Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Firefox Handhelds Mozilla Windows

No More Firefox For Windows Mobile 226

Posted by timothy
from the no-room-at-the-ecosystem dept.
angry tapir writes "Mozilla has decided to stop development of a version of its Firefox mobile Web browser for phones running Windows Mobile. The reason is that Microsoft has closed the door to native applications on smartphones running its new Windows Phone 7 Series software. More reasoning can be found in a blog post by Stuart Parmenter, director of Mobile Engineering at Mozilla."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

No More Firefox For Windows Mobile

Comments Filter:
  • Preemptive Strike (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SuperKendall (25149) on Tuesday March 23, 2010 @08:51PM (#31592160)

    Given that Microsoft has a closed app store model for Windows 7 (just like the iPhone) the chances are good Microsoft would not allow Mozilla to run anyway, even if they wanted to make a nice Silverlight based browser...

    That was an interesting choice on Microsoft's part, I can't believe they are not trying to grasp a lot of C# developers that have shifted to the iPhone just to move where the marketshare is. Now those guys have no reason to switch back anytime soon.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 23, 2010 @09:02PM (#31592264)

      who wants windows mobile after the last 6 fiascos? c64 apps are feeling more responsive...

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Given that Microsoft has a closed app store model for Windows 7 (just like the iPhone) the chances are good Microsoft would not allow Mozilla to run anyway, even if they wanted to make a nice Silverlight based browser...

      We don't know the exact rules for store approval process yet, but all information on that so far only mentioned malware and stuff such as "indecency" as reasons for rejection, and nothing even remotely similar to Apple's "no compete" clauses.

      That said, it still sucks big time. There are rumors that there will be a "non-publicized" way of uploading apps directly via USB, circumventing Marketplace, but somehow I suspect this is really only about SDK debugging tools - not exactly something you expect a non-dev

      • by bhtooefr (649901)

        You'd be surprised at how quickly someone will write a somewhat friendly wrapper for the SDK's USB loader, and distribute it somewhere like XDA Developers.

        There's a rather significant WinMo modding community, they're not gonna lie down for this one.

        • Yeah, you can jailbreak iPhone, too.

          But I want a platform that is friendly to development - truly open, and not "open" in a sense that you have to pry it open with a sledgehammer (and do so every time an update is released).

          Furthermore, I want to get access to applications that are written by people who work with such a platform. If they have to jump through enough hoops to do so, and may not even be able to legally distribute what they've made, many will just switch to a more open platform. By switching as

          • by ultranova (717540)

            If they have to jump through enough hoops to do so, and may not even be able to legally distribute what they've made, many will just switch to a more open platform.

            Do such platforms exist? Is there a smartphone that allows you to download and install random staff from the Internet as a PC does? Or are all of them basically just mobile storefronts to the manufacturer's shop?

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by tsa (15680)

              My Nokia E65 runs Symbian. I can download and install whatever I want from whatever website I want. But Symbian is as good as dead, and good riddance. Hopefully the new Linux OS they are now developing is as open as Symbian.

            • Do such platforms exist? Is there a smartphone that allows you to download and install random staff from the Internet as a PC does? Or are all of them basically just mobile storefronts to the manufacturer's shop?

              Windows Mobile was such a platform (hence why so many people who used it precisely because of that are so pissed about WP7).

              Of those which still have a future, Android is one (subject to operator's whims if you get your phone through one, but you can always just buy Nexus One and sidestep the whole issue). Maemo/MeeGo is another. S60 is still around, too, I guess, though it seems that MeeGo is what it'll be for high-end Nokia smartphones in the future.

              Not sure about Pre - I've heard some stuff about them op

            • If they have to jump through enough hoops to do so, and may not even be able to legally distribute what they've made, many will just switch to a more open platform.

              Do such platforms exist? Is there a smartphone that allows you to download and install random staff from the Internet as a PC does? Or are all of them basically just mobile storefronts to the manufacturer's shop?

              Yes.. Windows Mobile, ironically. (not Windows Phone 7). Here's a subforum at XDA-Developers for the phone I have: http://forum.xda-developers.com/forumdisplay.php?f=491 [xda-developers.com]

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by rodgerd (402)

              Nokia N900.

      • We don't know the exact rules for store approval process yet, but all information on that so far only mentioned malware and stuff such as "indecency" as reasons for rejection, and nothing even remotely similar to Apple's "no compete" clauses.

