
Mozilla: Microsoft bans Firefox on ARM-based Windows - vibrunazo
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-57431236-92/microsoft-bans-firefox-on-arm-based-windows-mozilla-says/
======
cageface
I'm getting really, really tired of the nonstop doucherocketry displayed by
all the major tech corporations lately:

1\. Apple gratuitously locking down every last detail of their platform and
cudgeling competitors with that control.

2\. Microsoft playing me-too to Apple as fast as their little brother legs can
carry them.

3\. Oracle buying Java and going patent troll.

4\. Google basically lying about the reasons for their real names G+ policy
and working hard to be the one ring that binds the net.

All of these companies produce some technically excellent products but I have
to hold my nose to use any of them. The sad thing is, I think all of these
companies could succeed solely on the strength of their work.

~~~
Zr40
Re. 1 and 2, what exactly are Apple and Microsoft doing to their desktop OS to
accomplish that? I'm not seeing any evidence of that happening at all.

~~~
sp332
On OSX, your program won't be allowed to use certain APIs unless you limit
your program in other ways _and_ get Apple's explicit approval _and_ give
Apple 30% of your gross revenue. e.g.
<http://mjtsai.com/blog/2012/01/25/pdfpen-and-icloud/>

~~~
Zr40
True, but those APIs were never available without those kinds of restrictions.

------
damian2000
The title of this story is highly misleading. MS have said since around
september last year that if you want to target Windows on ARM specifically,
then you have to write Metro style apps, using the new WinRT API. Existing
desktop apps are not supported - you need to rewrite them. And this applies to
all software developers, not just Mozilla/Firefox.

"The ARM version of Windows 8 will not support desktop applications. So if you
want to write an app and you want it to work on any version of Windows then it
has to be a Metro app." -- <http://stackoverflow.com/a/7426405/507950>

~~~
dbcooper
The issue is that Microsoft will not give access to the API's on ARM systems
that are required to do this.

[http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2012/05/firefox-...](http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2012/05/firefox-
on-windows-o.html)

"Here's what's going on. For Windows on X86, Microsoft is giving other
browsers basically the same privileges it gives IE. It's not great that you
don't get those privileges (certain API access) unless you're the default
browser and I think that's deeply unfair (a post for later,) but at least
we're able to build a competitive browser and ship it to Windows users on x86
chips.

 _But on ARM chips, Microsoft gives IE access special APIs absolutely
necessary for building a modern browser that it won't give to other browsers_
so there's no way another browser can possibly compete with IE in terms of
features or performance.

This is in direct violation of the promises they made to developers, users,
and OEMs about browser choice in documents which mysteriously disappeared from
Microsoft's site -- remember this? I sure do."

~~~
damian2000
Okay, didn't know that - that sounds nuts on microsoft's part.

~~~
dbcooper
It's a strange move - no Chrome and Firefox is a big turn-off for me.

~~~
damian2000
Yeah having a decent choice of browsers is important.. Android would probably
be leading the way so far.

------
zbowling
This article is incorrect. Apple doesn't bar loading webpages with anything
other their own webkit. What they bar is interpreting code that isn't included
with the app except inside the include webkit with the system. This is how
opera mobile works on the iPhone (all external javascript executed server side
and the dom is rendered locally on the device)

There is a clear difference between downloading and opening documents vs
downloading and executing code in Apple's book. (If it's turing complete
basically). They just don't want you downloading new functionality into the
app without them getting to test it and approve it.

It's just really hard to write a web browser that doesn't use javascript. You
might be able to hide a little UIWebView off somewhere executing the
downloaded javascript but something about violating the spirt of the rule
makes me think Apple might still say no.

Long long ago Apple didn't even allow other webkit based browsers. They
loosened up to apps replicating built in features though over time.

Now Microsoft's rule is a little different. It's worse even. They just seem to
want other browsers either way.

~~~
vibrunazo
> They just don't want you downloading new functionality into the app without
> them getting to test it and approve it.

This sounds a little foggy to me. Why _exactly_ wouldn't they want that? What
_exact_ kind of harmful functionality would they not be able to predict a
third party JavaScript engine be able to cause, that webkit cannot?

I'm not convinced that this isn't just another excuse to stop competition.
Similar to the whole, amazon cannot sell ebooks "for the good of our users"
rule.

~~~
fpgeek
I'm sure that stopping competition isn't a drawback from Apple's perspective,
but the official reason is that they don't want developers doing an end run
around their app store to get code on the device.

------
rbn
I think this might be the end to the open web.

It's clear that more and more people will use devices like iPads

So when both Msft and Apple ban other browsers and their app stores are making
a ton of money for them. The next logical step would be to make even more
money from the app stores and slowly drop support for the browsers to do this.

I hope that Chrome OS takes off. I wish that Google and Facebook would team up
together on this and make it happen.

------
va_coder
Thanks for the reminder Microsoft. I was starting to feel some sympathy for
you.

------
caublestone
To me, this isn't about microsoft vs. Mozilla. This is about proprietary
companies vs. open source companies. Open source is all good, but nearly all
of the machines we use to access that open source software is run on
proprietary company hardware/software. If apple or microsoft decided one day
to bar other OS' from being installed on their systems, well tough shit. Until
the people make a movement to make them feel their mistakes, proprietary
companies are gonna continue doing whatever they fuck they want.

------
mibbitier
The number of ARM-based Windows machines must be miniscule.

