6 ms·

Microsoft Accused of Hindering Firefox Browser

27 points by ssclafani 14y ago

sirclueless 14y ago
This is probably going to become a major point of contention. There is a demonstrable security benefit to restricting applications to a subset of available APIs and vetting or at least signing all applications that are installed. The iOS platform is very secure because of this. Android also does well by gating its app store. But if you restrict apps in this way, you are setting up an environment where it is easy for a first party to control a de-facto monopoly. Openness is great for competition and innovation, but it has inherent security problems. There will always be a tension here.
- fpgeek 14y ago
  That's an interesting way of framing it. I generally come down on the side of openness, but it makes me wonder if something like a "right to be available absent proof of maliciousness" (with part of the hurdle being that a developer would have to demand their right to be included in some non-trivial way) would be a useful compromise.
contextfree 14y ago
This is a surprisingly well-written and accurate article.
fpgeek 14y ago
I wonder if Microsoft would have let Firefox onto Windows-on-ARM devices if they'd decided to take Bing's money instead of Google's. I could see them doing that, but I could also see their desire to emulate Apple trump their desire to work more closely with a new partner.
- azakai 14y ago
  > I wonder if Microsoft would have let Firefox onto Windows-on-ARM devices if they'd decided to take Bing's money instead of Google's. Firefox has a revenue sharing deal with both Google and Bing. Google is the default, though.
- contextfree 14y ago
  I think they probably just don't want to commit to an API for desktop development on ARM yet, because they haven't figured out what it should be. They're trying to make Explorer, Office etc. good citizens in terms of power usage, etc., but are probably doing so in a very ad hoc manner that's not ready to be packaged up for third-party developers (and kept compatible long-term).
- recoiledsnake 14y ago
  How is allowing Firefox in Metro mode on Windows RT tablet "emulating Apple" ? Edit: I was wrong.
  - fpgeek 14y ago
    You can't write Firefox in Metro mode. The only way you're getting Firefox with a Metro interface on the desktop is the special "browser mode" that had to be invented. That "browser mode" isn't available on Windows RT (and shouldn't be the way to solve this problem anyway because it is a terrible hack).
    - contextfree 14y ago
      Any ideas for a better solution to the problem? (not snarking, genuinely curious to hear your thoughts)
      - fpgeek 14y ago
        Have user-grantable permissions for escaping from the Metro sandbox? (JIT permission being the most obvious, of course) That might devolve into a "de-facto" desktop permission at the start, but if they were clear that the permission model was in flux I could see incrementally turning it into something reasonable. And saying "your app might/will break in the future" is much nicer than saying "people can't get your app at all".
        recoiledsnake 14y ago
        History has shown that it never works and the users can be coerced to do anything to make their app work and are incapable of deciding what's malware and what's not.Case in point, declaring app access permissions in Android. Most software seems to have no trouble with user adoptions while requesting every permission available like making phone calls. >but if they were clear that the permission model was in flux I could see incrementally turning it into something reasonable. And saying "your app might/will break in the future" is much nicer than saying "people can't get your app at all". The problem is that with the first breaking change, users will be annoyed and MS will regardless take the blame for it. Also the iPad has proven to be a roaring success with the very same restrictions.
koeselitz 14y ago
Given that Microsoft has already moved to ban Linux from ARM devices at the UEFI level, it seems like they believe strongly that ARM is going to be an important battleground for them: http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2012/01/16/microsoft-blocks-linux-arm-hardware/1 http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2012/01/16/microsoft-block... [edit - changed "BIOS" to "UEFI"]
- recoiledsnake 14y ago
  >Given that Microsoft has already moved to ban Linux from ARM devices at the UEFI level.. Uhh, Microsoft cannot and hasn't done anything like that. They can't stop Android tablets from shipping can they? They're more likely going to subsidize Windows RT tablets by charging a smaller license fee, and trying to compensate that with the money from Windows App Store/Bing/Music etc.which they lose if users are allowed to change the OS. That's like saying Microsoft banned all other consoles, just because they have a locked bootloader on the XBox.
  - fpgeek 14y ago
    Microsoft is at the very least trying to ban dual-booting of Windows RT tablets. To me, that is very significant. Also, Microsoft certainly can provide OEMs financial incentives for not making Android tablets. As you note, they're already talking about subsidizing Windows RT devices (one of the justifications for blocking dual-booting) and Microsoft has done worse before...