        That's a good point, although they seem very keen to protect "the experience" so I tend to think they will act similarly to things that would replace core functions... but I think they are also trying to allow apps to sort of extend the core experiences (like things tha

        • That's a good point, although they seem very keen to protect "the experience" so I tend to think they will act similarly to things that would replace core functions...

          The very limitation of only being able to use XNA/Silverlight already imposes significant barriers to that extent - as we see from this very story. I don't think any special policies are even needed with such limitations in place.

        • by delinear (991444)
          So long as it's only insecure on jailbroken phones, MS have perfect deniability - I think they'd take that, it really depends where they see their market, as gatekeepers for content or as OS providers. Sure, they'll want to do both, but to some extent they're counter productive (people would rather have an open OS which runs counter to the gatekeeper walled garden approach) so they'll probably opt for somewhere in between (a walled garden but not too difficult to jailbreak the phone).
      • by Z00L00K (682162)

        And this will certainly cause problems for custom applications that are developed for a single customer.

        There are cases where it's really of interest to develop an application that are going to be executed on a low number of devices (maybe 50 units). If that has to go through the app store and approval process then Windows Mobile is dead as a dodo for that kind of development.

        I have been developing one that also extends the OS platform due to limitations of the Windows Mobile OS. This means that running it

        • And this will certainly cause problems for custom applications that are developed for a single customer.

          There are cases where it's really of interest to develop an application that are going to be executed on a low number of devices (maybe 50 units). If that has to go through the app store and approval process then Windows Mobile is dead as a dodo for that kind of development.

          There has been some talk about how "enterprise customers" - which I assume to mean precisely what you talk about here - will have some other means of deploying applications.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Microsoft will not have a closed app store model for winmo7 (although they will have their own app store). You can get an SDK and emulator right now - for free - and make XNA/Silverlight apps that can be downloaded to a winmo7 phone.

      If you want to be an good Apple fan you should try not to spout nonsense - your ignorance makes Steve look bad.
      • Microsoft will not have a closed app store model for winmo7 (although they will have their own app store). You can get an SDK and emulator right now - for free - and make XNA/Silverlight apps that can be downloaded to a winmo7 phone.

        Oh really? [mobilemag.com]

        Like Apple and Google, Microsoft has also thrown their hat into the ring and launched an application store called Windows Phone Marketplace. The marketplace won't be empty at launch because Microsoft has a list of impressive development partners such as EA, Foursquare,

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by feepness (543479)

          The iPhone is totally open as well if you count the ability to develop whatever you like* and deploy it - it just costs a little more, but once you have paid you can put anything** on the phone.

          * Subject to limitations of no on platform multi-tasking. ** Subject to approval by Apple Corporation.

        • The thing that really amuses me about the whole Windows vs. Mac thing

          For those of us who can't find large differences between an Apple laptop running Linux and an Dell laptop running Linux, thank you very much for not framing the debate as PC versus Mac.

          I can't tell you how badly I hate that choice of words. It pulls me in (because I use a computer that either is or isn't made by Apple) but then leaves me out (because I use software that both isn't made by Microsoft and isn't made by Apple).

          It's a relic of the past---from when PC meant IBM-compatible PC. The IBM PC busines

        • Oh Jesus (Score:3, Insightful)

          by theolein (316044)

          ...The thing that really amuses me about the whole Windows vs. Mac thing, is how often the Mac people end up knowing so much more about both platforms than the people who only really know Windows. ...

          This makes me weep. I'm a system administrator for a large design company, running Mac servers with about 45 Mac clients and 10 PC clients. The Mac users are so singularly clueless about what a computer does and how it does it, it makes me cringe. It's good that OSX is simpler and more robust than Windows because, man, do they need it.

          What Mac users especially are, is loud-mouthed know-it-alls who think they know more about any topic in IT because some rabidly Mac centric blog, like Daring Fireball or Rough

    • by im_thatoneguy (819432) on Tuesday March 23, 2010 @10:09PM (#31592868)

      Given that Microsoft already has an app store and hasn't made any motion to filter what goes into it... I think it's safe to say anyone will probably be able to release anything they please.

      Just because there is a gate doesn't mean there is a gatekeeper.

      • by SuperKendall (25149) on Tuesday March 23, 2010 @10:48PM (#31593192)

        I think it's safe to say anyone will probably be able to release anything they please.

