Microsoft ban third-party browsers on Windows 8 ARM

Printable View

13-05-2012, 09:30 PM
Oleh

Microsoft ban third-party browsers on Windows 8 ARM

Quote:

In a twist that’s very reminiscent of Microsoft’s naughty nineties, Mozilla has revealed that Windows RT — aka Windows 8 on ARM — will only support one web browser: Internet Explorer. While Firefox will technically be able to run in Metro mode on Windows RT, it will be so crippled as to be unusable; in “classic,” Desktop mode, third-party browsers such as Firefox won’t be allowed to run at all.
Updated @ 8:00am: The issue seems to revolve around API access in Windows RT. Third-party developers (and apps) will only have access to the WinRT (Metro) API, while Microsoft’s own software will have access to the low-level (and old school) Win32 API. This means that Mozilla can build Firefox for Windows on ARM, but without access to Win32 it will be very hard to compete with Internet Explorer.
At first blush this sounds like a classic ploy to stymy the opposition and regain market share — and for all I know, maybe it is — but there are also a few logical reasons for Microsoft’s decision. From the get-go, Microsoft has been leery of developers porting x86 code to ARM, in case these ported apps don’t have the efficiency and stability that a low-power (and battery-powered) ARM tablet requires. It’s for this reason that Microsoft didn’t offer some kind of OS- or hardware-level x86>ARM translation.
Browsers are also one of the juiciest attack vectors for malware — and also one of the most “visible” aspects of a modern operating system. If a user installs Firefox (or Opera or Chrome) on a Windows RT table, and then it gets bogged down with malware and toolbars, you are likely to walk away with a sour taste for Windows RT; “It’s just like Windows 7 damnit!” By only allowing Internet Explorer, Microsoft should be able to keep Windows RT running smoothly for longer. (This is the same reason that Apple doesn’t allow third-party operating systems on its iOS devices, incidentally.)

http://www.extremetech.com/wp-conten...ui-300x205.jpg
Finally, moving away from the logical and more towards legal and ideological wrangling, Windows RT isn’t Windows 8. We always wondered why Windows 8 on ARM was suddenly renamed to Windows RT, and this is probably the reason. With one fell swoop, Microsoft may have escaped the the antitrust ruling that forced European versions of Windows to offer alternative browsers, and done an end-run around the DOJ-Microsoft antitrust settlement in 2001.
Irrespective of the reasoning behind the restriction, we should discuss the heinous implications forusers. First up, this means there won’t be any browser add-ons on Windows ARM tablets. There also won’t be any HTML5 web apps (either from the Chrome Web Store, or Mozilla Marketplace, or fancy WebGL-powered websites. If tablet computing turns out to be as big as Microsoft and Apple are anticipating, then this restriction will seriously hamper competition, and thus the continued, rapid advances being made to web browsers and underlying technologies, such as HTML5, JavaScript, and HTTP.
I think it’s unlikely, but if ARM tablets beat out x86 tablets, this could mean a return to the mid-’90s digital dark age, where more than 90% of web surfers used Internet Explorer — a fate worse than death itself.

Source: http://www.extremetech.com/computing...windows-on-arm
13-05-2012, 09:49 PM
Mattchoo

Only thing about this, I think its a bit selfish, but yet again you can see why they've done it. A wiz will probably find a way around it anyway, someone somewhere always does.
13-05-2012, 10:17 PM
Recursion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattchoo

Only thing about this, I think its a bit selfish, but yet again you can see why they've done it. A wiz will probably find a way around it anyway, someone somewhere always does.

If the APIs don't exist it's going to be extremely difficult for them to.

