9 ms·

Google Chrome won't be allowed on Windows 10 S

39 points by 317070 9y ago

felixsanz 9y ago
They will change their mind I guess... This is not an IE-6 time again.
lowmagnet 9y ago
TLDR: Another recent ZDnet article explains that it's a rule for desktop browsers not being allowed by the centennial packaging process. Chrome, others are win32, and would be "packaged" if it weren't for this rule.
- youdontknowtho 9y ago
  so, there's no reason why chrome couldn't be included in the store. They should also get Opera and Firefox onboard.
  - h_r 9y ago
    Actually if you read the article, it clearly states another criterion which is the same on iOS and ChromeOS. That is, a web browser must use the HTML renderer and JavaScript engine from the host OS.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Actually if you read the article, it clearly states another criterion which is the same on iOS and ChromeOS. ChromeOS has no such policy, even if the Play Store does (which, AFAICT, it doesn't) since ChromeOS, like Android, allows sideloading Android APKs and isn't limited to Store apps. Because of sideloading, Play Store restrictions are not Android/ChromeOS restrictions. But Win 10S is Store apps only, so Windows Store restrictions are also Win 10 S restrictions.
sibbl 9y ago
Isn't it just as allowed as it is on iOS for example?
jarym 9y ago
Have I understood correctly: if you have Windows 10 S you won't be able to get Chrome (or any app) not approved by Microsoft? If that's true, then anti-trust issues will once again loom. This time, MS will not be able to drive their competitor (Google) out of business like they did Netscape.
- lowmagnet 9y ago
  They may have to relax centennial rules to allow 3rd party browsers if there's enough pressure. The motivation really seems to be pushing UWP, which sandboxes apps, and de-emphasizing the 17-year-old win32 stack.
- youdontknowtho 9y ago
  The anti-trust issues aren't really the same on many fronts. The current administration won't prosecute them. They aren't the majority platform anymore. They are actually working more in Open Source than is easy to convey in one comment.
  - objclxt 9y ago
    > The current administration won't prosecute them. Anti-trust isn't the exclusive domain of the US, Microsoft have a long and storied history with the European Commission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp_v_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp_v_Commission
- Keyframe 9y ago
  How is that different from iOS and App store?
  - tantalor 9y ago
    The App store has a lot of users.
- r3bl 9y ago
  That's essentially the same thing that Google is doing on Chrome OS and Apple on iOS. There's absolutely no difference between it. I highly doubt that Google will sue them for doing the same thing they're doing on the same market even (cheap, affordable laptops).
rootlocus 9y ago
> Windows 10 S, announced last week, allows users to install only apps that are distributed through the Windows Store. What if I want to compile and run my own executables? How does this restriction work?
- iplaw 9y ago
  Likely signing by Microsoft? Based on what I've read, you will not be able to run your own executables. This is a big issue for University students who are often required to install textbook-sourced software for labs, class participation, etc. Perhaps if you install a Visual Studio app from the Windows Store and use that to generate an executable, it will somehow sign the executable? Meta: At what point does the post rate limit get lifted? If I post a couple of comments while browsing the articles and then attempt to reply to a comment with a question, I have already somehow hit the rate limit and I am blocked from posting for a few hours. It seems like there should be an exception for replying to a question on my own comment.
  - youdontknowtho 9y ago
    Its a combination of signing and app packaging. The technologies to look into are APPX, app container, and the Centennial Bridge. Basically, any application can be included in the store. They are using application virtualization from a prior product called APP-V to protect the system from applications tampering with important pieces. It's long over due. It also provides a unified way to update applications through the store. The store is how they distribute the Ubuntu userland that they ship with WSL...it's very capable. Up until now they only let people publish a very narrow selection of applications to the store. That strategy failed and now they are going to start pushing Win32 developers to take advantage of the new servicing and packaging system. It really is very good. I really, really, hope that this doesn't get shot down by herp-a-derp style Microsoft hate.
    - rootlocus 9y ago
      If, for instance, I build my game with Unity, and would like to distribute this alpha build to friends to test it before it ships, how would I do that?
loki22 9y ago
Is Firefox allowed on chromebooks? I think the comparison with Chromebook is more appropriate than iOS devices.
- tyfon 9y ago
  You can set the chromebook in developer mode and have a full linux system with all the software you want. Or you can install the android version of firefox. So yes, it is allowed.
  - jsjohnst 9y ago
    It's a minor detail, but I feel there's a difference between "allowed" and "possible". Developer mode has a bunch of caveats that neuter many of the selling points of ChromeOS and I'd argue is more akin to a "jailbreak", just one that Google doesn't play cat and mouse trying to stop you from using.
    - tyfon 9y ago
      You can still install the android version though, it is actually the same core as the desktop version and supports extensions like adblock and noscript. What you can not do is replace the "os shell" that is chrome without developer mode, but I'm not sure that would even work with firefox even if it was "allowed".
    - pritambaral 9y ago
      The Android term "rooting" would be closer than the iOS term "jailbreak", precisely because of the reason you cited: Google doesn't lock down ChromeOS like a jail.
      - jsjohnst 9y ago
        Good call. I agree that's a more apt comparison. That said, it's still really locked down, it's just there's a key on the wall next to the door with a sign saying "beware of the gremlins".
- 9y ago
JakeWesorick 9y ago
Chromebooks do not allow any other browser besides Chrome. I don't see how this is different.
- matt4077 9y ago
  Currently, there's no difference because about equal numbers are using Chromebooks and Windows 10 S. But that may change in the future.
- tantalor 9y ago
  No, you can install any browsers from the Play Store on a Chromebook that supports installing Android apps. https://support.google.com/chromebook/answer/7021273?hl=en https://support.google.com/chromebook/answer/7021273?hl=en Firefox runs on a Chromebook just fine: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.firefox&hl=en https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.fi...
  - r3bl 9y ago
    Well, it's the same thing: you can install any browser from Microsoft's Store on Windows 10 S. So, Google will either have to release Chrome targeted for Windows platform (same way Firefox did on Android) or not be available to Windows 10 S users.
    - tantalor 9y ago
      Except Firefox on Android uses its own rendering/scripting engine; there's no requirement to use the "platform" engine.
    - Oletros 9y ago
      Android browsers can use different rendering engines
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > No, you can install any browsers from the Play Store on a Chromebook that supports installing Android apps. Chromebooks that support Android apps also support the "unknown sources" setting that allows sideloading APKs, so you aren't restricted to the store.
blibble 9y ago
10.2.1 Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate HTML and JavaScript engines provided by the Windows Platform. and Microsoft is now completely back its 1990s behaviour
TYPE_FASTER 9y ago
The developer in the article could convert his app from Chromium to UWP and resubmit: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/porting/hwa-chrome-conversion https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/porting/hwa-chr...