        I'm not sure how you missed the news if you have been paying attention to WIndows 7 Phone Series at all but... not so [engadget.com]:

        We just got out of a meeting with Microsoft's Todd Biggs, who dropped a little bombshell on us: the only official way to get apps on a Windows Phone 7 Series device will be to download them from the just-detailed Windows Phone Marketplace. That means developers will have to abide by Microsoft's technical and content guidelines in order to make it in, with the very real possibility of rejection - sound familiar? Todd told us Microsoft plans to avoid Apple-style submission headaches by making the process transparent and predictable, with a group of Microsoft execs regularly meeting to examine edge cases and refine the guidelines as needed, but even the best intentions can be led astray by a sexy app or two.

        • by jrumney (197329)
          On behalf of the Open Source community, I'd like to thank Microsoft for giving a helping hand to Android.
          • It is a sad thing, really. I used Windows Mobile since 2003 and genuinely liked it because of the freedoms it gave to me. Windows Mobile 7 is the reason why my next device will run Android.

    • It will be very interesting to see if MS can get it right this time. WinMob grabbed some marketshare thanks to OEMs' efforts to hide all the suckiness... They were not that successful, and MS now says they can make their suckiness go away at the cost of openness and customization... I'm not convinced.

      MS has not been very successfull outside their seminal OS monopoly. I'm not sure how they can leverage that for the mobile market... and it seems they aren't, either.

      I'm still looking for something that WinMob

    • Do you have a source for this? All I see are vague third party ramblings that WinMo7 will be closed.

      If it is, and if it's like Apple's store then Microsoft might as well not even bother, they're doomed. I love MS development tools and would be tempted to look at a Windows 7 Mobile phone, but not if it's closed to installing apps from outside the app store.

  • So basically (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Voyager529 (1363959) <voyager529@@@yahoo...com> on Tuesday March 23, 2010 @09:09PM (#31592328)

    Microsoft is going to create a need for a WinPhone Dev Team to figure out how to jailbreak Windows Mobile phones?

    I mean seriously, it's like they're taking everything that I like about owning a WinMo phone and throwing it away. I *like* having a file browser on my phone. I *like* having native applications. I *like* HTC's SenseUI. I *like* being able to use my phone as USB mass storage. I *like* being able to HardSPL my phone and use a custom ROM from HTCpedia or xda-developers. I *like* being able to tether my phone using a standard data plan. I *like* Opera Mobile. These are all features that WinMo had and the iPhone didn't. Between these and the dropped calls (oh, and iTunes), I ditched my iPhone and couldn't be happier. Now they're taking away even the possibility of all of these features? Sure, I could completely understand hiding the file browser by default. I could understand not allowing HTC to ship SenseUI enabled by default. I could understand wanting to streamline the process and moving away from scouring the internet for CAB files and shifting toward a more standardized development process. But seriously Microsoft, don't try to copy Apple's shortcomings at the expense of the very reasons why I chose a WinMo phone.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Nerdfest (867930)
      Basically, moving to a closed store model throws away one of the few things that are good about WinMo. Next to a phone running raw Linux (like the Nokia N900 *drool*) it's the most open phone. unfortunately, I find it slow, clunky, mildly unstable, and unusable without a stylus. I've recently switched to running a hacked in Android OS, and it's about as stable as WinMo, but is faster and much nicer to use. The XDA developers are doing great work, and when the last few features are working, I doubt I'll use
      • by thule (9041)
        Check out the new Palm phones. Qt was recently ported to them. Palm has not, in any way, prevented people from hacking the phone.
    • Re:So basically (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pushing-robot (1037830) on Tuesday March 23, 2010 @09:24PM (#31592436)

      Speaking of native apps, it's kind of funny how every new smartphone repeats this:

      Apple, 2007: Javascript is good enough!
      Apple, 2008: Okay, okay, here's a C SDK.

      Google, 2008: Java is good enough!
      Google, 2009: Okay, okay, here's a C SDK.

      Palm, 2009: Javascript is good enough!
      Palm, 2010: Okay, okay, here's a C SDK.

      Microsoft, 2010: Silverlight and Flash are good enough!

      • Microsoft, 2010: Silverlight and Flash are good enough!

        Unfortunately, it's more complicated than that. It was already announced that native SDK will be available - but it will only be provided to OEMs, and only for writing preinstalled applications.

