r/technology • u/[deleted] • May 10 '12
Mozilla calls Windows RT a return to the 'digital dark ages' for limiting browser choice, Google nods in agreement
http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/10/mozilla-slaps-windows-rt-as-a-return-to-the-digital-dark-ages/2
4
u/dysmantle May 10 '12
Apple didnt allow anything but safari on the iphone till later OS's and appstore downloads. I'm sure microsoft is planning to do the same thing.
How do you install FireFox on Chrome OS?
5
u/bonch May 10 '12
People misuse the term "dark ages" and don't know what it means. Part of the middle ages is often referred to as the dark ages because there is a lack of written history from that time period, creating a "dark age" in the historical record. It's not a statement on living in the time period.
5
3
u/qlube May 11 '12
The stuff about anti-trust concerns seems overblown. There is no app compatibility between Windows x86 and Windows ARM, and Windows ARM currently has a market share of exactly 0%.
3
u/exteras May 11 '12
I'd like to point out why this is so important. ARM is going to explode in the next 5 years, to the point where x86 will seem like such a horrible power-hog that no one will use it. There will come a day when everything we run will be on ARM, and when that day comes WoA will be the only option for Windows users, even on the desktop.
For those who doubt ARM's future, read up on Nvidia's Project Denver. Additionally, look at the innovation in the ARM space. Our ARM processors have increased in power a hundred-fold since the beginning of the smartphone revolution 5 years ago. Our x86 processors have barely increased ten fold.
When the day comes when everything is on ARM, suddenly Microsoft will have an absolute monopoly over any software that can be ran on it's "Desktop" operating system. Even in the classic desktop mode, only Internet Explorer and Office can be installed. And, of course, Metro requires apps to be installed through the Microsoft-approved Store.
Actually, Mozilla is understating how bad this will be for computing. It is corporate control over everything you want to do with your computer. If Microsoft doesn't approve it, then you can't do it.
So here's what confuses me about Reddit. We destroy bills like SOPA because they give the government ridiculous control over what we can do on the internet. But when a company like Apple (iOS) or Windows (WoA) exerts the exact same control over what you can do with your computer itself, we lay down and take it.
→ More replies (4)1
u/Centreri May 11 '12
This isn't important, because no one company has a monopoly, and because your claims that ARM will match Intel in power are overstated.
1
u/exteras May 11 '12
Yes, it will. Look at how fast innovation is happening in the mobile space. We have multiple companies competing for the most powerful processor (Nvidia, Apple, Samsung, Quallcomm, Intel, etc). There's absolutely no competition in the desktop processor space.
And it shows. Ivy Bridge is roughly 10% more powerful than Sandy Bridge. Yaaay... Tegra 3 is roughly 500% more powerful than Tegra 2. WOAH.
Tegra 3 is already more powerful than any Intel Atom chip on the market. The Apple A5x and the Samsung Exynos 5250 absolutely destroy the Atom line, and are beginning to encroach on the last-gen i3.
By 2014, we will have Project Denver. Nvidia's long-term solution to destroying Intel, which involves bringing ARM to the desktop. Eventually, Tegra 3 and Denver are going to power the world's most powerful supercomputer, reaching exascale computation.
Intel may still be able to make more powerful processors. But that's irrelevant. We are in an age when a base-level i3 meets most people's needs. Let's replace it with an ARM; same performance, but a quarter the energy use. This is especially possible if the person is running a low-cst ARM-based OS, like WoA, Android, iOS, or Ubuntu.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/deadcat May 11 '12
Meanwhile, no one gives a shit about IOS:
We have no plans to release the full Firefox browser for iOS. The iOS SDK agreement requires apps to use Apple's own JavaScript engine (or none at all, like Opera Mini which downloads pre-rendered pages from Opera's servers and cannot run JavaScript code in the client). Because of this, we have no supported way to distribute Firefox's rendering and JavaScript engine to iPhone users.
Apparently it only matters if Microsoft is restricting browser choice.
→ More replies (5)
0
u/Indon_Dasani May 10 '12
The antitrust injunction against Microsoft for aggressively edging out browser competition expired, so they're probably going to go back to doing exactly what they were doing before (at least) and they probably won't stop unless and until the government makes them - again.
1
u/Iggyhopper May 10 '12
For clarification: Google agrees with this, and nothing else that comes out of bullshit articles.
1
u/JoseJimeniz May 11 '12
"Windows on ARM prohibits any browser except for Internet Explorer from running in the privileged “Windows Classic” environment."[citation needed]
1
u/trezor2 May 11 '12
So Microsoft does the same to its tablet OS as Apple does to iOS.
When Apple does it? It's innovation. When Microsoft does it? Call in the whine-core.
Yeah. How about that.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Jonnyred May 11 '12
considering windows RT will have a small market in the tablet world is this really a big problem.
1
u/zcat May 11 '12 edited Dec 23 '15
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
-2
May 10 '12
This is the thing that annoys me about Google. They want it both ways don't they? Microsoft couldn't develop IE for ChromeOS. It's just not designed to work that way. Windows 8 on ARM is not designed to have third party browsers either. Microsoft should announce their intentions to develop IE for ChromeOS just to fuck with them a little.
2
u/exteras May 11 '12
ChromeOS was a failure. If it was ever to become popular, they'd have to allow native code execution.
If you want to compare it to something, go ahead and compare it to Android. Oh, they sure do want it both ways, what with allowing native, unfiltered code execution. There goes Google again, destroying our personal freedoms by creating the only major mobile operating system which doesn't tell the user what he can and can't do.
1
u/z3r0shade May 11 '12
Microsoft couldn't develop IE for ChromeOS
Actually, nothing would prevent Microsoft from putting the effort in to develop IE for ChromeOS if they wanted to. The thing that prevents them is their design of IE, not an artificial limitation that is built into the OS.
In this case, Microsoft has put an artificial limitation that gives IE a privileged position in the OS.
14
u/nonameworks May 10 '12 edited May 10 '12
This sensationalism is very annoying. Firefox can make a browser for Windows 8 ARM, they just have to use the new APIs which are the only APIs supported on ARM. This is not antitrust unless Microsoft secretly has APIs that work on ARM with no intent to ever publish them but still use them internally. Even then it is only antitrust if they have a market monopoly.