3 ms·

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

by fpgeek 15y 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 15y 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 15y 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 15y ago
How is allowing Firefox in Metro mode on Windows RT tablet "emulating Apple" ? Edit: I was wrong.
- fpgeek 15y 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 15y ago
    Any ideas for a better solution to the problem? (not snarking, genuinely curious to hear your thoughts)
    - fpgeek 15y 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 15y 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.
        fpgeek 15y ago
        I'd say plenty of permissions systems have been a success, including the app permissions system in Android. Does it have tons of rough spots and issues? Absolutely. Handling permissions is a hard problem no one has cracked. But Android's system has also unequivocally has provided a net positive value to users and the platform. First, there's the baseline transparency. Android hasn't had Path-style surprises because things like whether or not an app is accessing the address book or your location are out in the open. Second, the permissions system (including negative reviews driven by it) encourages app developers to not just request permissions, but explain why they are needed. Not everyone does that, but plenty of the apps I've used do. Among other things, I can wish that were more integrated and consistent (e.g. a mandatory text string provided along with the request to shift the default), but, even today, this valuable information ends up in the app description where everyone can see it. Third, there's all sorts of potential for tools you can build on top. It's easy to answer questions like: "Which apps access my location and can send SMSes?" There have also been attempts to revoke permissions that users didn't want to give. This doesn't always work well because apps usually don't gracefully handle not getting an expected permission, but most of the technical infrastructure is there, so it is a logical future step. And so on. I'm not saying a permissions system will be wonderful out-of-the-box, but it is a good foundation on which you can make things better in the future, rather than settling for a false choice today.

by fpgeek 15y ago

azakai 15y 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 15y 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 15y ago

How is allowing Firefox in Metro mode on Windows RT tablet "emulating Apple" ? Edit: I was wrong.

fpgeek 15y 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 15y ago
  Any ideas for a better solution to the problem? (not snarking, genuinely curious to hear your thoughts)
  - fpgeek 15y 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 15y 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.
      - fpgeek 15y ago
        I'd say plenty of permissions systems have been a success, including the app permissions system in Android. Does it have tons of rough spots and issues? Absolutely. Handling permissions is a hard problem no one has cracked. But Android's system has also unequivocally has provided a net positive value to users and the platform. First, there's the baseline transparency. Android hasn't had Path-style surprises because things like whether or not an app is accessing the address book or your location are out in the open. Second, the permissions system (including negative reviews driven by it) encourages app developers to not just request permissions, but explain why they are needed. Not everyone does that, but plenty of the apps I've used do. Among other things, I can wish that were more integrated and consistent (e.g. a mandatory text string provided along with the request to shift the default), but, even today, this valuable information ends up in the app description where everyone can see it. Third, there's all sorts of potential for tools you can build on top. It's easy to answer questions like: "Which apps access my location and can send SMSes?" There have also been attempts to revoke permissions that users didn't want to give. This doesn't always work well because apps usually don't gracefully handle not getting an expected permission, but most of the technical infrastructure is there, so it is a logical future step. And so on. I'm not saying a permissions system will be wonderful out-of-the-box, but it is a good foundation on which you can make things better in the future, rather than settling for a false choice today.