I'm not at all impressed by Microsoft with Windows 8.... although the distinction between Windows 8 and Windows RT seems to be widening, perhaps they realise how moronic a decision it was to shoehorn Metro UI onto a desktop or laptop.
13-05-2012, 10:18 PM
xxMATTGxx

The title of this thread is wrong. Windows 8 Mobile isn't Windows 8 ARM - Windows 8 Phone is not the same as the version that will be running on ARM devices.
14-05-2012, 03:14 PM
xxMATTGxx

Quote:

Staffers for the US Senate Judiciary Committee revealed Friday that they will examine allegations that Microsoft is unfairly limiting its web browser competitors in the version of Windows 8 aimed at ARM-based tablets. This system, dubbed Windows RT, will allow only Microsoft’s Internet Explorer to work properly, according to allegations made by Mozilla and Google.

I previously wrote about these allegations in Mozilla, Google Gripe About Windows RT Limitations. The company’s criticisms of Microsoft’s limitations appear to be technically valid. Whether this action warrants antitrust attention, however, remains to be seen. Microsoft is over a decade removed from its US-based antitrust issues, and the product in question will compete in a market dominated by Microsoft’s rivals.

More to the point, complaining about the lack of desktop browser competition in a product that is aimed at tablet users is a bit of a stretch. Few if any users will be using ARM-based devices like PCs, as the system is designed around a new multi-touch interface called Metro. Mozilla and Google are free to make Metro-based browsers that target this new environment and
compete with the Metro version of IE, Microsoft says.

Source: http://www.winsupersite.com/article/...gations-143076

Here we go again.....
14-05-2012, 03:22 PM
Recursion

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxMATTGxx

Source: http://www.winsupersite.com/article/...gations-143076

Here we go again.....

I kind of agree with this one... but on the other hand this is exactly what Apple does with iOS... no "real" third party browsers are around because they're forced to use the Safari WebKit engine.
14-05-2012, 03:29 PM
xxMATTGxx

Quote:

Originally Posted by Recursion

I kind of agree with this one... but on the other hand this is exactly what Apple does with iOS... no "real" third party browsers are around because they're forced to use the Safari WebKit engine.

I wouldn't mind but when certain other companies like Apple get away with it then it just seems stupid...
14-05-2012, 03:30 PM
Mikey

**** that, hopefully I can get a Windows 7 laptop by the time I have the money for it. IE is utter balls.
14-05-2012, 03:40 PM
Tomm

Does not say much for the new metro interface if the WinRT api can't compete with the Win32 api in terms of performance and features.
14-05-2012, 03:46 PM
Chippiewill

I was planning to get a Windows 8 tablet, but I'm definitely not getting one on arm now, intel ftw.
14-05-2012, 03:57 PM
xxMATTGxx

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeyFusion

**** that, hopefully I can get a Windows 7 laptop by the time I have the money for it. IE is utter balls.

The laptop wouldn't have this restriction because that would be running the x86 version of Windows 8 or whatever you call it. Which will allow you to use any browser you want, this thread is about the tablets that run of ARM with the OS installed.
14-05-2012, 10:14 PM
HotelUser

It's a good thing Internet Explorer is utterly horrendous (yes that includes IE 9), has a track record of being updated slower then other browsers (still IE 9), and have I mentioned that it's utterly horrendous? Lets pretend for a moment that Internet Explorer was actually better then Chrome (hah) and could best webkit and v8, then I bet a lot of people would be angry at Apple for limiting development of IE on iOS, and they would be right to be angry if that were the case.

It's stupid how much Apple restricts developers and it's stupid how much Microsoft is allegedly going to limit the playing field on Windows 8. It's going to be even bigger of a shame if in five years the progression of Internet Explorer is still terrible.
14-05-2012, 10:26 PM
jasey

I'm glad Microsoft is taking some action in some areas compared to the total apathy they seemed to pour in to their product line for quite a while whether people are favourable of the actions or not. At the very least, they are making big decisions. I am quite an Apple guy (the unholy trinity — iPhone, iPad, Macbook) and I have no problems being restricted to the whole Safari thing in some areas.