    - recoiledsnake 14y ago
      I do not know why there is this expectation that if something runs Windows it should be able to run other OSes. First of all this is not Windows, and none of the millions of Windows programs will run on it. Why should Microsoft be denied the freedom to do the same things that Apple is succeeding very well with(and supposedly killing MS in the post-PC world, if you see posts on here) ?
      - fpgeek 14y ago
SoftwareMaven 14y ago
I really love my iPad, but I wish Apple would let Firefox into the garden. Apple is getting away with it because Safari is a webkit browser and is staying "on the edge", but there is no difference between what Microsoft is doing here and what Apple is doing. For consumers, competition is very rarely a bad thing, and in this case, I can't imagine a case where it could be considered bad for users.
- recoiledsnake 14y ago
  >there is no difference between what Microsoft is doing here and what Apple is doing. There is a difference and the difference is that Windows RT will allow Firefox and Chrome and other browsers to run in Metro mode, just not in the desktop. Edit: I was wrong.
  - contextfree 14y ago
    However, the restrictions on the sandbox for Metro style apps mean that alternate browsers would either have to be skins around the IE engine, or be very slow (because it's not possible to run dynamically compiled aka JITted code). That is why there is a special exemption for "Metro style enabled desktop browsers" (which appear to the user as Metro style apps but have all the capabilities of desktop apps) on Windows 8 (x86), which is what Metro style Firefox will use.
    - recoiledsnake 14y ago
      Interesting, I stand corrected in that case. I assumed that the x86 Metro app would work on the ARM version as well.
  - wvenable 14y ago
    Microsoft isn't letting any non-MS applications run on the ARM desktop. The ARM classic desktop essentially just exists to run Office. It's quite likely that if they ever get around to building a Metro version of Office, the classic desktop will disappear from ARM entirely.
DHowett 14y ago
But a Metro version of Firefox is being worked on[1]: in light of that, how does the removal of desktop style apps impact Mozilla? It does not appear to. [1]: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Windows8 https://wiki.mozilla.org/Windows8
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- fpgeek 14y ago
  Did you read the "Open issues/risks" section? That makes it clear that any Metro for Firefox on Windows 8 depends on special accommodations from Microsoft that (so far as we know) won't be available on ARM.
  - DHowett 14y ago
    I did, but none of that is mentioned in either the original Mozilla blog post or this article. We have no reason to believe that disabling desktop mode precludes an application acting as a Gecko rendering bridge for a Metro UI. They seem completely unrelated: in fact, the only way they could be is if one expects a Desktop Firefox to run in the background and serve pages to Metro. That's not listed in their design plans and, furthermore, is not how IE works on the same platform. I will admit to not having read the Application development guidelines for Windows RT. It could potentially be a sandbox violation, depending on the aforementioned guidelines - however, that's a completely different issue, and it's not "Microsoft locking Mozilla out of the market by removing desktop mode."
    - fpgeek 14y ago
      As someone else notes, Firefox needs to break out of Metro to JIT JavaScript, at the very least. For third parties, there's nothing other than Metro on ARM, so how would that be possible (absent special accommodation from Microsoft)?
cooldeal 14y ago
How is this remotely related to antitrust(any more than the iPad i.e) ? Desktop Windows gains it's monopoly leverage from running Win 32 apps and people are forced to run it for compatibility. None of those programs will ever run on Windows RT. Windows RT is basiscally starting from zero, just like the iPad did. Just because it has Windows in it's name does not mean it's subject to antitrust. What next? Insinuating that Windows Phone should be subject to anti-trust restrictions that the iPhone or Android is not?
- fpgeek 14y ago
  Um, there's going to be Office for Windows RT. That's certainly leveraging one of Microsoft's monopolies.
  - cooldeal 14y ago
    That seems to be quite a stretch. MS is rumored to be working on Office for the iPad. If that's true then will it get them off the hook?
    - fpgeek 14y ago
      Offering Office on other platforms doesn't mean they're not leveraging it. After all, which platform is it going to work best on?
      - cooldeal 14y ago
        I don't see how leveraging Office is illegal or can be considered abuse. In that case, they should already be on the dock for not having a Office for Linux, yet I don't even see anyone making that claim.
        fpgeek 14y ago
        Microsoft still has a business software monopoly with Office on the desktop. Using that monopoly to privilege their tablet platform over other tablet platforms (e.g. via better interoperability) can easily be an antitrust issue (depending on what they specifically do, of course).

