engine. IE10 is more
than just a "browser" in Windows 8, it is the engine used to execute several
Windows 8 applications.

~~~
contextfree
It's an exemption for whatever is preinstalled on the device :) The actual
technical mechanism behind this "ban" is simply that installing desktop apps
in general is blocked on Windows RT. A "Metro style enabled desktop browser"
(what Metro style IE and Metro style Firefox are) is really just a desktop
executable that acts like a Metro style app.

------
mbq
Meh, it is just time to accept that Android, iOS and Windows RT are not a
serious OSes but an unobtrusive, eye-candy cloud clients for masses. The step
ahead is either to waste money on VPSes or just demand the right to have full
control of the software on hardware we buy -- say Angstrom will always run
Firefox without any doubt.

~~~
muyuu
You're totally right there, but sadly group dynamics will make it extremely
hard for Angstrom to achieve critical mass as a phone OS and have a
significant amount of businesses working in its ecosystem.

I'm totally for it but it's not cost effective for me to get a machine capable
of running Armstrong, then hack away until I can get it into a workable state
(I'm older and busier now...) over just getting an Android, root it, make a
throwaway google account so Google cannot pry on my data, and use that
instead. It's still some work and some cost but nowhere as much.

If there's a community effort to make it into a click-and-install Android-
wiping mobile phone OS, I'd love to help with that in my spare time. Last time
I looked into it (waited for years for my OpenPandora until I gave up)
Angstrom was stuck in amateur PDA land, things have moved on and we now have
cheap smartphones and tables that are basically overpowered PDAs with extra
features and they are available for relatively very cheap. To compete with
that a massive re-focus would be necessary. Obviously there is no substitute
for freedom, so the niche is there.

------
contextfree
arguments of the form "why aren't you complaining as much when X does it?" are
always lame. because (1) often they are, you just haven't noticed it (often
because it hasn't resonated with a media echo chamber) and (2) so what.

------
jroseattle
This is such a tired argument. Microsoft's market share on browsers, desktops,
etc. has been headed straight south for years, and yet Mozilla continues to
beat the drum about choice and innovation and such? Hey, 1998 called, they'd
like their complaints back.

Mozilla isn't going after Apple because they can't -- they don't have a hammer
of government oversight to pound away to get someone else to do things on
their behalf. Mozilla is going after Microsoft mostly because they can get
away with it.

These complaints were relevant years ago, but much like Microsoft itself,
they're reflective of an old mindset that's fading away.

------
michael_f
My thoughts in summary: what a difference a name makes.

iPhone runs iOS; most people don't even consider it OSX, so expectations about
what apps should be there aren't based on precedence.

"Windows 8 on ARM" /sounds/ like just another platform (out of many) that
Windows has been ported to. The expectation is usually based upon what the
software vendor can be bothered to port, rather than what Microsoft does.

So to me it's easier to understand why people would have different
expectations compared to Apple on this. Change the name and don't include any
legacy UI if you want a more direct comparison to be more obvious.

------
digamber_kamat
Apple has been consistent in it's policies. It has always been a closed
castle. That is one reason why I haven't spent any bucks buying Apple
products. One good thing about their consistency is that their browsers and
other software is pretty good. Safari is much decent browser than crappy IE.

Microsoft on other hand has always grown with partners. They are not a closed
castle. So when they try to gag a great software like Firefox I am upset.

This comes at a time when Linux based OS like Ubuntu are perhaps as good as
Windows 7. MS is hurting itself.

------
MaysonL
Of course, there _are_ other web browsers for iOS:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3961084>

~~~
kalleboo
But no alternative rendering engines (all the alternative browsers are just
UIWebViews save for Opera Mini which Apple don't classify as a browser since
it doesn't do any rendering locally), and the alternative browsers have worse
performance than Safari due to the sandbox disallowing some optimizations
allowed in Safari.

------
tosseraccount
Why are they blocking FF? It seems to me Apple's inviting the same anti-trust
problems Microsoft had. Just let FF on and compete.

~~~
Tloewald
A browser is a huge attack surface. It's excluded for the same reason Flash
and Java are excluded.

BTW I think this justifies Microsoft's stance too. The big problem is that
Microsoft has this nasty track record.

~~~
throwaway64
so we can trust IE to be much more secure and not have problems?

~~~
Tloewald
No, but ie + other browsers is guaranteed to be less secure than just IE.

~~~
snupples
Not if you don't use IE

~~~
Tloewald
IE will be used as a browser widget at API level by third party apps, so using
it will be almost unavoidable.

~~~
pcwalton
I suspect it's likely that apps that wish to use an alternative rendering
engine for untrusted content would use IE only for trusted content.

------
dm8
Has MSFT given any justification on why they are banning Firefox from Windows
8?

And why iOS doesn't allow FF too?

