grabs popcorn....
this could be fun. lets the arguments commence...
US politicians are reportedly poring over complaints by Mozilla that Microsoft will block access to rival browsers in Windows 8 on ARM, aka Windows RT. The powerful Senate Judiciary Committee plans to “take a look” at the allegations made by the Firefox maker last week, which were backed up by Google. Whispers of a probe …
Microsoft never has complied with antitrust law.
The US Appellate court did decide that commingling the code between IE and the OS was a violation of antitrust law. And that decision is now the law. Not only of the case but also of antitrust law in the US.
For those slow learners, settlements NEVER determine what the law is. Only appellate court decisions do that.
And since the US DOJ took money or support from Microsoft rather than inforce the law as decided against Microsoft, it is not surprise to find Microsoft violating the law yet again.
For anyone thinking they like being denied choices in the marketplace, your mother has some clothes laid out for you on the bed. And she packed a lunch for you too.
Microsoft are clearly immune from anti-trust and anti-bribery laws in the US.
I mean they are seemingly able to bribe the media with free gifts, "review" units, free consoles, free flights, free accommodation for press events, free Vista laptops.
Only this weekend was I taking the piss out of a friends Windows Phone Lumia, and he works for Carphone Warehouse, he told me Nokia gave them 2000 Lumias to give out as freebies. ('m guessing they couldn't sell them).
Actually I wasn't taking the piss out of his phone, I was taking the piss out of him for accepting it.
However he quickly conceded that it was as shit as everyone claims, and he is going to give it back (he isn't allowed to ebay it), and use his SGS2
It's slow, super laggy, the apps REALLY suck, battery life sucks, reception isn't anything to write home about (but better than a iPhone), and it's REALLY buggy, the worst being that you can't use the keyboard when using calls (like phone banking), as the screen is off, with no way to turn it off. If the other user hangs up first, it frequently needs a hard reset to get working again.
"However he quickly conceded that it was as shit as everyone claims"
But people don't claim that. Various ACs and others on El Reg. forums do, but I own one and I like it. Lots of reviewers like it also. I wonder if you've actually used it. You will of course say you have, but I've been using mine for most of a month now and what you have written just doesn't match up with how it's been. For example:
"It's slow, super laggy, the apps REALLY suck"
Mine is very responsive. I'm not a big app user, but it has Word, Excel and One Note on it, which I consider great. It hooks into multiple email accounts neatly and lets me configure how I want to handle each of them. As a phone for getting things done, it's the best I've used. For the Apps I've wanted, I've been able to find them for it. There are fewer than with Android and iPhone, but I think 98% of apps are duplicates or rubbish anyway. But by all means, if a very large number of apps is what you require from a phone, go ahead and get an iPhone or Android device. I wont take the piss out of you for owning it (or accepting it, I'm not 100% clear on the hard distinguishing line). But equally, for most people, the apps are probably fine on the phone.
I've not noticed battery life to be worse than other smart phones. I've been able to have several long (1hr+) conversations on it in a day plus Internet and it's still going at the end. . I haven't actually let it get all the way to the bottom yet to see how long it will absolutely last. Anyway, it doesn't "suck". I think there was an O/S flaw early on that ran the battery down. At any rate, it was fixed in an update before I got mine.
"the worst being that you can't use the keyboard when using calls (like phone banking), as the screen is off, with no way to turn it off"
That's not true. I do this frequently and the screen turns on and gives me access to the keyboard straight away.
"it frequently needs a hard reset to get working again."
I really have to wonder where you're getting this stuff as again, I've never experienced this problem and have been using it for a while.
Maybe I'm holding it wrong?
"the worst being that you can't use the keyboard when using calls (like phone banking), as the screen is off, with no way to turn it off."
Yet you can. The reason I know this from mind is because its this aspect which made me carry both a PDA /and/ cellphone for a very long time (even when smartphones became more popular). It was one of the reasons I picked up this particular phone.
