Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 10th Mar 2013 15:32 UTC
Mozilla & Gecko clones "Jay Sullivan, Mozilla's VP of Product, has revealed that the not-for-profit organization is not going to build an iOS version of its Firefox web browser as long as Apple doesn't mend its unfriendly ways towards third party browsers." So that would most likely be never.
Order by: Score:
One of many nails in the coffin for me & iOS
by bryhhh on Sun 10th Mar 2013 16:00 UTC
bryhhh
Member since:
2005-07-22

This is just one of the *many* reasons, why I've not bought anything from Apple in the last 2 - 3 years, and I've no intention of buying anything from them again in the foreseeable future unless they change quite a few of their practises.

Reply Score: 12

reduz Member since:
2006-02-25

Yeah.. Apple hardware is awesome, but the software feels kind of obsolete and restrictive by now compared to Android phones.

Reply Score: 3

Makes sense...
by Lunitik on Sun 10th Mar 2013 18:25 UTC
Lunitik
Member since:
2005-08-07

Apple only permit WebKit-based browsers on their system, Mozilla isn't interested in that, their focus is Gecko.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Makes sense...
by Kroc on Sun 10th Mar 2013 18:38 UTC in reply to "Makes sense..."
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

But Mozilla don't allow any non-Gecko browser on Firefox OS; all apps are HTML, so are they not calling the pot black?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Makes sense...
by shmerl on Sun 10th Mar 2013 18:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Makes sense..."
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Where does Mozilla say they don't allow anything? Apple says it explicitly in their iOS SDK license.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Makes sense...
by Nelson on Sun 10th Mar 2013 20:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Makes sense..."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

The word implicit was added to the dictionary for a reason. I think you've stumbled upon a usage.

The limitation is implied, because the fundamental architecture of the OS prohibits it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Makes sense...
by shmerl on Sun 10th Mar 2013 22:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Makes sense..."
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

So what? ARM code can't run in x86 (without emulation) because architecture prohibits it. I don't have a problem with that. Apple forbids things not architecturally, but legally. If you don't see the difference - there is nothing really to discuss here.

Edited 2013-03-10 22:28 UTC

Reply Score: 9

v RE[5]: Makes sense...
by Nelson on Mon 11th Mar 2013 04:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Makes sense..."
RE[2]: Makes sense...
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 10th Mar 2013 18:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Makes sense..."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

But Mozilla don't allow any non-Gecko browser on Firefox OS; all apps are HTML, so are they not calling the pot black?


Is there actually source for this one? Not questioning it - just wondering where it's from.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Makes sense...
by shmerl on Sun 10th Mar 2013 18:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Makes sense..."
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

I think Kroc was implying that you can't run native applications in Firefox OS, so no other browsers implicitly as well. But it's a design restriction, not some sick legal prohibition so it's not comparable. It's like saying that JVM discriminates the native code.

Edited 2013-03-10 18:51 UTC

Reply Score: 3

v RE[4]: Makes sense...
by Nelson on Sun 10th Mar 2013 19:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Makes sense..."
RE[5]: Makes sense...
by shmerl on Sun 10th Mar 2013 20:08 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Makes sense..."
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

They always attempt to mask political reasons into technical ones. Which only added to their hypocrisy.

Reply Score: 7

RE[6]: Makes sense...
by Nelson on Sun 10th Mar 2013 20:14 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Makes sense..."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Ok, so just so we're clear, this is your conspiracy theory, right?

Oooook.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Makes sense...
by shmerl on Sun 10th Mar 2013 20:31 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Makes sense..."
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Here it's pretty clearly anticompetitive. Any kind of masking won't hide it.

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: Makes sense...
by No it isnt on Sun 10th Mar 2013 21:16 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Makes sense..."
No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

There's no conspiracy to it. Just Apple's excuses for assholish behaviour. Forced obsolescence, DRM, anti-competitive actions, they and their fanbois will always make up semi-plausible excuses for what can more reasonably explained by profit motives.

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: Makes sense...
by Fergy on Sun 10th Mar 2013 20:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Makes sense..."
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

Apple's reason is completely technical. JIT engines are not allowed at all.