~~~
TimGebhardt
They're not banning it. They're just not allowing access to critical API
functions for a JIT engine to Windows Marketplace apps. Only IE has access to
it. Without these APIs then Firefox will run like a dog because it'll undue
all the years that people have been working on optimizing Javascript engines.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
Right. So... I don't ban anyone from my swimming pool... everyone is welcome.
But if you're not family, you have to wear this 100lb ankle weight. Dive right
in everybody! lol

~~~
TimGebhardt
I think there is a big difference between banning it outright (like Apple) and
hampering it. From the end-users point of view both suck, but at least if I
use Firefox to sync my bookmarks and passwords I'm able to on a Windows
tablet. Nothing I can do on an iPad.

~~~
jack-r-abbit
First, let's assume the majority of users are not going to know why the an app
is not allowed and/or why it is sluggish/limited/hampered/etc. From the
average user point of view... the biggest difference to me is that when it is
banned, the _banner_ (Apple) is the bad guy for not letting it in. When it is
severely hampered the bad guy appears to be the _creator_ (Firefox) for making
a crap app when in reality the _hamper-er_ (Microsoft) is the bad guy for
crippling the app's ability to perform as well as it can.

------
cjoh
Only one of the organizations involved here has a court mandated consent
decree.

------
jhawk28
The key difference is that its iOS on Apple hardware vs a general OS.

------
laveur
I would like to take the time to point out that Opera has a browser on iOS
[http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/opera-mini-web-
browser/id3637...](http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/opera-mini-web-
browser/id363729560?mt=8) (iTunes)

~~~
gcp
Opera Mini doesn't contain a rendering engine or JIT or...it's a glorified
image viewer that lets the rendering be done on a remote server.

------
deedubaya
I don't think Apple blocks Firefox on iOS. Other browsers like Opera exist in
the App Store, maybe Mozilla just hasn't developed FF for iOS yet? Or am I
wrong?

~~~
wvenable
Apple blocks all non-Safari browsers from the store. Opera Mobile doesn't
exist in the App store, only Opera Mini which uses a remote server for
rendering. Other browsers in the store use iOS webkit and are effectively
shells around the Safari rendering engine.

~~~
Terretta
What's wrong with the webkit rendering engine?

Chrome started as "effectively a shell" around webkit. As far as most end
users are concerned, the difference between browsers is the UI, not the
rendering engine. I use iCab on iOS for its UI and amazing feature set
(including Adblock and extensions), and apprececiate the choice. In fact, it
syncs with Firefox bookmarks. Atomic is also nice.

It would be very interesting to do a Firefox-like UI for iOS and see what the
end user uptake would be.

~~~
wvenable
One example: The iPhone webkit doesn't support text reflow even though it's
supported by webkit on Android and in Opera.

Many years ago you could have said "What's wrong with the IE rendering engine"
because, at one time, IE was the best browser available on Windows.

------
drone
I think a big part of the history which people are forgetting here is that
there were certain actions which Microsoft engaged in that strengthened the
determination of "monopolistic" behavior. Namely, the restraints and
difficulty they created for other operating systems in the market. [1][2]

This specific instance ignores that particular history, and focuses just on
the "browser included, supported, and otherwise enabled with the most
features" part of the argument, which by its self does not seem to stand on
its own merits. And, in fact, there really is -no- difference here between
Apple and Microsoft - both have created a specific version of their software
for a specific hardware platform, and both have placed, or are placing
restrictions on what software can run on those platforms with the stated goal
of controlling the end-customer experience.

There is not yet any evidence of undue influence on the part of Microsoft to
prevent, or otherwise make too costly for, other operating systems, with other
browsers, to be installed on ARM-based hardware sold in the market place. In
fact, at this point, it seems to be exactly the opposite - that all existing
ARM-based tablet style devices currently for sale in the market contain non-
Microsoft operating systems, and very few ARM-based phone style devices
contain a Microsoft operating system. One would do well to remember that it
was the sum of all actions which led to the anti-trust case, not just
preventing IE from being uninstalled effectively, or preventing Netscape from
being installed at the same level and with the same capabilities as IE.