When talking you simply shake the phone a little (or touch the screen) and it'll come up. Put the phone into speaker mode (if you want to keep talking). Then simply press the Windows key (start button) and you'll be in the start screen with a bar at the top which tells you that you have a call in progress.
Now you can basically do anything you want. Including taking notes, surfing the net, looking up phone numbers, even speech commands work to some extend.
If you use an earpiece its even easier; then you don't have to bother with speaker mode at all; you simply hit the Windows key and start taking notes as much as you want.
(or surf the net for pr0n when the conversation is utterly boring ;-))
>When talking you simply shake the phone a little (or touch the screen) and it'll come up. Put the phone into speaker mode (if you want to keep talking). Then simply press the Windows key (start button) and you'll be in the start screen with a bar at the top which tells you that you have a call in progress.
Wow you are really going to post that clusterf__k of directions and pass it off as being intuitive. LMAO Fail. On Android you press one button and your keyboard comes right up.
"Wow you are really going to post that clusterf__k of directions and pass it off as being intuitive. LMAO Fail. On Android you press one button and your keyboard comes right up."
I don't think you understood. You get the same on WP7, just tap the screen. The reason for the fuller explanation is because you can do more than this. Tap the home button and you're back to your normal interface without ever ending the call. As ShelLuser wrote, you can surf the web, go through your txts, play games, all without ending the call. And it's very simple. I think I remember you from a previous comment thread spewing a load of hatred at WP7. It is odd as given your confusion over basic facts like using the numpad or other parts whilst on a call, you plainly haven't much experience in actually using one.
"Great I am glad you enjoy your windows phone."
You don't give that impression. You give the impression that any success or positive commentary of the WP7 is a personal affront to you. And you seem to take great pleasure in finding anything you can call a flaw in the system (rightly or wrongly).
"After suffering with a Treo with WM5 or whatever was on there, I am once bitten"
Wow. You really are well-informed and up to date on your information, aren't you? You are aware that WP7 is a different Operating System to WM5? And that the Treo was a very early smartphone from years ago? I'd suggest you grab a Lumia and try it out for a week, but I don't think you like having your preconceptions challenged. You seem to love them too much.
After suffering with a Treo with WM5 or whatever was on there, I am once bitten
>I don't think you understood. You get the same on WP7, just tap the screen. The reason for the fuller explanation is because you can do more than this
I am sorry but having to put your call on speaker phone to bring up the dial pad is beyond retarded. When Nokia finally figures out what Sendo realized too late, WP8 isn't going to have a lot of makers willing to muck with it even with the massive Microsoft bribery.
Great I am glad you enjoy your windows phone. After suffering with a Treo with WM5 or whatever was on there, I am once bitten. Like most Merkins I am not a big Nokia nut hugger in general and to be honest their new phones looks cheap and plastic like a kids toy to me. Oh well at least they didn't put buttons on the outside of it like all the hideous RIM phones.
And yet when you check out Amazon's Top 100 of best selling cell phones with service plans you'll see a Lumia sitting in the top 20. (at the time of writing it sits at 20).
I consider that not bad at all for an environment which is roughly 1.5 years old.
And although I know Amazon may not be the best resource it appears that they are honest with "stats which change on an hourly basis". Because only a week ago there were Lumia's sitting on place 8 and place 16.
Its not as if the devices aren't getting sold or anything.
"Who would buy a current WP7 phone when the upgrade path is very shaky at best?"
You get all the patches and security updates, etc. What more do I need? It already does everything I want. I paid £160 for it SIM free and I probably wont change it for years. Obviously I can't upgrade the O/S to the next version like I can with an iPhone or an Android device, right? But I don't really care. I doubt many do except for those looking for reasons to discredit it.
At the time of posting, a Blackberry sits at number 8 and the LG Xpression feature phone at number 16, followed by Nokia Lumia 900 at 17 and 18.