Needless to say, I am not like everyone else. I know people crave features that some browsers offer that others don't care about. For example, when Firefox was rising and gaining people were big on the add-ons that you could put with it. Other browsers had the same idea but no one's add-on catalogue was as extensive as that for Firefox. When you see that people are making comparisons and judgements that in a few cases put IE9 (Internet Explorer, the browser that has been beaten on for ages) as a better browser in some senses than the latest Firefox, you know there are some changes.

Basically, I think it's important to recognise that there are good and bad reasons for what Microsoft is allegedly doing and if the cult surrounding iOS is any indicator most average people who don't read too much in to tech won't mind. I guess the only way to find out how this will play out is to watch the future. Here's to an interesting new development!
14-05-2012, 10:26 PM
Recursion

Quote:

Originally Posted by HotelUser

It's a good thing Internet Explorer is utterly horrendous (yes that includes IE 9), has a track record of being updated slower then other browsers (still IE 9), and have I mentioned that it's utterly horrendous? Lets pretend for a moment that Internet Explorer was actually better then Chrome (hah) and could best webkit and v8, then I bet a lot of people would be angry at Apple for limiting development of IE on iOS, and they would be right to be angry if that were the case.

It's stupid how much Apple restricts developers and it's stupid how much Microsoft is allegedly going to limit the playing field on Windows 8. It's going to be even bigger of a shame if in five years the progression of Internet Explorer is still terrible.

Do you even use Windows an ymore? Internet Explorer 9 is actually very good and yes, it might not be updated as often (hahahaha look at Firefox, how many versions in the past few months?) but it's hugely improved over IE6/7 and was fully standards compliant when it was pushed out as an update.
14-05-2012, 10:30 PM
HotelUser

Quote:

Originally Posted by Recursion

Do you even use Windows an ymore? Internet Explorer 9 is actually very good and yes, it might not be updated as often (hahahaha look at Firefox, how many versions in the past few months?) but it's hugely improved over IE6/7 and was fully standards compliant when it was pushed out as an update.

Huge improvement over IE8 for sure, but it's presently benchmarking beneath Chrome, and doesn't support very very basic things like Web Workers and WebGL. Firefox and Chrome also have better updating schemes. Chrome seamlessly updates, Firefox has plans to seamlessly update (if they're not already) and so because Internet Explorer does not adhere to this, users often never bother updating at all which in coherence for their slow gain of support for common features is essentially punching developers in the face and holding back the industry.
14-05-2012, 10:38 PM
Recursion

Quote:

Originally Posted by HotelUser

Huge improvement over IE8 for sure, but it's presently benchmarking beneath Chrome, and doesn't support very very basic things like Web Workers and WebGL. Firefox and Chrome also have better updating schemes. Chrome seamlessly updates, Firefox has plans to seamlessly update (if they're not already) and so because Internet Explorer does not adhere to this, users often never bother updating at all which in coherence for their slow gain of support for common features is essentially punching developers in the face and holding back the industry.

I don't see your hatred towards IE9? I don't give a damn if you have to put a little more effort to make sites work with it (which hopefully won't be a problem for much longer, with the time between releases getting shorter and shorter) so long as it works properly for me as an end user. Updates are also transparent to the user seeing as they're delivered through Windows Update.

The fact IE9 doesn't update often is also an extremely useful thing in corporate or domain-based environments, where updates have to be tested before being pushed out and where highly expensive company applications rely on certain versions of the software.
14-05-2012, 10:41 PM
HotelUser

Quote:

Originally Posted by Recursion

I don't see your hatred towards IE9? I don't give a damn if you have to put a little more effort to make sites work with it (which hopefully won't be a problem for much longer, with the time between releases getting shorter and shorter) so long as it works properly for me as an end user. Updates are also transparent to the user seeing as they're delivered through Windows Update.

The problem doesn't mean developers need to spend more time making it work for IE, it means developers cannot make their applications work on IE at all because WebGL and WebWorkers just don't exist for IE. Haven't you ever wondered why Angry Birds doesn't like IE?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Recursion

The fact IE9 doesn't update often is also an extremely useful thing in corporate or domain-based environments, where updates have to be tested before being pushed out and where highly expensive company applications rely on certain versions of the software.