In this case, there is no evidence that MS is taking other actions to prevent
people from selling arm-based devices with other operating systems. Given that
we accept that it is legal for other entities to restrict what 3rd party
software may be installed on their devices so long as they don't apply undue
influence on the market outside of their product, I don't see why the
reasoning would be so different here.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft> "... Microsoft's
conduct in forming restrictive licensing agreements with original equipment
manufacturer (OEMs), and Microsoft's intent in its course of conduct. "

[2] <http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/Pre_96/July94/94387.txt.html>

"Exclusionary Per Processor Licenses--Microsoft makes its MS-DOS and Windows
technology available on a "per processor" basis, which requires PC
manufacturers to pay a fee to Microsoft for each computer shipped, whether or
not the computer contains Microsoft operating system software. The complaint
alleges that this arrangement gives Microsoft an unfair advantage by causing a
manufacturer selling a non-Microsoft operating system to pay at least two
royalties--one to Microsoft and one to its competitor-- thereby making a non-
Microsoft unit more expensive. "Microsoft has used its monopoly power, in
effect, to levy a "tax" on PC manufacturers who would otherwise like to offer
an alternative system," said Bingaman. "As a result, the ability of rival
operating systems to compete has been impeded, innovation has been slowed and
consumer choices have been limited.""

------
danielrm26
Perhaps Apple does it for quality purposes, while Microsoft does it to avoid
competition.

------
chmod775
>Preston Gralla

Not this guy again.

------
rsanchez1
But Apple made that 1984 commercial years ago. That means it can do no wrong,
right? AND it's so cool. That also means it can do no wrong, right?

------
azakai
Best guess, the author is intentionally being dense and stirring up
controversy for clicks.

Yes, iOS and Windows RT are similar in some ways. The main difference is that
Windows RT is a version of Windows, an OS that is a monopoly in its area.
Extending a monopoly to other areas is different than a totally new product.
Note that Microsoft is using the dominant position of Windows to further
Windows RT, for example by having Office on it and various syncing stuff.

Yes, there are grey areas, and all of this is debatable. It does make sense to
give Microsoft more leeway given it is fighting an uphill battle in the tablet
space. But the article seems to ignore all of that.

~~~
rbanffy
> give Microsoft more leeway given it is fighting an uphill battle in the
> tablet space

So, if we make it really hard to rob a bank, we should be OK with someone
robbing one. The fact it's an uphill battle does not make it less an abuse of
monopoly to extend it into other markets than it would be if they managed to
see this opportunity before others (or not failed miserably to execute on it,
over and over again).

It's only an uphill battle because they were incompetent to see the
opportunities Apple saw and to execute as well as Apple did.

~~~
recoiledsnake
I think what OP meant was that Microsoft should not be hobbled with
deadweights compared to, lets say a startup competing in the tablet market. I
don't believe he was talking about special incentives.

Competition is almost always good, especially seeing that Android tablets are
hardly making any traction and even Kindle Fire sales dropped like a rock this
quarter.

------
da_n
#drunken troll comment

"Windows 8 FTW! Dude you are the DON. I really wish there was more people like
you writing opinions like this online and make sure Apple gets what they
deserved! What a bunch of asshole! Seems to me you should also give Samsung a
call, see what they think! After all this they do not have browser either yet
on iOS and I bet they really wanted it maximum! Apple should be take a leaf
from the real Mr Steve book, and stop making mess of themselves. Shameful
really, this is why I always buy Samsung product and Microsoft software, it is
best for everyone to avoid this Apple who are never good for anybody. Thank
you for great article."

------
AshleysBrain
I think Mozilla are absolutely right. and there is no hypocrisy. Microsoft are
willing to, and _have actually already_ , cause years of stagnation and harm
to the internet with IE6. Presumably if they got the chance they would do it
again on tablet too. Apple on the other hand don't appear so risky for two
reasons:

1) they've never appeared to have an issue with other browsers on Mac OS

2) there's Android and its browser competing with iOS, so there is not a
complete iOS-only monoculture like Microsoft had with Windows - there is still
competition between mobile browsers (yes, switching browsers means you have to
switch device, but that's better than nothing and will surely prevent one
mobile browser from stagnating for _five years_ ).

I know this doesn't mean Apple _wouldn't_ do it if they had the chance, but as
another commenter pointed out, many people have bad memories of long weekends
trying to work with IE6 for the long 5 years between IE6 and IE7. Microsoft
have already offended, so they deserve extra special attention, especially
with legal agreements possibly still in place due to the antitrust cases.

------
gm
FF's entire existence is based on a hate of Microsoft, so it only makes sense.

That's why they're taking it up the butt from Google Chrome, Mozilla does not
know how to deal with them. Nor do they particularly care that much about it,
it seems (other than switching to increasing the version number every 2
months).

~~~
onedognight
> FF's entire existence is based on a hate of Microsoft

As a student of history I'm sure you are aware that Mozilla (the name and the
code base) predated Internet Explorer. I think you meant to say that Internet
Explorer's only reason for existing was that Microsoft feared Netscape.

~~~
gm
I stand corrected, thanks. Read up on the actual history of the browser.
Thought today was going to be a day I did not learn something :-)