Everything else in the top 20 is an Android - most are Samsung, and there's a couple of Motorolas and HTCs.
The real question is whether they're actually making any money.
You know that's not real right?
That's Microsoft's power of viral marketing at work right there, and frankly Amazon should be exposing them for this...
I have seen this exact tripe posted word for work elsewhere, so I'm guessing you are just a Redmond/Reading shill.
And yes, The Lumias aren't getting sold, the VAST proporation of Nokia's numbers are given as freebies/sitting is dusty storerooms or buried in a deep hole outside Oulu (sorry Chenia/Dongguan)
So basically the feature and method for accessing other phone functions during a call is pretty much EXACTLY THE SAME on both Windows Phone and Android, in design.
Thanks for clearing that up.
However, on my WM6.5 device it would quite frequently refuse to come back from screen-off during a call - which was very annoying. I can't speak for the newer version, though.
"Earlier today we told you how Samsung had overtaken Nokia to become the biggest seller of handsets in the world, and in turn ending fourteen years of Nokia’s reign. Now it is being reported by AppleInsider that Nokia has earned more from licensing patents to Apple than selling its range of Lumia Windows Phone 7 devices.
The company actually lost money selling handsets during the last quarter that saw a $1.7 billion overall loss, which came despite the launch of the new Lumia models. The first quarter of last year saw Nokia shifting 108.5 million handsets, which compares to this year’s 82.7 million units that equates to a fall of 24 percent"
http://www.phonesreview.co.uk/2012/04/27/nokia-earns-more-from-apple-than-its-lumia-range/
I wouldn't say a "rival browser" has ever been accepted. Most of the "rival" browsers on the app store are simply safari with a skin and a few improvements. But they're basically 100% safari still. The only exception I'm aware of is the Opera browser, but that's not really what we'd call a browser nowadays. It's rendering static pages without javascript or anything fancy at all - the rest is handled by Opera's servers. It's great when you're on a slow link, but it's not a full browser.
So, real browsers on the app store: none. There's just rebadged safari really.
Is the difference that Apple allow Safari re-skins? So anyone can say "We are as fast as Safari"! They don't need to use the APIs directly, they can just call the function from within the Safari browser it's self.
Where as, if MS lock everyone out of IE (and it's APIs) on the OS, then no one can "compete".
So although it looks like Apple is locking people out, they at least share the toys. I guess it's the fact IE want to keep all the toys to themselves.
I could be wrong though, it would be good to know more about it.
Apple doesn't stop anyone from writing or distributing web browsers for iOS. It merely refuses to allow distribution through its app store. Microsoft OTOH is actually preventing web browsers from being written at all. It may sound moot given the end results but I suspect it would be viewed differently in a court of law.
Maybe its an elephant trap ... they'll roll up at court and explain that they were doing nothing different from Apple and assumed that this was all fine and dandy but now they've looked into it they accept that doing this is clearly illegal and they unreservedly agree to a court ruling that they, Apple and anyone else doign the same should cease forthwith
That's what ran through my mind when I read this as well. It's a nice idea. Be your own fall guy and take down the others with you.
But I think it's not that. It could be, but there are fairly logical reasons to account for what MS is doing without that sort of play being the motivation.
It's probably too late to get some actual facts into this story, but I'm sure I'm not the only one curious about how exactly Mozilla say they're being blocked from releasing their browser on WOA. (And we should all remember, this applies ONLY to ARM devices. The bulk of W8 installs can carry on as normal). Basically, Mozilla (and anyone else) can create as many browsers for WOA as they want. What they're saying is that they wont be able to compete with IE on those devices because IE has access to APIs that they do not. This is a bit of a cut and paste from my previous post on the subject, but the information is the same, so I might as well:
I think this is more about user experience than trying to lock out other browsers. I think we all know that browsers and OS are becoming ever more linked, to the point that in some cases (ChromeOS) they actually are the same thing. MS had Windows Active Desktop long ago which was an early step down this road.
