Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 10th May 2012 18:06 UTC
Windows Both Mozilla and Google have expressed concern over Windows 8. Microsoft's next big operating system release restricts access to certain APIs and technologies browsers need - only making them available to Internet Explorer. Looking at the facts, it would seem Mozilla and Google have a solid case - coincidentally, the responses on the web are proof of the slippery slope we're on regarding ownership over our own machines.
Thread beginning with comment 517667
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Thu 10th May 2012 18:28 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

Interestingly, why Windows on ARM raises concerns about browsers censorship, while the same thing on iOS (Apple essentially bans all other browsers on iOS with their SDK license) doesn't raise concerns?

Reply Score: 6

RE: Comment by shmerl
by nej_simon on Thu 10th May 2012 18:37 in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
nej_simon Member since:
2011-02-11

Probably because Microsoft have a near-monopoly on desktop OSes.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by tomcat on Thu 10th May 2012 20:19 in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Probably because Microsoft have a near-monopoly on desktop OSes.


Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on ARM-based operating systems. Go back and read the court rulings. It only covers x86/AMD processors.

Edited 2012-05-10 20:21 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Comment by shmerl
by earksiinni on Thu 10th May 2012 18:37 in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

Is it maybe because it does and if you read OSNews at all beyond the second paragraph of this article you know that both Thom and everyone who comments here except for the Apple fanbois hate the walled garden approach that Apple perfected and that Microsoft and every other consumer IT company is now copying, hence the use of the phrase "slippery slope" in the article, indicating that Microsoft's behavior is simply part of an established trend?

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Thu 10th May 2012 18:51 in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

I don't mean OSnews. I mean why do Mozilla and Google now voice concerns about Windows anticompetitive policy, but they didn't voice it much about Apple before? I understand that Windows has more market penetration, but on mobile iOS is pretty big as well. If there is a potential antitrust defense, it should be applied to Apple too.

The most irritating example is lack of support for open codecs in mobile Safari. Here Google and Mozilla did criticize Apple more vocally though. But if alternative browsers could be used on iOS that problem would be insignificant. So in essence it's all tied together, and if Mozilla and Google are targeting browser censorship, they need to target MS and Apple both.

Edited 2012-05-10 18:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE: Comment by shmerl
by aaronb on Thu 10th May 2012 19:03 in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
aaronb Member since:
2005-07-06

You have obviously missed all of the concerns that people have about Apple in the past:

1. The restrictions placed what applications are available on the app store.
2. Why are there is sometimes no clear reason for applications being rejected.
3. How applications cannot access the file system.
4. Not having the choice of many [insert type of application here]s because of "duplication".

There have been many articles, rants and maybe a few open letters. In fact it is so well known now that even many "non techie" people understand this point, but still get a phone from Apple because they are use to the interface.

It is just us, minority of "techies" that are attempting to keep things open and majority of "non techies" that don't really care, they just want something that works.

One day we may live in a world where open software will just work and uncensored communication will be freely available. The just working part is nearly there, my parents can use Ubuntu without issue with all hardware just working and even upgrades between versions going well. The uncensored part is hard and requires the majority to vote with their wallets and vote at elections for non crappy governments*.

*which is probably a discussion that is not sensible to go into here because politics is political and not logical.

Edited 2012-05-10 19:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE: Comment by shmerl
by bloodline on Thu 10th May 2012 19:10 in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
bloodline Member since:
2008-07-28

Interestingly, why Windows on ARM raises concerns about browsers censorship, while the same thing on iOS (Apple essentially bans all other browsers on iOS with their SDK license) doesn't raise concerns?


Apple bans all other browers on iOS? So why have I got three other browsers (Murcury, Atomic Lite and Opera Mini) on my iPhone as well as Safari?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by ssokolow on Thu 10th May 2012 19:23 in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

"Interestingly, why Windows on ARM raises concerns about browsers censorship, while the same thing on iOS (Apple essentially bans all other browsers on iOS with their SDK license) doesn't raise concerns?


Apple bans all other browers on iOS? So why have I got three other browsers (Murcury, Atomic Lite and Opera Mini) on my iPhone as well as Safari?
"

Last I'd heard, Apple bans rendering engines other than the Safari-provided WebKit on iOS, so you can make a browser, but unless it relies on external servers to do its rendering, it's little more than a new frontend on Safari Mobile.

I don't know about the other two, but Opera Mini renders pages on the Opera server farm and pushes the rendered results to the phone. (They pioneered the approach the Kindle Fire is now also using)

Reply Parent Score: 11

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Thu 10th May 2012 19:23 in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

They all rely on Safari components. Apple bans all real alternative browsers.

Edited 2012-05-10 19:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by nej_simon on Thu 10th May 2012 19:30 in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
nej_simon Member since:
2011-02-11

Apple bans all other browers on iOS? So why have I got three other browsers (Murcury, Atomic Lite and Opera Mini) on my iPhone as well as Safari?


Because they're based on apple's webkit engine (except Opera but it renders the pages on opera's serves and then send them to the phone). Apple don't allow non-webkit browsers on iOS.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by shmerl
by Alfman on Thu 10th May 2012 19:29 in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

shmerl,

"Interestingly, why Windows on ARM raises concerns about browsers censorship, while the same thing on iOS (Apple essentially bans all other browsers on iOS with their SDK license) doesn't raise concerns?"

It raised tremendous concerns, however I think apple had the benefit of many more fanboys. Also the argument was "if you don't like it, go somewhere else", which is a shortsighted defense considering what's happening as the business model becomes more and more prevalent.

Reply Parent Score: 6

v RE: Comment by shmerl
by Tony Swash on Thu 10th May 2012 20:10 in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by bouhko on Thu 10th May 2012 20:15 in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
bouhko Member since:
2010-06-24

Just for the record, Apple didn't decide to open source Webkit, they HAD to because Webkit is based on KHTML which is licensed under the LGPL.

Reply Parent Score: 10

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Thu 10th May 2012 20:21 in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Apple browser strategy by contrast was to embrace web standards and to open source their underlying browser engine,


I already brought an example above. Apple uses their browser to undermine adoption of open codecs on the Web (namely Vorbis and WebM now), by not providing open codecs support, thus forcing Web developers to encode content in proprietary codecs, if they wish to target iOS users. Apple's ban on other browsers serves this purpose as well, since alternative browsers could render this whole trick toothless.

Edited 2012-05-10 20:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: Comment by shmerl
by Risthel on Thu 10th May 2012 20:39 in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
Risthel Member since:
2010-12-22

Interestingly, why Windows on ARM raises concerns about browsers censorship, while the same thing on iOS (Apple essentially bans all other browsers on iOS with their SDK license) doesn't raise concerns?


There is actually a huge difference between an OS that was created with such limitations, and their clients "don't give a sh**" to this, and one OS that is trying to make this move after years of monopoly, to break the "rivals" at the user application level...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Comment by shmerl
by pgeorgi on Fri 11th May 2012 07:14 in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
pgeorgi Member since:
2010-02-18

Interestingly, why Windows on ARM raises concerns about browsers censorship, while the same thing on iOS (Apple essentially bans all other browsers on iOS with their SDK license) doesn't raise concerns?

Because no-one assumed that Apple could produce a hit (outside their sub culture)

Microsoft is known to be market leader (or part of the leading group) by Version 3.

So yes, giving Apple a pass was a mistake. The right response is to cut down their SDK licensing terms, too.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Comment by shmerl
by dvhh on Fri 11th May 2012 08:48 in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

Because Thom would be taxed a Anti-Apple again if he raised the issue.

Reply Parent Score: 3