39 points by 317070 9y ago

They will change their mind I guess... This is not an IE-6 time again.

TLDR: Another recent ZDnet article explains that it's a rule for desktop browsers not being allowed by the centennial packaging process. Chrome, others are win32, and would be "packaged" if it weren't for this rule.

youdontknowtho 9y ago
so, there's no reason why chrome couldn't be included in the store. They should also get Opera and Firefox onboard.
- h_r 9y ago
  Actually if you read the article, it clearly states another criterion which is the same on iOS and ChromeOS. That is, a web browser must use the HTML renderer and JavaScript engine from the host OS.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Actually if you read the article, it clearly states another criterion which is the same on iOS and ChromeOS. ChromeOS has no such policy, even if the Play Store does (which, AFAICT, it doesn't) since ChromeOS, like Android, allows sideloading Android APKs and isn't limited to Store apps. Because of sideloading, Play Store restrictions are not Android/ChromeOS restrictions. But Win 10S is Store apps only, so Windows Store restrictions are also Win 10 S restrictions.

sibbl 9y ago

Isn't it just as allowed as it is on iOS for example?

jarym 9y ago

Have I understood correctly: if you have Windows 10 S you won't be able to get Chrome (or any app) not approved by Microsoft? If that's true, then anti-trust issues will once again loom. This time, MS will not be able to drive their competitor (Google) out of business like they did Netscape.

lowmagnet 9y ago
They may have to relax centennial rules to allow 3rd party browsers if there's enough pressure. The motivation really seems to be pushing UWP, which sandboxes apps, and de-emphasizing the 17-year-old win32 stack.
youdontknowtho 9y ago
The anti-trust issues aren't really the same on many fronts. The current administration won't prosecute them. They aren't the majority platform anymore. They are actually working more in Open Source than is easy to convey in one comment.
- objclxt 9y ago
  > The current administration won't prosecute them. Anti-trust isn't the exclusive domain of the US, Microsoft have a long and storied history with the European Commission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp_v_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp_v_Commission
Keyframe 9y ago
How is that different from iOS and App store?
- tantalor 9y ago
  The App store has a lot of users.
r3bl 9y ago
That's essentially the same thing that Google is doing on Chrome OS and Apple on iOS. There's absolutely no difference between it. I highly doubt that Google will sue them for doing the same thing they're doing on the same market even (cheap, affordable laptops).

