PDA

View Full Version : Mozilla says Microsoft won't allow rival browsers on ARM Windows desktop



Dry Lips
May 10th, 2012, 03:28 PM
"Mozilla issued a statement (http://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2012/05/09/windows-on-arm-users-need-browser-choice-too/) Wednesday expressing concern about some of the technical restrictions that Microsoft is imposing on its ARM port of Windows 8. Microsoft’s policies will effectively prevent Mozilla and others from bringing their Web browsers to the Windows 8 desktop on ARM systems."

Read more: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/mozilla-says-microsoft-wont-allow-rival-browsers-on-arm-windows-desktop/

What are your thoughts about this?

|{urse
May 10th, 2012, 03:34 PM
Good. I hope this sort of thing continues so everyone switches to linux/android.

forrestcupp
May 10th, 2012, 04:02 PM
One thing to note is that Firefox will work just fine in Metro mode; it just won't work in the legacy desktop mode. That's still bunk because some important browser functions won't work well or at all in Metro.

But I have a couple of thoughts. First, people using a tablet or phone aren't going to want to use desktop mode, anyway. Firefox will work just fine in desktop mode in the PC versions of Windows 8. Secondly, how relevant will the tablet version of Windows 8 be in an already congested market?

Nevertheless, I smell another anti-trust suit coming on that will look a lot like the last one having to do with Microsoft bundling IE with Windows.

mrgs
May 10th, 2012, 04:08 PM
Are these the same ARM devices which are UEFI-locked to prevent Linux from being installed?

dniMretsaM
May 10th, 2012, 05:42 PM
Are these the same ARM devices which could be UEFI-locked to prevent Linux from being installed?

Yes.

angryfirelord
May 10th, 2012, 05:43 PM
Where's the source for this? The MSDN article that the blog linked to doesn't mention anything about IE being the only allowable browser. If Microsoft is being "anti-competitive" here, then why not got after Google for only allowing Chrome on Chrome OS?

Plus, Microsoft currently has a 0% market share on ARM desktops. But hey, don't let that get in your way of your daily Microsoft bashing.

rg4w
May 10th, 2012, 05:43 PM
After being publicly spanked in more than two dozen courts around the world for antitrust practices, one would think they might have learned something.

Bandit
May 10th, 2012, 05:52 PM
Plus, Microsoft currently has a 0% market share on ARM desktops. But hey, don't let that get in your way of your daily Microsoft bashing.
Dont worry, were to vigilant on our ranting to let something like that stand in our way. :lolflag:


After being publicly spanked in more than two dozen courts around the world for antitrust practices, one would think they might have learned something.
Yea for real, one would think anyway.

alexfish
May 10th, 2012, 06:36 PM
Dont worry, were to vigilant on our ranting to let something like that stand in our way. :lolflag:


Yea for real, one would think anyway.
__________________________^__>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>??? , where did I put that dictionary .....

THELMAAAAAGH

Dragonbite
May 10th, 2012, 06:59 PM
After being publicly spanked in more than two dozen courts around the world for antitrust practices, one would think they might have learned something.

That was my first thought. Though, since a Metro Firefox version is in the works this isn't quite 100% the same.

Plus, I think Microsoft will find Mozilla is not the same company fought o-so-long-ago, plus there is the deep-pocket Google backing them up as well.

Maybe this will help keep people from moving into Windows... unfortunately since this is focused on the tablets it means more people choosing the iPad.

EnGorDiaz
May 10th, 2012, 07:36 PM
this makes me think we really need another 1995 to 2002 again to really teach these mungrels

forrestcupp
May 10th, 2012, 07:42 PM
If Microsoft is being "anti-competitive" here, then why not got after Google for only allowing Chrome on Chrome OS?

Well, seeing how the whole UI of Chrome OS is just Chrome running apps, I don't really see how that's a fair comparison. Mozilla is working on a Firefox based alternative to Chrome OS. I doubt if you will be able to run Chrome on it.

The difference is that Windows RT is a complete operating system and IE is just an app that runs on it. But I agree that it has 0% market share and it probably doesn't have much chance in that market, so who really cares?

wolfen69
May 10th, 2012, 07:52 PM
Good. I hope this sort of thing continues so everyone switches to linux/android.

Agreed. This is just one more reason why I don't use MS products.

wolfen69
May 10th, 2012, 07:55 PM
this makes me think we really need another 1995 to 2002 again to really teach these mungrels

I think you meant mongrels, as mungrels isn't a word. And yes, I am the spell-check police. Consider this a warning. ;)

KiwiNZ
May 10th, 2012, 08:02 PM
Before people rush off and storm the Bastille, a competitor press release and Blogs do not a fact make.