Then slap in a registry boolean titled "autoupdate" and corporations can stick a big old zero in it.
14-05-2012, 10:44 PM
Recursion

Quote:

Originally Posted by HotelUser

The problem doesn't mean developers need to spend more time making it work for IE, it means developers cannot make their applications work on IE at all because WebGL and WebWorkers just don't exist for IE. Haven't you ever wondered why Angry Birds doesn't like IE?

Then slap in a registry boolean titled "autoupdate" and corporations can stick a big old zero in it.

http://chrome.angrybirds.com/ boom, works fine in IE9.
14-05-2012, 10:47 PM
HotelUser

Quote:

Originally Posted by Recursion

http://chrome.angrybirds.com/ boom, works fine in IE9.

It's using a web canvas which is much slower, they don't support the much faster WebGL which can be observed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebGL

By the way when I say much slower I mean much slower, see http://jsperf.com/canvas-drawimage-v...l-drawarrays/6 (higher is better)
14-05-2012, 10:48 PM
xxMATTGxx

http://i.imgur.com/iehdE.png

Your dreams will come true HotelUser.
14-05-2012, 10:48 PM
HotelUser

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxMATTGxx

http://i.imgur.com/iehdE.png

Your dreams will come true HotelUser.

Now this is what I'm talking about, woohoo! Screw you corporate non updaters!
14-05-2012, 10:54 PM
Recursion

Quote:

Originally Posted by HotelUser

It's using a web canvas which is much slower, they don't support the much faster WebGL which can be observed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebGL

By the way when I say much slower I mean much slower, see http://jsperf.com/canvas-drawimage-v...l-drawarrays/6 (higher is better)

Found your reason, WebGL is/was riddled with security flaws and actually wasn't a standard (or was very early on) upon IE9's release.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20...l-to-security/
http://blogs.technet.com/b/srd/archi...d-harmful.aspx
http://arstechnica.com/information-t...ecurity-needs/
http://www.netmagazine.com/news/webg...es-highlighted
14-05-2012, 11:00 PM
HotelUser

Quote:

Originally Posted by Recursion

Found your reason, WebGL is/was riddled with security flaws and actually wasn't a standard (or was very early on) upon IE9's release.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20...l-to-security/
http://blogs.technet.com/b/srd/archi...d-harmful.aspx
http://arstechnica.com/information-t...ecurity-needs/
http://www.netmagazine.com/news/webg...es-highlighted

Clearly the security concerns are of such critical importance considering the other two major browsers support it.
14-05-2012, 11:53 PM
Chippiewill

IE9 is actually causing IE's usage share to start rising again in some locations.
20-05-2012, 07:36 PM
Tomm

That is the problem with slow release cycles, you can't adapt to a fast changing environment that the world of web standards is becoming. Also in terms of large companies I don't see why they can't adapt to dealing with frequent updates either. I automate browser tests (http://seleniumhq.org/) to check my code is working properly. Why can't you flip this over and use it to check that the new version of the browser works with your corporate web based tools/sites? Only takes a few minutes to run and it is likely that these tests or similar have already been written by the developers if it is a large scale project.

The issues in WebGL have been resolved and the only possible issue is that depending on what OS you run then malicious WebGL code could freeze your computer (Win 7 and Linux handle this fine with resetting of the graphics card driver when it locks up, only mac os x fails iirc) and if MS chose to there is no reason why they could not implement it today. In my opinion the reason they are not implementing it is because WebGL is maintained by the same people who do OpenGL which competes with DirectX.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Recursion

Found your reason, WebGL is/was riddled with security flaws and actually wasn't a standard (or was very early on) upon IE9's release.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20...l-to-security/
http://blogs.technet.com/b/srd/archi...d-harmful.aspx
http://arstechnica.com/information-t...ecurity-needs/
http://www.netmagazine.com/news/webg...es-highlighted