With OS and browser becoming ever more entwined, IE10 is gradually becoming an extension of the OS. And on ARM that is even more so given that WOA lacks the combo-Win32 and Metro API access that the desktop version does. So basically, either MS give up the whole sandboxed, more limited API model they planned to use in WOA for installable applications (i.e. installable Apps have the same access as things they make themself - pretty bad for security and not something anyone else is doign), or they cast themselves on the other side of it and say that nobody including themselves, gets to have a closely integrated OS-browser model. At which point they get pummelled by groups like Google and Apple who have no objection to doing this sort of close integration.
After a little digging I found a few references to what the Firefox crew feel is missing. Apparently they wont be able to spawn separate processes, which they use for things like sandboxing plugins, and making memory writable (directly, I presume) which they use for improving Javascript performance.
It is bad that there is less choice. But at the same time, I can see why Windows, on a tightly controlled device like a tablet (again, remember that we're only talking about Windows on ARM, here) want to prevent installable Apps that spawn multiple processes at will and directly fiddle with the memory. Essentially, they trust themselves to do that, but not to let any old random App writer to have that sort of power. Are Firefox "any old random App writer"? Well, if not, how do you decide that the next person who wants the privileges isn't the same?
@Ian Ferguson: "I'd support such complaints, but why aren't there similar complaints about browsers on the iPad?"
Microsoft is positioning tablets as just bother form factor for a 'PC' that runs Windows. In other words, MS Windows is the gateway to computer use (and the Internet) for 90-95% of the current computer market. Therefore, MS still has a major monopoly on the market. This isn't a problem in itself, but is does mean that MS is subject to close scrutiny to ensure this monopoly isn't used as a weapon to destroy all possible competition. MS has already been found guilty of this in the recent past, so regulators will be watching it closely.
Conversely, Apple is still a relatively minor player (5-10% market share maybe?). It isn't in a position to dictate to the market - if it does, its partners will simply shrug their shoulders, walk away, and focus on the 90% of the market outside of Apple.
Although it may seem as if Windows RT will be a small part of the overall Windows empire (and hence the harm to competing browsers will be slight), you don't need to dig very deep to see why this is a problem. Many businesses look for solutions that can be universally rolled out to employees - if IE works on all the devices and other browsers don't, IE will win every time. Manufacturers will take a similar view - bundle IE everywhere because it's the only solution that works everywhere.
I think Ralph almost has the right point. Apple's decision was made when they weren't a majority player (indeed, the product hadn't yet launched), isn't as extreme as Microsoft's (as other browsers are allowed), and doesn't reduce anyone's access to the market.
Microsoft have been keen to promote this as another facet of existing Windows. So that's a company with a monopoly market share explicitly banning rival products, where those are already established.
Although I got down voted, probably for failing to have the requisite pathological rage or daring not to predicate my argument on its conclusion, I think DrXym's comment finishes off the point I was grasping for. Ian's question is why aren't there complaints, not why shouldn't there be, so while DrXym's belief that there should be could easily be legally accurate, the fact that Apple didn't cut anyone with an existing interest out if the market is probably why there have been no complaints.
It's the difference between eating into someone's revenue stream and not allowing them to have one in the first place; in the first case you'd be much more likely to risk money on lawyers and hearings.
In order for this to stick, surely they'd need to be using a position of power in one market to leverage themselves into another market.
Why can Microsoft not create a tablet device as they see fit without others having access to it? They don't have a monopoly in the tablet market...
I might be misinterpreting things, but according to what I've read Microsoft made a deal after similar past accusations that it will always allow third-party developers to access all of its APIs. There seems to be some room for interpretation whether that deal only applied to the x86 platform, or Microsoft's APIs in general - so the main issue here is that Microsoft is not living up to its promises, not that it has a monopoly.