~~~
josephcooney
Yeah, for an operating system that hasn't been released yet they're really not
selling very well. Oh, wait.

~~~
mibbitier
Sorry, I was suggesting that it's extremely unlikely it'll ever gain any
traction when it is released.

People don't want windows running their tablet/phone/media center.

~~~
powertower
That might be true if by "People" you are reffering to you.

~~~
mibbitier
Can you cite some figures? I don't know anyone that has purchased a windows
phone or tablet.

For example
[http://blogs.computerworld.com/19966/windows_phone_market_sh...](http://blogs.computerworld.com/19966/windows_phone_market_share_is_so_small_nielsen_doesnt_even_list_it)

(Windows phone market share is so small, Nielsen don't list it separately).

~~~
freehunter
Tech pundits are not very good windsocks for what people actually want.
Remember the launch of the iPod? The iPhone? The iPad? Android? All were
predicted to imminent doom. It's especially hard when salesmen are telling
people what they want.

For the record, my name is Freeman. You now know someone who owns a Windows
Phone. And when I bought it last year, the salesman at AT&T flat out refused
to sell it to me until I called a manager, convinced I was making a huge
mistake.

And of course you don't know anyone who has purchased a Windows tablet.

~~~
mibbitier
It's not a tech pundit, it's market data.

Yes, maybe after 10+ years of having negligable market share Microsoft will
suddenly pull something awesome out of the bag and people will suddenly forget
about the horrible experience of using Windows on the desktop, and start
wanting that on their other devices.

But I doubt it. The most surprising thing about this story is that mozilla
care about it.

------
josefonseca
What, a Microsoft vs. Netscape war? Impossible!

------
blinkingled
Hmm. With the whole mobile web basically coded for a version of webkit or
other - the real question is will people with Windows ARM tablets see their
websites broken like they do when using Windows Phone 7x?

That'd be bad for Microsoft.

------
rahx
thankyou for spamming hacker news with a rehash of a previous article

------
recoiledsnake
I am not holding my breath to see the following posts:

1) Mozilla complaining about not being able to run Firefox on iOS or on
Chromebooks even though the situation is exactly the same as with Windows RT.

2) IE team complaining that Firefox is the only browser allowed by Mozilla on
Boot2Gecko.

~~~
daeken
Firefox isn't the only browser allowed by Mozilla on Boot2Gecko. Not only
would that be permissible in our web store (as far as I'm aware), but you
could freely distribute it on your own without having to jump through hoops.
That is one of the points of the project, and is very much by design. If the
IE team wants to build a new browser for B2G, I'd love to see it!

(Disclosure: I'm a B2G team member but these are my views, etc etc...)

~~~
st3fan
Daeken, I thought the only thing users could download to their B2G phones were
_web_ applications. There is zero support for native apps, like alternative
browsers, right?

~~~
freehunter
Yeah, I'm struggling to see how a browser could possibly be implemented in
another browser and expect to have competitive performance. Especially when
Gecko will be running native code, and any other browser would not be.

~~~
Produce
He meant that anyone is free to take the B2G source code and modify it to boot
into another browser.

~~~
cube13
So the answer is, basically, "No, you can't."

------
reptile83
stop whining mozilla, create your own os and make your own rules...or go
pursue chrome os, they don't allow ff as well.

~~~
yuhong
Yes, Mozilla is doing B2G. This does not excuse MS doing this.

~~~
Zash
It'd be awesome if Microsoft then complains about how people can't run IE on
B2G. Not that that's ever going to happen.

~~~
greyfade
Given that IE hasn't run on anything other than Windows since version 5 (when
it ran on Solaris, HP-UX, Xenix, and, I've heard Linux as well - up to 5.5 on
Mac OS), I'd say they probably don't have any plans for it.

~~~
dredmorbius
Not natively, though IE6 ran on Linux via WINE. The "ies4linux" script
actually made the experience only slightly nauseating.

Useful for those who found themselves trapped on corporate Intranets based on
MSIE-only apps.

~~~
greyfade
No, I'm talking about native ports.

Though IE8 and possibly IE9 work in Wine, yes, that's not what I meant. I
meant that Microsoft was actively developing and supporting native ports of IE
3 through 5 on Solaris, HP-UX, Xenix, and maybe possibly Linux (I couldn't
find evidence, but I remember seeing something about it.)