Apple uses a JIT so Firefox can too.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Makes sense...
by Nelson on Sun 10th Mar 2013 20:48 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Makes sense..."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Apple considers itself part of the trusted code base. FYI: Apple also uses other off-limits APIs you're not allowed to touch.

The entire point is preventing apps that have been certified to do X, from doing Y.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Makes sense...
by reduz on Mon 11th Mar 2013 13:24 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Makes sense..."
reduz Member since:
2006-02-25

Then just issue a warning to the user and let the user choose. Most users know Firefox and trust it, in fact that's why they would want to install it.
It's as simple as that.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Makes sense...
by Tractor on Sun 10th Mar 2013 20:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Makes sense..."
Tractor Member since:
2006-08-18

Microsoft's reasons were also completely technical : everyone knows that it was completely impossible to separate Internet Explorer from Windows OS. Yeah, Really.

Reply Score: 7

v RE[6]: Makes sense...
by Nelson on Sun 10th Mar 2013 20:50 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Makes sense..."
RE[6]: Makes sense...
by BluenoseJake on Mon 11th Mar 2013 17:44 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Makes sense..."
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

at the same time, they didn't stop you from installing other browsers, they just stopped you from removing IE, the two are not even in the same country, let alone ballpark.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Makes sense...
by darknexus on Mon 11th Mar 2013 00:09 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Makes sense..."
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Apple's reason is completely technical. JIT engines are not allowed at all.

That's not a technical reason. For it to be a technical reason, there would have to be a full explanation as to why they do not allow JIT runtimes. Until then, it's a political restriction. They don't want someone like Google showing them up with V8 as opposed to Apple's own js runtime. It really is that simple.

Reply Score: 8

RE[6]: Makes sense...
by Nelson on Mon 11th Mar 2013 04:12 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Makes sense..."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I provided the rationale, many times. If you (or others on OSNews) don't want to acknowledge that it in fact exists, then that's between you and your delusions.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Makes sense...
by Soulbender on Mon 11th Mar 2013 06:20 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Makes sense..."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Apple's reason is completely technical. JIT engines are not allowed at all.


That's not a technical decision, it's a policy decision.

Reply Score: 6

RE[6]: Makes sense...
by Nelson on Mon 11th Mar 2013 13:07 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Makes sense..."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Its not a policy decision, its a sentence! You see how stupid this is? It is a decision made on a technical basis. Apple didn't have a meeting and decide to wake up and screw Firefox.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Makes sense...
by jacquouille on Sun 10th Mar 2013 19:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Makes sense..."
jacquouille Member since:
2006-01-02

That's a really good question in fact. I believe that the difference is that you can take Mozilla's Firefox OS and replace Gecko by the Web engine of your choice, provided that that engine implements the same Web APIs that Mozilla added to support the various things needed on a phone --- which has already started, with Samsung already adding some of these APIs to WebKit. By contrast, you can't take Apple's iOS and replace WebKit by the Web engine of your choice.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Makes sense...
by Lennie on Sun 10th Mar 2013 19:19 UTC in reply to "Makes sense..."
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Not even that I believe, the only thing other browser vendors can do on iOS is use the existing installed WebKit library.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Makes sense...
by shinkou on Mon 11th Mar 2013 06:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Makes sense..."
shinkou Member since:
2011-03-24

Yes, that's what I think. (i.e. only one browser engine) I wondered how they got rid of being sued as anti-competitive.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Makes sense...
by Lennie on Mon 11th Mar 2013 07:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Makes sense..."
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

People forget that the EU punished Microsoft for abusing their monopoly, not just for their business practices.

Apple has no monopoly, the market share of Android is bigger and growing.

Reply Score: 4

Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Sun 10th Mar 2013 18:41 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

This isn't news. Apple banned all programs which can download and interpret code from the Web from even being legally built with iOS SDK like forever already? Which mostly boils down to browsers with JavaScript. This restriction is completely anticompetitive and deserves some serious antitrust measures, but Apple just gets away with it.