27 points by ssclafani 14y ago

This is probably going to become a major point of contention. There is a demonstrable security benefit to restricting applications to a subset of available APIs and vetting or at least signing all applications that are installed. The iOS platform is very secure because of this. Android also does well by gating its app store. But if you restrict apps in this way, you are setting up an environment where it is easy for a first party to control a de-facto monopoly. Openness is great for competition and innovation, but it has inherent security problems. There will always be a tension here.

fpgeek 14y ago
That's an interesting way of framing it. I generally come down on the side of openness, but it makes me wonder if something like a "right to be available absent proof of maliciousness" (with part of the hurdle being that a developer would have to demand their right to be included in some non-trivial way) would be a useful compromise.

contextfree 14y ago

This is a surprisingly well-written and accurate article.

fpgeek 14y ago

I wonder if Microsoft would have let Firefox onto Windows-on-ARM devices if they'd decided to take Bing's money instead of Google's. I could see them doing that, but I could also see their desire to emulate Apple trump their desire to work more closely with a new partner.

azakai 14y ago
> I wonder if Microsoft would have let Firefox onto Windows-on-ARM devices if they'd decided to take Bing's money instead of Google's. Firefox has a revenue sharing deal with both Google and Bing. Google is the default, though.
contextfree 14y ago
I think they probably just don't want to commit to an API for desktop development on ARM yet, because they haven't figured out what it should be. They're trying to make Explorer, Office etc. good citizens in terms of power usage, etc., but are probably doing so in a very ad hoc manner that's not ready to be packaged up for third-party developers (and kept compatible long-term).
recoiledsnake 14y ago
How is allowing Firefox in Metro mode on Windows RT tablet "emulating Apple" ? Edit: I was wrong.
- fpgeek 14y ago
  You can't write Firefox in Metro mode. The only way you're getting Firefox with a Metro interface on the desktop is the special "browser mode" that had to be invented. That "browser mode" isn't available on Windows RT (and shouldn't be the way to solve this problem anyway because it is a terrible hack).
  - contextfree 14y ago
    Any ideas for a better solution to the problem? (not snarking, genuinely curious to hear your thoughts)
    - fpgeek 14y ago
      Have user-grantable permissions for escaping from the Metro sandbox? (JIT permission being the most obvious, of course) That might devolve into a "de-facto" desktop permission at the start, but if they were clear that the permission model was in flux I could see incrementally turning it into something reasonable. And saying "your app might/will break in the future" is much nicer than saying "people can't get your app at all".
      - recoiledsnake 14y ago
        History has shown that it never works and the users can be coerced to do anything to make their app work and are incapable of deciding what's malware and what's not.Case in point, declaring app access permissions in Android. Most software seems to have no trouble with user adoptions while requesting every permission available like making phone calls. >but if they were clear that the permission model was in flux I could see incrementally turning it into something reasonable. And saying "your app might/will break in the future" is much nicer than saying "people can't get your app at all". The problem is that with the first breaking change, users will be annoyed and MS will regardless take the blame for it. Also the iPad has proven to be a roaring success with the very same restrictions.

koeselitz 14y ago

Given that Microsoft has already moved to ban Linux from ARM devices at the UEFI level, it seems like they believe strongly that ARM is going to be an important battleground for them: http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2012/01/16/microsoft-blocks-linux-arm-hardware/1 http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2012/01/16/microsoft-block... [edit - changed "BIOS" to "UEFI"]

recoiledsnake 14y ago
>Given that Microsoft has already moved to ban Linux from ARM devices at the UEFI level.. Uhh, Microsoft cannot and hasn't done anything like that. They can't stop Android tablets from shipping can they? They're more likely going to subsidize Windows RT tablets by charging a smaller license fee, and trying to compensate that with the money from Windows App Store/Bing/Music etc.which they lose if users are allowed to change the OS. That's like saying Microsoft banned all other consoles, just because they have a locked bootloader on the XBox.
- fpgeek 14y ago
  Microsoft is at the very least trying to ban dual-booting of Windows RT tablets. To me, that is very significant. Also, Microsoft certainly can provide OEMs financial incentives for not making Android tablets. As you note, they're already talking about subsidizing Windows RT devices (one of the justifications for blocking dual-booting) and Microsoft has done worse before...
  - recoiledsnake 14y ago
    I do not know why there is this expectation that if something runs Windows it should be able to run other OSes. First of all this is not Windows, and none of the millions of Windows programs will run on it. Why should Microsoft be denied the freedom to do the same things that Apple is succeeding very well with(and supposedly killing MS in the post-PC world, if you see posts on here) ?
    - fpgeek 14y ago