As far as I know the APIs for Xbox are available. Anyone who wants to program for it can get the dev studio. They even offer free trials and resources for this. If one MS game had APIs that a EA or Ubisoft game could not use, then EA or Ubisoft would cry foul. "Our games are being made worse by MS locking us out of APIs!"
I think that's the difference. If they want to lock out functionality, they the market says they must play fair. Either everyone releasing an app for the OS has the same tools, or everyone has the same restrictions.
Also, do Google not open up their code and APIs? They would love someone else to use the code in a better way or invent something great. Why? Because they either buy the company after, or imitate it. I think it's fair for them to imitate if it's their hardware, OS and they put their own work into their own products. It's not like you can own the idea to have 4 wheels on a car. :P
"Also, do Google not open up their code and APIs? They would love someone else to use the code in a better way or invent something great. Why? Because they either buy the company after, or imitate it."
I think it's because Google's business model is about tracking your information and selling marketing services on top of it, actually. They don't worry about selling their software, they're about selling the number of people using it. I actually prefer to pay for something upfront where possible.
I guess. Also, you cannot install whatever OS you want on your washing machine. Well, unless you really like to tinker with Linux.
As others have said, it seems to have to do a bit with markets. That and selling apps. If your selling third party apps, those companies will want certain things. Some of these things are legally required.
On a chromeOS device you can run another OS and so another browser.
Yes, and only 20 complex steps required to do so including rooting the device. What a practical to install a new browser. /s
You'll probably be able to hack and thus circumvent Windows RT quicker than that.
The point AIUI is that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist so different rules apply to them.
Now, you could presumably argue that Microsoft no longer have an effective monopoly of 'things wot one sits at and uses browsers on', which I think is unarguable. But, what is the procedure for saying 'OK, I'm not a monopolist any more, can I start doing the dickish things other people not convicted of being monopolies are getting away with?'?.
They certainly do have an operating system monopoly which they can use to push their other software on people.
I'd even argue they should for what sort of damage they may causing to the anti virus market by dumping their free protection on people and therefore making it harder for others to enter the market.
Actually, they aren't. They should have been, but they weren't. And that matters a whole lot in this case.
What actually happened was they entered into a consent decree before they were convicted. And it was one of those "non-admission of guilt" pleas. What they were subsequently convicted of was violating the consent decree. But the consent decree is now long, long expired. And the subsequent violation dies with it. So any current accusations of improperly leveraging a monopoly are a whole new legal game.
Prediction: Microsoft will fight to the bitter end on this. As with the netbook market, they'd rather see ARM die as a platform than concede any ground to their competitors on a key desktop component like the web browser. It is the ARM manufacturers, and government, that need to step up here. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
Why does microsoft care about IE?
A long time ago, and far far away, IE6-only web apps prevented migration to other platforms, but now IE is near compliant, and multi-browser libaries are pretty common, it just doesn't have the same lock in factor.
What keeps devlopers on MS platforms now are the awesome dev tools, and the user base. Cooperate IT love it because the network administration tools are built around use cases they actually need, and useful, rather than the roll your own linux approach, or big fat nothing in the case of tablet platforms.
Users stay because it came on the PC, and because it's the platform developers write for.
Where exactly does IE fit into this as an asset? Surely they just need to write 'a browser' to tick of that feature, and then hope someone writes a better one?
MS do not make the best antivirus software in the world, but there are so many 3rd party offerings it doesn't matter. Same with image edit
Of course Microsoft had their lawyers review this decision and find that they are within their legal rights to do this.
If you read the Findings of Fact from Microsoft's monopoly case you'll see that it just mentions "Intel-compatible PC".
ARM is a whole new world to be explo(red|ited).
From my perspective, the difference is that Amazon (and Apple, and Microsoft/Xbox360) are selling a bundle consisting of hardware and OS (firmware, really), whereas Microsoft (WinRT/Windows 8 on ARM) are selling a piece of software for other manufacturers to install on their hardware. And they are requiring that it be "impossible" to install alternative OS or components, or that the add-in software be at a disadvantage to their bundled applications. I consider both to be offensive, the second a bit more so than the first. Either way, it's clear that you don't "own" the machinery in the same sense as if you buy a Dell or HP desktop or build your own. The same is true, sort of, for much Android stuff, but I haven't heard that the providers lean especially on those who root their device and install alternative firmware.