rootlocus 9y ago

> Windows 10 S, announced last week, allows users to install only apps that are distributed through the Windows Store. What if I want to compile and run my own executables? How does this restriction work?

iplaw 9y ago
Likely signing by Microsoft? Based on what I've read, you will not be able to run your own executables. This is a big issue for University students who are often required to install textbook-sourced software for labs, class participation, etc. Perhaps if you install a Visual Studio app from the Windows Store and use that to generate an executable, it will somehow sign the executable? Meta: At what point does the post rate limit get lifted? If I post a couple of comments while browsing the articles and then attempt to reply to a comment with a question, I have already somehow hit the rate limit and I am blocked from posting for a few hours. It seems like there should be an exception for replying to a question on my own comment.
- youdontknowtho 9y ago
  Its a combination of signing and app packaging. The technologies to look into are APPX, app container, and the Centennial Bridge. Basically, any application can be included in the store. They are using application virtualization from a prior product called APP-V to protect the system from applications tampering with important pieces. It's long over due. It also provides a unified way to update applications through the store. The store is how they distribute the Ubuntu userland that they ship with WSL...it's very capable. Up until now they only let people publish a very narrow selection of applications to the store. That strategy failed and now they are going to start pushing Win32 developers to take advantage of the new servicing and packaging system. It really is very good. I really, really, hope that this doesn't get shot down by herp-a-derp style Microsoft hate.
  - rootlocus 9y ago
    If, for instance, I build my game with Unity, and would like to distribute this alpha build to friends to test it before it ships, how would I do that?

loki22 9y ago

Is Firefox allowed on chromebooks? I think the comparison with Chromebook is more appropriate than iOS devices.

tyfon 9y ago
You can set the chromebook in developer mode and have a full linux system with all the software you want. Or you can install the android version of firefox. So yes, it is allowed.
- jsjohnst 9y ago
  It's a minor detail, but I feel there's a difference between "allowed" and "possible". Developer mode has a bunch of caveats that neuter many of the selling points of ChromeOS and I'd argue is more akin to a "jailbreak", just one that Google doesn't play cat and mouse trying to stop you from using.
  - tyfon 9y ago
    You can still install the android version though, it is actually the same core as the desktop version and supports extensions like adblock and noscript. What you can not do is replace the "os shell" that is chrome without developer mode, but I'm not sure that would even work with firefox even if it was "allowed".
  - pritambaral 9y ago
    The Android term "rooting" would be closer than the iOS term "jailbreak", precisely because of the reason you cited: Google doesn't lock down ChromeOS like a jail.
    - jsjohnst 9y ago
      Good call. I agree that's a more apt comparison. That said, it's still really locked down, it's just there's a key on the wall next to the door with a sign saying "beware of the gremlins".
9y ago

JakeWesorick 9y ago

Chromebooks do not allow any other browser besides Chrome. I don't see how this is different.

matt4077 9y ago
Currently, there's no difference because about equal numbers are using Chromebooks and Windows 10 S. But that may change in the future.
tantalor 9y ago
No, you can install any browsers from the Play Store on a Chromebook that supports installing Android apps. https://support.google.com/chromebook/answer/7021273?hl=en https://support.google.com/chromebook/answer/7021273?hl=en Firefox runs on a Chromebook just fine: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.firefox&hl=en https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.mozilla.fi...
- r3bl 9y ago
  Well, it's the same thing: you can install any browser from Microsoft's Store on Windows 10 S. So, Google will either have to release Chrome targeted for Windows platform (same way Firefox did on Android) or not be available to Windows 10 S users.
  - tantalor 9y ago
    Except Firefox on Android uses its own rendering/scripting engine; there's no requirement to use the "platform" engine.
  - Oletros 9y ago
    Android browsers can use different rendering engines
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > No, you can install any browsers from the Play Store on a Chromebook that supports installing Android apps. Chromebooks that support Android apps also support the "unknown sources" setting that allows sideloading APKs, so you aren't restricted to the store.

blibble 9y ago

10.2.1 Apps that browse the web must use the appropriate HTML and JavaScript engines provided by the Windows Platform. and Microsoft is now completely back its 1990s behaviour

TYPE_FASTER 9y ago

The developer in the article could convert his app from Chromium to UWP and resubmit: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/porting/hwa-chrome-conversion https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/uwp/porting/hwa-chr...