Just to clarify, the restriction is not in accepting these applications in the "app store" (even though they wouldn't be accepted if proposed most probably). The prohibition is in legally building them with iOS SDK. So if in theory someone could build these applications using alternative tools - this restriction wouldn't apply and one could distribute them through Cydia or something. But I'm not aware if such tools exist for iOS. Using development tools as an anticompetitive filter is completely ridiculous, but that's Apple, what else can we expect from them.

For the reference, some points in the iOS SDK license:

3.2 Use of the SDK
As a condition to using the SDK, You agree that:
(a) You will only use the SDK for the purposes and in the manner expressly permitted by this Agreement and in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations;
....
3.3 Program Requirements for Applications
Any Application developed using this SDK must comply with these criteria and requirements, as they may be modified by Apple from time to time:
....
3.3.2 An Application may not itself install or launch other executable code by any means, including without limitation through the use of a plug-in architecture, calling other frameworks, other APIs or otherwise. No interpreted code may be downloaded and used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple's Published APIs and builtin interpreter(s).


Edited 2013-03-10 18:57 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by shmerl
by Nelson on Sun 10th Mar 2013 19:02 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

It is hard to sandbox this sort of thing. It would potentially open the door to apps doing things outside of what Apple's gate keepers certified.

An app could be a fart app, download and execute some code and become much more malicious.

That said, I think Apple (and MSFT) use a heavy hand here. On Windows Phone you can apply for a "Technical Exemption" which means, yeah I broke the rules, but I have a good reason for doing so.

Reply Score: 2

I won't shed any tears
by darknexus on Sun 10th Mar 2013 19:08 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

Considering what a memory and resource hog Firefox is, I wouldn't install it even if they were creating it. Note that I'm not endorcing Apple's unfriendly tactics (although to be honest I don't feel an effect from them either) but, should Apple ever allow it, I'd be much more excited to install a version of Chrome with V8 than anything based on Gecko.

Reply Score: 0

RE: I won't shed any tears
by Lennie on Sun 10th Mar 2013 19:26 UTC in reply to "I won't shed any tears"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

1. competition is good.

2. I believe Chrome as any browser can only use the existing already installed iOS libraries. So there is no v8 on iOS. They all use the same rendering- and javascript-engine. Even worse, HTML5 hybrid-apps aren't even allowed to use the full capabilities as you can with HTML5 in the browser on iOS. Let's just say Apple is pretty strict.

3. There aren't many benchmarks, but the ones I've seen show Firefox on Android is actually faster than Chrome on Android.

4. Firefox on the desktop usually uses less memory than Chrome these days (Chrome memory uses has increased, Firefox has decreased). Depending on addons it is still possible that Firefox will leak memory though, but these problems have become less and less of a problem they fixed most of those problems.

So I wouldn't just blatantly dismiss it.

Edited 2013-03-10 19:31 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE: I won't shed any tears
by Fergy on Sun 10th Mar 2013 21:14 UTC in reply to "I won't shed any tears"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

Considering what a memory and resource hog Firefox was, I wouldn't install it even if they were creating it. Note that I'm not endorcing Apple's unfriendly tactics (although to be honest I don't feel an effect from them either) but, should Apple ever allow it, I'd be much more excited to install a version of webkit with V8 than anything based on Gecko because IMHO the javascript engine makes to most difference.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: I won't shed any tears
by Lennie on Mon 11th Mar 2013 07:29 UTC in reply to "RE: I won't shed any tears"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Sorry, I'm tired, need to read better.

Reply Score: 2

Junior web browser
by John Blink on Mon 11th Mar 2013 02:49 UTC
John Blink
Member since:
2005-10-11

Sorry haven't read through all the comments. Just noticed the article.

Q. What about the "Junior" web browser which is a webkit browser developed by Mozilla?

I am excited about it and waiting for it.

Reference = https://www.google.com.au/search?q=junior+web+browser&aq=f&oq=junior...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Junior web browser
by jacquouille on Mon 11th Mar 2013 12:31 UTC in reply to "Junior web browser"
jacquouille Member since:
2006-01-02

That was just a short-lived experience by one employee, not a company-endorsed thing.

Reply Score: 2