MS will have to hope the EU don't get involved.
It was them that put most pressure on them with fines and a demand for a choice of browser to be built in that led to the current system.
If the EU decide that others must have full access plus the same rights and first run of the OS as for windows now then they could again be facing a big fine and a possible ban on the software in the EU for non compliance.
That would surely put back any realease till early next year. If I was the Bullmister I would be getting the script kiddies at al working day and night sorting this out just in case a different version to what they want to roll out is needed....
What the EU did was overrated and quite frankly; the effect wasn't quite what they intended.
I mean; the choice of browser... First the ruling came long after the facts and the only thing MS actually did was add some dumb ass program (IMO) which pointed people to other possible options. But their explorer was still there, quite dominantly even. In fact; XP still came with MSIE pre-installed because: "how else would you be able to install updates on a pristine installation?".
I know for a fact that many end users considered that "choice of browsers program" annoying and intrusive instead of something which defended their rights.
"Hello? Yes, I installed Explorer 8 myself yet this stupid program keeps popping up asking me what browser I want. What should I do? I don't want another browser".
"I reinstalled XP and now I have some program which keeps asking me to select a browser. How can I tell it I don't want any change? I don't want firefox, I don't want chrome but I also don't want explorer 8. I don't want new stuff, how to turn this crap off?".
And we had dozens of support calls like that. And most people /did/ realize that this program was something which was demanded by the EU and they weren't happy about it. Some even felt being treated like idiots who couldn't make up their own minds.
The big difference is that you have chromeOS as just one of several OS'son a machine and so have choice.
With Windows for Arm MS are blocking any other OS being allowed unless the hardware is locked so you are still restricted.
As to why you would want another browser for years IEhas been behind others with new things for instance tabs took ages to get on IE whilst Opera and Firefox had them.
I can't see a problem with this. I thought the basis of the original antitrust probes and decisions was that Microsoft had a monopoly position in the desktop PC world, and that was why they were forced to open up to the other browsers. MS has anything but a monopoly in tablets.
And the argument about ChromeOS being OK blocking browsers is a strawman. If you can block browsers because someone can just install another OS on their machine, then the original MS antitrust legislation should be voided as well - there are dozens of Linux/Unix variants that can be installed on any desktop PC alongside or instead of Windows.
Guys,
It is perfectly legal to have a closed ecosystem for products. ChromeOS, iOS or whatever have this with complete impunity because the purveyors of these OSs are not monopolies in the market.
The freetards of the Chruch of Stallman might have a philosophical objection, but there sure as hell isn't a legal one - in the US or anywhere else in the civilised world.
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, and they were convicted of antitrust breaches because they are a monopoly. One needs to BE a monopoly in order to breach the monopolies laws.
Closed system != monopoly != antitrust breach.
Remember, MS also tried to hijack Java. Why?
MS are a monoply in the delivery platform for desktops (fact) and MS foresaw (correctly) that Netscape and Java posed massive threats to this monoply, so tried to destroy/replace them. MS's Java war resulted in a big fail and payout to Sun, and MS went on to give us .NET etc. The Netscape war landed them in court, and they got off with lightly with a long term oversight by The department of Justice. In both of these cases, MS's actions were all about protection of their monopoly in the delivery platform. MS's behaviour is the natural behaviour of a monopoly, it is bad for the consumer by definition, and therefore there are laws against it.
Dweeb
ps: It is more than 10 years sinceI read the "Findings of Fact" (link in this forum), but I commend it to those here who actually want to know something, instead of just having an unsupported and logically and legally wrong opinion based on ignorance.
