9 ms·

Mozilla: Microsoft bans Firefox on ARM-based Windows

205 points by vibrunazo 14y ago

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
zbowling 14y ago
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 14y ago
  > 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 14y ago
    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.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
    I think it's because they want everything to get approved. Otherwise you'll have "Web app stores" that sneak in Porn apps or something after Apple's passed them.
- recoiledsnake 14y ago
  >This is how opera mobile works on the iPhone Opera Mobile doesn't run on iPhone, only Opera Mini does. >Now Microsoft's rule is a little different. It's worse even. They just seem to want other browsers either way. Err what? Do you have any reference as to how it's worse? Windows Phone with similar rules allows browsers to use IE's engine, just like iOS allows browsers to embed the Webkit based Safari engine.
  - FuzzyDunlop 14y ago
    I find the justification on both Apple's and MS's side to be quite telling. Apple - we don't want you executing code we haven't reviewed. MS - only we can understand and code securely enough for this.
    - freehunter 14y ago
      That's their stated position, but might not be their internal position. Microsoft sees that Apple has done it, and now they have a valid position to do it as well. Look at all the things Microsoft did in the 90s when they were dominant. They got sued for anti-trust and lost, and paid a dear price for it. Apple was not a monopoly in any market at that time, so they took a page out of Microsoft's book knowing they would not be sued over it. Apple could create vendor-lock-in, they could bundle whatever software they wanted, they could only allow their software on their hardware and anyone who tries to go outside that could be sued into bankruptcy. All perfectly legal since Apple wasn't a monopoly, and this helped them gain marketshare quickly. Warning: speculative prediction follows. Now that Apple is the monopoly in the mobile world, they are the ones who have to answer to anti-competitive practices. Microsoft is what Apple was in the 90s. Microsoft right now is where Apple was in 2001; making a clean break from the days of old, using the same tricks the dominant player is under legal investigation for. If history repeats itself, Apple will be pinned for the same things Microsoft was, and Microsoft will be able to leverage that for a fair bit of marketshare. End speculation. Whether or not the above comes to play, Microsoft wouldn't be pushing Windows 8 and WoA if Apple hadn't laid down the red carpet for this kind of behavior. Microsoft's internal position is likely more along the lines of "lockdowns are fair game again!"
- bzbarsky 14y ago
  > If it's turing complete basically Not really. CSS is Turing complete, technically. So is XSLT, which doesn't even need user interaction for the computations. What Apple is banning is something a lot vaguer than "Turing complete", and worst of all they don't even clearly define what it is. They've made it clear that a JS JIT is completely out, and a JS interpreter is probably out (though there have been other interpreters sometimes allowed and sometimes banned, seemingly at random). So actually writing something browser-like is likely to run afoul of Apple randomly deciding that it's not OK even if it's crippled in various ways like Opera Mini.
reptile83 14y ago
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 14y ago
  Yes, Mozilla is doing B2G. This does not excuse MS doing this.
  - Zash 14y ago
    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 14y ago
      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.
      - rythie 14y ago
        I don't think it ever ran on Linux, I remember the Solaris and MacOS versions though.
      - dredmorbius 14y ago
        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 14y ago
        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.)
damian2000 14y ago
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 http://stackoverflow.com/a/7426405/507950
- dbcooper 14y ago
  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-on-windows-o.html http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2012/05/firefox-... "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 14y ago
    Okay, didn't know that - that sounds nuts on microsoft's part.
    - dbcooper 14y ago
      It's a strange move - no Chrome and Firefox is a big turn-off for me.
recoiledsnake 14y ago
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.
- diminish 14y ago
  Long time FF supporter here; Actually Apple not allowing Firefox fully on iOS paved the way for Win8 doing the same.
- fpgeek 14y ago
  On 1, Mozilla may have been more quiet than they should have been, but I don't think anyone was in doubt about how they felt (and I do know they had a debate about whether even do Firefox Home for iOS, all things considered). On 2, I'd bet that Firefox won't be the only browser allowed on Boot2Gecko. I'm not saying that getting an alternative browser on there will be pretty (the browser would have to provide an unusual amount of support infrastructure, most likely), but, given Mozilla's principles, I don't expect them to actively block you from doing so (the way Microsoft and Apple do).
- daeken 14y ago
  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...)
  - revorad 14y ago
    OT: daeken, great to see you're now working on B2G! I'm going to their hackathon in London this weekend - can't wait to see a B2G device.
  - st3fan 14y ago
cageface 14y ago
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.
- Craiggybear 14y ago
  doucherocketry - thank you for my new word for today.
- Zr40 14y ago
  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.
  - fpgeek 14y ago
    Both desktop OSes are moving in the direction of the mobile ones (app stores, signed code, sandboxes, etc.). For the moment, there are escape hatches, but they are already disfavored alternatives (no promotion, no access to some new APIs, etc.) and, given past behavior, I wouldn't count on the escape hatches remaining open forever.
  - sp332 14y ago
    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/ http://mjtsai.com/blog/2012/01/25/pdfpen-and-icloud/
    - Zr40 14y ago
mibbitier 14y ago
The number of ARM-based Windows machines must be miniscule.
- josephcooney 14y ago
  Yeah, for an operating system that hasn't been released yet they're really not selling very well. Oh, wait.
  - mibbitier 14y ago
    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 14y ago
      That might be true if by "People" you are reffering to you.
      - mibbitier 14y ago
        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_share_is_so_small_nielsen_doesnt_even_list_it http://blogs.computerworld.com/19966/windows_phone_market_sh... (Windows phone market share is so small, Nielsen don't list it separately).
        freehunter 14y ago
        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.
rbn 14y ago
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.
blinkingled 14y ago
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.
josefonseca 14y ago
What, a Microsoft vs. Netscape war? Impossible!
rahx 14y ago
thankyou for spamming hacker news with a rehash of a previous article
va_coder 14y ago
Thanks for the reminder Microsoft. I was starting to feel some sympathy for you.
caublestone 14y ago
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.