SoftwareMaven 14y ago

I really love my iPad, but I wish Apple would let Firefox into the garden. Apple is getting away with it because Safari is a webkit browser and is staying "on the edge", but there is no difference between what Microsoft is doing here and what Apple is doing. For consumers, competition is very rarely a bad thing, and in this case, I can't imagine a case where it could be considered bad for users.

recoiledsnake 14y ago
>there is no difference between what Microsoft is doing here and what Apple is doing. There is a difference and the difference is that Windows RT will allow Firefox and Chrome and other browsers to run in Metro mode, just not in the desktop. Edit: I was wrong.
- contextfree 14y ago
  However, the restrictions on the sandbox for Metro style apps mean that alternate browsers would either have to be skins around the IE engine, or be very slow (because it's not possible to run dynamically compiled aka JITted code). That is why there is a special exemption for "Metro style enabled desktop browsers" (which appear to the user as Metro style apps but have all the capabilities of desktop apps) on Windows 8 (x86), which is what Metro style Firefox will use.
  - recoiledsnake 14y ago
    Interesting, I stand corrected in that case. I assumed that the x86 Metro app would work on the ARM version as well.
- wvenable 14y ago
  Microsoft isn't letting any non-MS applications run on the ARM desktop. The ARM classic desktop essentially just exists to run Office. It's quite likely that if they ever get around to building a Metro version of Office, the classic desktop will disappear from ARM entirely.

DHowett 14y ago

But a Metro version of Firefox is being worked on[1]: in light of that, how does the removal of desktop style apps impact Mozilla? It does not appear to. [1]: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Windows8 https://wiki.mozilla.org/Windows8

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
fpgeek 14y ago
Did you read the "Open issues/risks" section? That makes it clear that any Metro for Firefox on Windows 8 depends on special accommodations from Microsoft that (so far as we know) won't be available on ARM.
- DHowett 14y ago
  I did, but none of that is mentioned in either the original Mozilla blog post or this article. We have no reason to believe that disabling desktop mode precludes an application acting as a Gecko rendering bridge for a Metro UI. They seem completely unrelated: in fact, the only way they could be is if one expects a Desktop Firefox to run in the background and serve pages to Metro. That's not listed in their design plans and, furthermore, is not how IE works on the same platform. I will admit to not having read the Application development guidelines for Windows RT. It could potentially be a sandbox violation, depending on the aforementioned guidelines - however, that's a completely different issue, and it's not "Microsoft locking Mozilla out of the market by removing desktop mode."
  - fpgeek 14y ago
    As someone else notes, Firefox needs to break out of Metro to JIT JavaScript, at the very least. For third parties, there's nothing other than Metro on ARM, so how would that be possible (absent special accommodation from Microsoft)?

cooldeal 14y ago

How is this remotely related to antitrust(any more than the iPad i.e) ? Desktop Windows gains it's monopoly leverage from running Win 32 apps and people are forced to run it for compatibility. None of those programs will ever run on Windows RT. Windows RT is basiscally starting from zero, just like the iPad did. Just because it has Windows in it's name does not mean it's subject to antitrust. What next? Insinuating that Windows Phone should be subject to anti-trust restrictions that the iPhone or Android is not?

fpgeek 14y ago
Um, there's going to be Office for Windows RT. That's certainly leveraging one of Microsoft's monopolies.
- cooldeal 14y ago
  That seems to be quite a stretch. MS is rumored to be working on Office for the iPad. If that's true then will it get them off the hook?
  - fpgeek 14y ago
    Offering Office on other platforms doesn't mean they're not leveraging it. After all, which platform is it going to work best on?
    - cooldeal 14y ago
      I don't see how leveraging Office is illegal or can be considered abuse. In that case, they should already be on the dock for not having a Office for Linux, yet I don't even see anyone making that claim.
      - fpgeek 14y ago
        Microsoft still has a business software monopoly with Office on the desktop. Using that monopoly to privilege their tablet platform over other tablet platforms (e.g. via better interoperability) can easily be an antitrust issue (depending on what they specifically do, of course).