@AC 14:38
Are you saying that because MS is a monopoly (which they still are on the desktop) they can't put these restrictions on their new tablet OS? Ignore me if I've misunderstood.
If it's legally OK for Apple to have a closed ecosystem, then what's the problem with MS doing exactly the same? Windows RT, despite the name, is a new OS. You won't be able to install it on your desktop or any other device, just like iOS. Apps will only be available via the Windows Marketplace.
So this is not IE vs. Netscape all over again. What MS are doing in this instance could indeed be deemed anti-competitive but if it is then why not Apple?
A.C 15:24
Short answer, maybe.
It is a long time since I read the judgement. IIRC the monopoly was specifically in x86 desktop OS.
As another poster argued, MS can (and probably will) cogently argue that this is a whole different ballpark, and they *might* get the courts to agree. It is certainly quite possible. In which case they are free to do whatever they want, as Apple and Google do on their respective platforms.
However, Justice (or the courts) may deem that winRT on Arm is an extension of the Windows ecosystem and leverages heavily the windows OS monopoly and its delivery platform IE. MS is prohibited from making IE the ONLY browser on Windows (x86) and DoJ/courts may extend this to other versions of Windows. There are lots of tricky legalities here, so words from a real attorney are needed. Remember, WinRT on Arm did not exist in 1999, so the courts did not take account of it in the judgment and findings. Courts can and do extend the legal coverage of laws and judgements to encompass technologies not in existence at the time of judgement or enactment, if they consider that the new technology would have been included had it existed. (eg. laws that say "telegraph" might be extended to include "telephone" subsequent to the invention of the device).
As another poster commented, it's all about getting people to develop and deploy on IE which will become the only game in town for WinRT. Write once, run anywhere. get it? :)
Dweeb
Apple doesn't have a monopoly anywhere. Their marketshare on desktops is tiny, as the Googletards like the point out Android has the largest marketshare and again according to the Googletards Android is going to completely own the tablet market any day now.
So Apple has no monopoly to help force themselves into a strong position in another market unlike the convicted monopolist Microsoft.
I do like how people who have far too much vested interest in hating Apple always seem to insist they're either too powerful or on the verge of destruction and bankruptcy due to sucking and or Android. Depending of course on which one is the best situation for their argument.
I'm sensing some real insecurities with those people.
It's not the only source of music or video on Apple devices, it's music is DRM free and it takes little to no effort to get movies or music onto an ipod or ipod without iTunes.
It does, I guess have a monopoly on getting applications onto an iphone you don't want to jailbreak which might be an issue if the iphone had a monopoly and they were abusing it.
From my perspective, the difference is that Amazon (and Apple, and Microsoft/Xbox360) are selling a bundle consisting of hardware and OS (firmware, really), whereas Microsoft (WinRT/Windows 8 on ARM) are selling a piece of software for other manufacturers to install on their hardware. And they are requiring that it be "impossible" to install alternative OS or components, or that the add-in software be at a disadvantage to their bundled applications. I consider both to be offensive, the first a bit less so than the second. Either way, you don't "own" the machinery in the same sense as if you buy a Dell or HP desktop or build your own. The same is true, sort of, for much of the Android stuff, but I haven't heard that the providers lean especially on those who root their device and install alternative firmware.
...it turns out that MS has locked up the Metro interface so darned strict that they simply cannot comply to these requests without breaking some stuff.
This is only speculation; no more and no less.
But the reason I do so is because one of the commonly used arguments against Metro on the Windows Phone is that it is too strict. All apps. are sandboxed and by default its not possible for one application to access or utilize another. This has caused issues with certain developers on several occasions.
So now I wonder; is this really a Windows RT only issue or do Mozilla & Google have a problem with Metro in general? The reason this only surfaces on Windows RT could be because its a relatively popular platform and Mozilla seems more eager to build for RT than Metro on Windows 8 (or the Windows phone for that matter).