205 points by vibrunazo 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

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 14y ago
> 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 14y ago
  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.
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
  I think it's because they want everything to get approved. Otherwise you'll have "Web app stores" that sneak in Porn apps or something after Apple's passed them.
recoiledsnake 14y ago
>This is how opera mobile works on the iPhone Opera Mobile doesn't run on iPhone, only Opera Mini does. >Now Microsoft's rule is a little different. It's worse even. They just seem to want other browsers either way. Err what? Do you have any reference as to how it's worse? Windows Phone with similar rules allows browsers to use IE's engine, just like iOS allows browsers to embed the Webkit based Safari engine.
- FuzzyDunlop 14y ago
  I find the justification on both Apple's and MS's side to be quite telling. Apple - we don't want you executing code we haven't reviewed. MS - only we can understand and code securely enough for this.
  - freehunter 14y ago
    That's their stated position, but might not be their internal position. Microsoft sees that Apple has done it, and now they have a valid position to do it as well. Look at all the things Microsoft did in the 90s when they were dominant. They got sued for anti-trust and lost, and paid a dear price for it. Apple was not a monopoly in any market at that time, so they took a page out of Microsoft's book knowing they would not be sued over it. Apple could create vendor-lock-in, they could bundle whatever software they wanted, they could only allow their software on their hardware and anyone who tries to go outside that could be sued into bankruptcy. All perfectly legal since Apple wasn't a monopoly, and this helped them gain marketshare quickly. Warning: speculative prediction follows. Now that Apple is the monopoly in the mobile world, they are the ones who have to answer to anti-competitive practices. Microsoft is what Apple was in the 90s. Microsoft right now is where Apple was in 2001; making a clean break from the days of old, using the same tricks the dominant player is under legal investigation for. If history repeats itself, Apple will be pinned for the same things Microsoft was, and Microsoft will be able to leverage that for a fair bit of marketshare. End speculation. Whether or not the above comes to play, Microsoft wouldn't be pushing Windows 8 and WoA if Apple hadn't laid down the red carpet for this kind of behavior. Microsoft's internal position is likely more along the lines of "lockdowns are fair game again!"
bzbarsky 14y ago
> If it's turing complete basically Not really. CSS is Turing complete, technically. So is XSLT, which doesn't even need user interaction for the computations. What Apple is banning is something a lot vaguer than "Turing complete", and worst of all they don't even clearly define what it is. They've made it clear that a JS JIT is completely out, and a JS interpreter is probably out (though there have been other interpreters sometimes allowed and sometimes banned, seemingly at random). So actually writing something browser-like is likely to run afoul of Apple randomly deciding that it's not OK even if it's crippled in various ways like Opera Mini.