      • Re:So basically (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Espectr0 (577637) on Tuesday March 23, 2010 @10:16PM (#31592922) Journal

        That's because it's intentional, and more like:

        Company: javascript/java/flash/silverlight are good enough for now, since we want to sell the devices while we have time to develop a native sdk!

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by julesh (229690)

          Company: javascript/java/flash/silverlight are good enough for now, since we want to sell the devices while we have time to develop a native sdk!

          MS has a native SDK. It's not like this is the first version of their OS, it's just an incremental upgrade to previous ones with native SDKs already published. It should run the same apps with the same install process. MS just want to exert more control on what you can do with your phone.

      • by tepples (727027)

        Microsoft, 2010: Silverlight and Flash are good enough!

        XNA, the .NET based SDK for Xbox 360, came out in 2008. So when does the public get the C SDK?

      • by uberjack (1311219) *
        Unfortunately, Android's support for native C code leaves a lot to be desired, as one cannot write entire applications in C. At the moment, the NDK is all but useless to most developers (myself included) that need it for more than just libraries.
    • Re:So basically (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mykro76 (1137341) on Tuesday March 23, 2010 @09:26PM (#31592472)

      I *like* having native applications.
      I *like* HTC's SenseUI.
      I *like* being able to use my phone as USB mass storage.
      I *like* being able to ... use a custom ROM from HTCpedia or xda-developers.
      I *like* being able to tether my phone using a standard data plan.
      I *like* Opera Mobile.

      Android welcomes you.

      • by mlts (1038732) *

        Provided your phone maker doesn't push out an update that bricks your rooted phone. Find me an Android phone maker where I don't have to keep at a backlevel ROM so I can keep root (for example, the latest level on the Cliq locks out root and the holes to get root.)

        • Re:So basically (Score:4, Informative)

          by Verteiron (224042) on Tuesday March 23, 2010 @10:16PM (#31592920) Homepage

          It's my understanding that most rooted Android images also disable auto-updates from the provider. Certainly the rooted Droid images do.

        • Provided your phone maker doesn't push out an update that bricks your rooted phone.

          This interests me a lot. I am a WM user and I have never owned an Android phone (yet) but at this rate it looks like my next phone will have to run Android or Meego. In the Android case, I certainly plan to run a rooted phone with a hacked ROM like Cyanogen. Isn't it possible to block carrier OTA updates? That's a *serious* downside to Android if not.. The whole purpose of a hacked ROM is to have total control over my own hardware. If the carrier can screw it all up on a whim, then I'm not really in

        • for example, the latest level on the Cliq locks out root and the holes to get root.

          Get a Nokia N900. It's not Android, but it's Linux, it's a damn fine phone/skype/IM/facetwitter appliance, and it comes with xterm preinstalled and gainroot ready in the repositories.

          Downsides: slightly heavy, slightly big, slightly short battery life (but maybe I ought to not use the screen as a flashlight, no?). That hasn't made anything impossible for me, it's just something I have had to adapt to.

          Upsides: Nokia loves you. Nokia loves your nerdy peculiarities. They want you to hack it, see http://blo [nokia.com]

      • I *like* having native applications.

        I *like* HTC's SenseUI.

        I *like* being able to use my phone as USB mass storage.

        I *like* being able to ... use a custom ROM from HTCpedia or xda-developers.

        I *like* being able to tether my phone using a standard data plan.

        I *like* Opera Mobile.

        Android welcomes you.

        And me, too. WinMo was a flawed platform with some really good flexibility that resulted in some great features not found in the iPhone. Android started with a more solid platform and duplicated the nice aspects of WinMo. WinMo7 (or whatever it's called) may quite possibly be as solid as Android/iPhone/WebOS at its core, but it's giving up the only advantages Microsoft has built in the mobile space. iPhone is the most mature of the mobile platforms, WinMo7 looks essentially like a wannabe iPhone, WebOS

        • by delinear (991444)
          I think I'm leaning towards Android too. I'd love to have an iPhone if they'd fix the main bugbears I have with it, simply because it's what my other half uses and I have my eye on a B&W Zeppelin Mini dock that we can both use. I could live without the fully open platform if they gave us flash and a decent camera, so I'll probably wait and see what they say come summer - if the iPhone 4 or whatever it's called by that time can fix these niggles, they'll probably get my custom out of sheer convenience, i
      • Don't forget http://meego.com/ [meego.com]
      • I'm testing Android on a WinMob device now. The kernel image is badly out of date, but a lot of the hardware works. Wireless, Bluetooth, some app support... Camera and accelerometers are an issue, but being worked on. Right now it HaRET is used to load the kernel from within WinMobile (Kills Windows, replaces it with Android) but as soon as it's working it'll be cooked into a ROM image ready for flashing.

