Microsoft Blocks 3d-Party Browsers In Windows RT, Says Mozilla Counsel

nk497 writes "Mozilla has accused Microsoft of trying to go back to the 'digital dark ages' by limiting rival browsers in the ARM version of Windows 8. Third-party browsers won't work in the desktop mode, and Metro style browsers will be limited in what APIs they can use, said Mozilla general counsel Harvey Anderson, forcing users to move to IE instead. Mozilla said it was the first step toward a new platform lock-in that 'restricts user choice, reduces competition and chills innovation,' and pointed out that such browser control was exactly what upset EU and U.S. regulators about IE in the first place. Anderson called on Microsoft to 'reject the temptation to pursue a closed path,' adding 'the world doesn't need another closed proprietary environment.'"

Re:Completely reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

You know that there already exists a mobile version of Firefox that isn't just the desktop browser recompiled for ARM, right?

Re:Double standards

[The MAZZTer]

You can install a different OS on a Chromebook. You're specifically allowed to do this, and then you can run Firefox or whatever you want (as long as it runs on Linux, and even if it doesn't, thanks to Wine!)

MS has always been eyed critically for browser share since they've used their monopoly on the OS to force users onto their browser before. Neither Google nor Firefox has such a monopoly to leverage for that purpose.

No source for statement.

[lyml]

I actually RTFA because I thought it was odd and I was curious on how Windows could block browsers from a technical standpoint.

The article leads to a Mozilla blog from which in turns links to another blog on from Microsoft which in no ways mention limiting browsers on Windows for Arm. So this quite strong claim has no actual source.

Apple Already Did it

[jongalbreath]

Apple restricted browsing to Safari for at least the first couple years of the iPhone OS, now iOS, before they allowed a couple third party browsers into the App Store. This isn't really any different. MS can always change later once they've established a certain level of quality over the platform.

Re:Completely reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

The first post on this account, too!

Re:Completely reasonable

[Chrisq]

And, as long as it's compatible with the WinRT APIs (same as Metro IE), there's absolutely no reason why it wouldn't run on Win 8 ARM devices.

According to TFA Microsoft is restricting the API available to third-party browsers and not allow them on the "classic" desktop.

Re:Double standards

[h4rr4r]

Opera is not really a browser on iOS. It does many other things including doing all of the heavy lifting off the device on a proxy service Opera hosts. Sure it displays webpages, but it does not do this directly.

Re:No source for statement.

[Anonymous Coward]

If I remember correctly, Microsoft isn't blocking browsers, it's blocking EVERYTHING from using the desktop. Mozilla is whining they can't get that, which is really only being provided as an environment for the free copy of Office that Win-on-ARM includes.

They should, at least to my knowledge, be able to do everything as a Metro browser, though. I think they're mostly complaining that all their previous Win32 code will be worthless since Microsoft is finally starting to kill it...

Re:Completely reasonable

[SuricouRaven]

I gather from comments the critical APIs relate to hardware acceleration, particually JIT compilation of scripts. A browser without them would suffer a serious performance penalty, and these tablets are made for low-power to begin with.

I don't want to use IE

[kimvette]

. . . nor does anyone else who goes out of their way to install Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome, Safari, or Opera. People who install those browsers quite simply DO NOT WANT INTERNET EXPLORER.

I don't want to use MSIE even if MSIE had a plugin that will build me an island and then fucking transform into a jet and fly me there. If I don't need to access an ActiveX app, I simply do not want to use MSIE!!

Got that, Microsoft?

Re:Completely reasonable

[godefroi]

But that's true for the Windows desktop as well. We're talking about Windows RT here, which is the spiritual equivalent of iOS. How's that for a completely open Unix OS?

It is Completely reasonable

[slomike1]

iOS on the iPad is NOT a completely open Unix OS. WindowsRT is Microsoft's IOS.

Re:Apple Already Did it

[Derek Pomery]

Apple still hasn't really allowed any 3rd party browsers into the app store.
Any browsers in the app store right now must use the same underlying engine as the system browser.

The only "exception" is Opera which does a little pre-processing on their servers if you trust the browser as a MITM.

There has been a build of Firefox for iOS for a long time, but completely unofficial. It will never be on iOS if Apple has any say.

That's why the Firefox Home (Sync) for iOS is just an app that displays your tabs/bookmarks from your other computers and opens them in Safari.

Re:Completely reasonable

[lister king of smeg]

Your funny i almost spewed coffee on my screen when i read that. What your weren't joking?

no seriously yes they have a lot of open projects and use a lot of open code like webkit, cups, and darwin, but to say that osx is open it not true. they are most definitely closed source just look at the majority of the user space code, oh wait you cant, because it is not open. what osx is however is unlocked you cant run any code you want, but that dose not equate open