reptile83 14y ago

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 14y ago
Yes, Mozilla is doing B2G. This does not excuse MS doing this.
- Zash 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    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.
    - rythie 14y ago
      I don't think it ever ran on Linux, I remember the Solaris and MacOS versions though.
    - dredmorbius 14y ago
      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 14y ago
        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.)

damian2000 14y ago

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 http://stackoverflow.com/a/7426405/507950

dbcooper 14y ago
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-on-windows-o.html http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2012/05/firefox-... "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 14y ago
  Okay, didn't know that - that sounds nuts on microsoft's part.
  - dbcooper 14y ago
    It's a strange move - no Chrome and Firefox is a big turn-off for me.

recoiledsnake 14y ago

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.

diminish 14y ago
Long time FF supporter here; Actually Apple not allowing Firefox fully on iOS paved the way for Win8 doing the same.
fpgeek 14y ago
On 1, Mozilla may have been more quiet than they should have been, but I don't think anyone was in doubt about how they felt (and I do know they had a debate about whether even do Firefox Home for iOS, all things considered). On 2, I'd bet that Firefox won't be the only browser allowed on Boot2Gecko. I'm not saying that getting an alternative browser on there will be pretty (the browser would have to provide an unusual amount of support infrastructure, most likely), but, given Mozilla's principles, I don't expect them to actively block you from doing so (the way Microsoft and Apple do).
daeken 14y ago
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...)
- revorad 14y ago
  OT: daeken, great to see you're now working on B2G! I'm going to their hackathon in London this weekend - can't wait to see a B2G device.
- st3fan 14y ago

cageface 14y ago

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.

Craiggybear 14y ago
doucherocketry - thank you for my new word for today.
Zr40 14y ago
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.
- fpgeek 14y ago
  Both desktop OSes are moving in the direction of the mobile ones (app stores, signed code, sandboxes, etc.). For the moment, there are escape hatches, but they are already disfavored alternatives (no promotion, no access to some new APIs, etc.) and, given past behavior, I wouldn't count on the escape hatches remaining open forever.
- sp332 14y ago
  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/ http://mjtsai.com/blog/2012/01/25/pdfpen-and-icloud/
  - Zr40 14y ago

mibbitier 14y ago

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

josephcooney 14y ago
Yeah, for an operating system that hasn't been released yet they're really not selling very well. Oh, wait.
- mibbitier 14y ago
  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 14y ago
    That might be true if by "People" you are reffering to you.
    - mibbitier 14y ago
      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_share_is_so_small_nielsen_doesnt_even_list_it http://blogs.computerworld.com/19966/windows_phone_market_sh... (Windows phone market share is so small, Nielsen don't list it separately).
      - freehunter 14y ago
        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.

rbn 14y ago

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.

blinkingled 14y ago

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.

josefonseca 14y ago

What, a Microsoft vs. Netscape war? Impossible!

rahx 14y ago

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

va_coder 14y ago

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

caublestone 14y ago

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.