        Here's hoping the Topaz is a first!
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      I mean seriously, it's like they're taking everything that I like about owning a WinMo phone and throwing it away. I *like* having a file browser on my phone. I *like* having native applications. I *like* HTC's SenseUI. I *like* being able to use my phone as USB mass storage. I *like* being able to HardSPL my phone and use a custom ROM from HTCpedia or xda-developers. I *like* being able to tether my phone using a standard data plan. I *like* Opera Mobile. These are all features that WinMo had and the iPhone didn't.

      I wholeheartedly agree. I was actually waiting for WinPhone 7 MIX announcement to decide which smartphone will be my next. That decision was made next day after the announcement, and the phone is Nexus One...

      It seems that Android now is everything that WinMo used to be - open in terms of what you can install on it, both native and managed applications allowed, great RAD development tools, decent documentation.

      Sadly, I can understand why WinPhone was made that way - no-one can deny Apple's access with iPhone

      • .. what happened to "developers, developers, developers"?

        Nothing. Balmer meant developers who worked for Ms, not in general.
        Remember, that infamous jumping monkey scene was @ an internal Ms venue.
        Non Ms developers? Well, you'll have to go through 'security' screening, I'm afraid...
        Still, no big deal. Plenty of non-Apple developers have made good money by doing apps for iPhone.
        I'm sure the same will be the case for WinMo7.

        Meanwhile, Android continues to gain market share...

    • Well, then go with one of Nokia’s Linux phones. They seem to walk in the opposite direction and make the systems freer and freer. (They own QT, which gives you a feeling for their dedication.)

  • Shame on me, RTFA. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by headkase (533448) on Tuesday March 23, 2010 @09:13PM (#31592360)
    So the reason Microsoft is not allowing native applications is because they are requiring apps to run in either Silverlight or XNA. This is a classic strike against for-profit closed-source: their priorities do not always line up with their users. Remove the profit-motive and all of a sudden you are following your users not trying to make your own tech the standard of the day. I like my software bottom-up please, not top-down.
    • So the reason Microsoft is not allowing native applications is because they are requiring apps to run in either Silverlight or XNA.

      There's more to it. XNA applications are normally not sandboxed - they can do "unsafe" operations (pointer arithmetic etc) which circumvent GC and various runtime checks, but also work faster. They can also do P/Invoke calls to DLLs written in C. But, heck, even given just C#, but with a full set of its "unsafe" features, it would be possible to write a C-to-C# compiler, and performance would be pretty good at runtime too (maybe about 10-15% slower than gcc).

      Silverlight, theoretically, doesn't preclude all

      • by W3bbo (727049)
        XNA is sandboxed on the Xbox 360 (in fact, XNA on the Xbox 360 runs on top of a variant of the Compact Framework and not the full desktop/server Framework distribution).

        C-to-CIL compilers already exist, Microsoft includes one as part of VC.

        Anyway, Silverlight actually disables unsafe code, so C# is gimped in this regard on Windows Phone 7 ( http://forums.silverlight.net/forums/p/2983/182246.aspx [silverlight.net] ).
        • C-to-CIL compilers already exist, Microsoft includes one as part of VC.

          That much is true.

          XNA is sandboxed on the Xbox 360 (in fact, XNA on the Xbox 360 runs on top of a variant of the Compact Framework and not the full desktop/server Framework distribution).

          .NET CE is not restricted to sandboxed applications - .NET CE applications for WinMo6 can P/Invoke stuff and do unsafe operations just fine.

          With respect to Xbox360 I cannot say for sure, but I've heard (on XNA forums, IIRC) that, while XNA project type won't let you enable /unsafe, if you do it manually, you can actually run unsafe code.

          Anyway, Silverlight actually disables unsafe code

          "Silverlight" doesn't disable anything because Silverlight is just a framework. It is entirely possible to make it run non-safeboxed applications. That it

    • Their priorities perfectly line up with their users. By forcing everything to run in managed space they can more easily develop a stable predictable environment. Once you open up core functionality then you get blue-screens of death and their ilk.