I don't mention this out of "fanboy-ism" but because it honestly wouldn't surprise me. MS has a tendency to stare themselves blind on a single goal and very much tend to ignore other aspects that come with it. Think Metro; it performs quite well on mobile devices (my phone for example) but my desktop? Ugh! Yet MS is "going after mobile".
But another thing: MS have openly admitted that they had a lot of catching up to do on security aspects. Windows 7 has come a long way (IMO) but its only partial comparable to the flexibility you have on a *nix platform. MS is obviously heavily betting on Metro for this. So could it be possible that a browser application requires too much access within the system and as such it has become impossible to utilize the way Metro is now ?
Its already a known fact that browser (-like) applications will have a different set of access rules due to the need for extensive permissions. And that RT differs on several points from the "regular" Metro.
As such I can't help wonder here...
Yes, suspect you may be right, fixation on a technical goal. As far as I know internal Microsoft product development for Metro WP, WOA and W8 is subject to exactly the same strict rules. Exceptions being some Windows RT components that ship with the OS as standard in the pseudo desktop mode. For instance it appears that Skype is working to the same limitations as independent developers.
If a special security exception were made for the Mozilla browser, there would be huge outcry from other software developers. So we can guess if there are features missing from WinRT that prevent Firefox being implemented in the way Mozilla wants, the features would have to be made available to all and its too late in the Windows 8 dev process to consider such changes for first release.
If Mozilla has a cogent case for technical changes, it would make far more sense to make the technical points public and request a technical dialog with Microsoft and the wider development community as to whether this can be addressed in a future update. This lawyer speak just sounds to me like they are stuck back in 1990s thinking.
Am I missing something, or is Mozilla bitching because they wanted to run their Win32 code, in a Metro style/Desktop mode on x86 AND arm? They then found out they cant and so they've thrown their toys out the pram.
BUT, isnt the reason they cant because WOA doesnt really have a full desktop mode, and definitely doesnt have legacy Win32 support??? isnt that actually the case, rather than them actually being told that they cant develop a browser for WOA at all?
Mostly an accurate summary. What you've described is the case. But Mozilla are basing their complaint on the fact that IE10 isn't limited in the same way, that it has access to additional API calls than third-party Apps do. And yet, whilst that seems unfair, in WinRT, which is a mobile platform much like a phone (and it will be appearing on phones), the browser more or less is part of the platform. Win8 actually uses HTML5 for the GUI! So either MS throw open the doors to third party apps to have super close integration with the O/S (Mozilla are complaining about not being able to spawn additional processes as needed and wanting direct memory access) or they refuse and get called names by third party developers who want that access.
Not quite right. MS have built IE10 for WOA, and to make it fast enough to run on WOA, they have used non-public APIs, which they are refusing to make available to 3rd party developers to use.
As a consequence, Mozilla cannot build a browser for WOA that would compete with IE10, since they cannot use the same APIs.
I cant find evidence to comment on the "undocumented" API claims, but regardless - Mozilla says they want to run their Win32 code on WOA. Yet Win32 doesnt seem to exist in WOA. Not exactly sure what Mozilla are after, are they expecting MS to re-write what is basically a legacy platform (Win32) and on WOA at least has been entirely replaced by WinRT so that their browser works?
Not quite the same as the stupid MS attack on Netscape 15 years ago, WOA will enter a market heavily dominated by another.. so “monopoly” and “market abuse” doesn’t really apply. WOA is architecturally closer to a Netscape browser than Windows95. Netscape embedded a CORBA ORB for an API and WOA has COM+2.
Maybe MS deserves to be hauled back to court as penance for past misdeeds; and maybe it needs to dump a brand-name that is only relevant to marketspeak.. there are not may “windows” in WOA.
Why? MS Is STILL a monopoly.
Nothing is going to change until that changes.
Of course until the US Gov changes and does what it should have but refused to do the first time around this marry-go-round, we will continue see this revisited again and again...indefinitely.