Dragonbite
May 10th, 2012, 08:17 PM
If Microsoft is being "anti-competitive" here, then why not got after Google for only allowing Chrome on Chrome OS?

Because Google has the money to fight it? That's why Microsoft has been going after the handset makers; they know even if they win the court battle with Google, they'll be bloody as heck and ripe for the pickings by Apple, Oracle or IBM (Apple purchases Microsoft... *shudder*)

angryfirelord
May 10th, 2012, 08:50 PM
Well, seeing how the whole UI of Chrome OS is just Chrome running apps, I don't really see how that's a fair comparison. Mozilla is working on a Firefox based alternative to Chrome OS. I doubt if you will be able to run Chrome on it.

The difference is that Windows RT is a complete operating system and IE is just an app that runs on it. But I agree that it has 0% market share and it probably doesn't have much chance in that market, so who really cares?
Well, from the way Google markets it, they deem it as a complete operating system. While from a technical basis, it is just Linux plus Chrome, Google has placed a restriction that it won't allow other browsers on it. Microsoft is simply doing the same thing here. Just with Windows plus IE.

Because Google has the money to fight it? That's why Microsoft has been going after the handset makers; they know even if they win the court battle with Google, they'll be bloody as heck and ripe for the pickings by Apple, Oracle or IBM (Apple purchases Microsoft... *shudder*)
Well, I'll agree that the patent system at hand is in bad need of adjusting to compensate for rapid technological changes. But Microsoft isn't doing anything different compared to Qualcomm (who makes money off of every smartphone) and other companies that license codecs and such.

My main point here is that things aren't always as black and white. Microsoft has their own invested interests as well as Google and Mozilla, all who will put their own spin on the story. Heck, it was Microsoft that gave us the idea of a free-as-in-money web browser (since Netscape wouldn't ever do that). The way I see it, I don't see how Microsoft is the bad guy here.

Lucradia
May 10th, 2012, 11:19 PM
Good. I hope this sort of thing continues so everyone switches to linux/android.

Nope, Microsoft will just make their browser "Better" somehow. Can't switch people that easily.

mrgs
May 11th, 2012, 12:40 AM
Microsoft currently has a 0% market share on ARM desktops.

Once they also had 0% of the server market and 0% of the database market. It does not prove anything.

After the deal with Barnes and Nobles there's no doubt that Microsoft is going for a big share.

|{urse
May 11th, 2012, 02:08 AM
Nope, Microsoft will just make their browser "Better" somehow. Can't switch people that easily.

They seriously never have, at all on any version they just keep adding crap and not adhering to industry standards on any api, if internet explorer didn't exist, half of the internet cruft code would disappear, css and html ie compatibility code. we would all get more sleep as html developers and internet users if it was gone forever.

Halo's pretty cool, I like windows too, don't get me wrong. A better designed internet browser is just as important to install on windows as antivirus (to most people under 50) it seems..

angryfirelord
May 11th, 2012, 02:31 AM
Once they also had 0% of the server market and 0% of the database market. It does not prove anything.
Sure it does. You can't call them a monopoly if they haven't even entered the market yet. :)

Likewise, look at the Windows Phone area. It's hardly anything at this point, despite Microsoft having a brand name. In fact, what market share they did have dropped in 3 months.

http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2012/5/comScore_Reports_March_2012_U.S._Mobile_Subscriber _Market_Share

Again, as I said before, Microsoft so far isn't doing anything wrong. And unlike the x86 market, Microsoft can't simply stick an x86 emulator and attempt to provide a port for all of the Windows apps that currently exist. In fact, Windows RT is probably going to be more like Windows Phone than anything else.

ELD
May 11th, 2012, 09:30 AM
Good. I hope this sort of thing continues so everyone switches to linux/android.

The average users doesn't know about any of this though and they won't care either. If it works they stick to it unless someone specifically teaches them about Linux.

It won't get more people to switch. People get people to switch not lawsuits or API blocking that average users have no idea about.

|{urse
May 11th, 2012, 06:37 PM
So far as ARM based, I think more people know what a droid is than a windows phone. More tablets and mobile devices are android based. Sad this hasn't happened on pc's.

SeijiSensei
May 11th, 2012, 07:42 PM
That won't last for long after there are dozens of Windows phones on display in VZ and ATT stores and at places like Best Buy and Fry's.

Lightstar
May 11th, 2012, 08:21 PM
It will be fun to crack

|{urse
May 12th, 2012, 03:27 PM
It will be fun to crack

+1 2x critical hit