      I'm sure we'll eventually get a full SDK. But the majority of apps can run fine as a managed application--the exception being something like a web browser.

  • Meh (Score:3, Funny)

    by PPH (736903) on Tuesday March 23, 2010 @09:15PM (#31592374)

    So there will only be 11 selections on the browser choice menu.

    I can still pick Opera.

    • So there will only be 11 selections on the browser choice menu.

      I can still pick Opera.

      And those are all written in C# and are therefore ready to deploy on Windows Phone 7 Series devices at a moment's notice are they?

      Methinks Firefox is only the first casualty of this decision. Portability is a pretty important thing in Mobile App development. Fennec, for example, is being developed for several Mobile OS platforms simultaneously. Moving to C# forces a lot of software companies to re implement a C# version of their apps from scratch if they want to market them on Windows Mobile devices.

      • by PPH (736903)

        And those are all written in C# and are therefore ready to deploy on Windows Phone 7 Series devices at a moment's notice are they?

        The implementation language is not the installed object. C# stuff runs on .NET if I understand all the Microsoft promotional stuff. You can code in C, C++, Java, VB, Perl, or Fortran and build a .NET app. Or so Microsoft pleads when they try to get us to port our apps to that framework. And the port should be dead simple. According to Microsoft.

        Please tell me if this is not in fact the case, as we would like to tell MS "bullsh*t" the next time they come by with their sales pitch.

  • by jav1231 (539129)
    It's an Android/iPhone world now. WinMo and Palm are marginalized.
  • ROFL! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jmorris42 (1458) * <jmorris&beau,org> on Tuesday March 23, 2010 @09:38PM (#31592600)

    Good grief, just how stupid can these guys get!

    Just about the ONLY nice thing people say about Windows on a phone is that it is an open platform for all the corporate junk. Now it is a closed clone of the iPhone complete with app store. All the evil with none of the hipster kewl artsy metrosexual buzz.

    Without a monopoly Microsoft couldn't sell icewater in hell.

    • by CAIMLAS (41445)

      You forgot: there are also fewer bearded women in the Windows Mobile world than the iPhone world. (Or maybe they're perpetually-pubescent men. Hard to tell.)

    • All the evil with none of the hipster kewl artsy metrosexual buzz.

      Fantastic summary that made me smile; thanks!

  • Windows 7 Immobile (Score:2, Interesting)

    by syousef (465911)

    Bone heads. Apple's partially closed approach has been a PR disaster. Despite having a slick phone, there are plenty who'll avoid it like the plague. Only the fact that it was first to market has saved it So MS, who's anything but first to market with advanced smartphones, decides to go one better and close development to everything except CNA and Silverlight? (while Ironically Apple won't support Flash). It's like watching Dumb and Dumber.

    • by Nerdfest (867930)
      I was thinking it was more like "Dirty Rotten Scoundrels".
    • by radish (98371)

      iPhone wasn't just first to market, it created the market. Given that it's still selling better than any of the competition I'd say that MS would be pretty happy to get anywhere near the level of success as Apple. It's hardly surprising they're not doing anything very differently...

  • Wait -- then MS's OS/3?

    And it's not that bad, really, it's not. It's not popular in the west; I could count the WiMos I've come across the past few years. Head East and it's still popular.

    Skype? Gone. FF? Gone. Is Opera next?

  • It's not clear to me from the linked article, but it sounds like Microsoft want all apps running on the phone to be "managed" code running on the CLR engine. This is just plain sense. It means that they can then run all apps in the same memory-space, and be sure that they are all nicely "sandboxed" so they can't corrupt each other's memory. If non-sandboxed code is allowed, then the OS has to run each app in a separate process with its own memory-space. That makes life more complicated, and adds overhead.
    • by jabjoe (1042100)
      So how can you compete with native MS products when your stuck with CLR? It's not a level playing field. Firefox done in CLR vs IE native? A native process can crash itself, but it shouldn't be able to take the OS with it because it has it's own address space. This overhead is small and old, and really isn't a problem, and is nothing compared with CLR/Java. There are many smart phones that's OS is just a port of a standard OS, they manage just fine. This brings me back to my point that a company can't make

"There are things that are so serious that you can only joke about them" - Heisenberg

Working...