Windows RT Browser Restrictions Draw Antitrust Attention 375
An anonymous reader writes "Last week we heard complaints from Mozilla that Windows RT would restrict users' choice in web browsers, unfairly favoring Internet Explorer over alternatives like Firefox and Chrome. Unfortunately for Microsoft, the situation is now on the Senate Judiciary Committee's radar, and they will look into claims that Microsoft is engaging in anti-competitive behavior. That said, it could be a difficult case to make, since Windows RT is destined for ARM-based tablets, and Apple currently dominates that market. 'When it comes to proving abuse of monopoly power, an important question is determining the market in which a monopolist has power — the relevant market, in antitrust legal terms. In the [late '90s] DOJ case, U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's findings of fact concluded Microsoft had a monopoly in the market for "Intel-compatible PC operating systems." Windows on ARM doesn't run on x86 chips, so by Jackson's standards, Windows RT hasn't been judged to be part of Microsoft's monopoly.' Microsoft addressed some of these issues in a blog post in February."
Where's the one on Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
"There' is no tablet market. There is only an iPad market" say the fans and Apple gets away with not only bundling Safari but banning all other browser engines. Yet Microsoft with it's 0.1% share of tablets in the "Post-PC world" gets flogged for this.
Re:Where's the one on Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
"There' is no tablet market. There is only an iPad market" say the fans and Apple gets away with not only bundling Safari but banning all other browser engines. Yet Microsoft with it's 0.1% share of tablets in the "Post-PC world" gets flogged for this.
Dude, haven't you gotten the memo?
"It's OK for Apple to block Firefox, but wrong when Microsoft does it".
http://tinyurl.com/d2m8qs3 [tinyurl.com]
(Sorry for tinyurl, it's legit I promise, Slashdot filters the link because it's too long).
Not to mention Apple's worse actions like forcing their in-app payments and their 30% cut of even in-app purchases(driving many apps, esp. ebook related ones out of the market) and even forcing developers not to charge Android users less for the same services from the money they save from not paying the 30% tithe to Apple.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>>>Microsoft with it's 0.1% share of tablets in the "Post-PC world" gets flogged for this.
You jumped the gun.
MS has not been flogged (punished) yet.
If you mean they are being investigated, well of course, since they are a convicted monopolist both here (had to pay a fine) and in the EU (required to provide a browser choice window to users). It's only natural they would be investigated given their past.
And do I think Apple needs to be investigated for Sherman Antitrust violations? Yeah absolutely.
Re: (Score:3)
Go away, shill. The conviction was never overturned, they just changed the sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Where's the one on Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly Apple doesn't have a monopoly to abuse.
Most estimates I've seen put Apple in as 60-70% of the tablet market share. They alone control the hardware channel, the OS channel, and the third party application store for their product. You can't buy an iPad without iOS, you can't buy iOS without an iPad, and you can't install an application without Apple allowing it on their store.
Who's not a monopoly now?
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry for tinyurl, it's legit I promise, Slashdot filters the link because it's too long
No it doesn't. [computerworld.com] The only time you might need a shortened URL here is in your sig. When I'm moderating, I almost always mark a post with a shortened URL as "troll" without even looking, because it's a way to sneak goatse past. I only followed your short link because your comment had been modded +5. The link I posted is the full link to where your shortened one goes.
Hope I helped.
Re: (Score:2)
There have been complaints leveled at Apple for years but the legions rush to their defense.
Re: (Score:3)
The first time I heard about people being upset that winRT only supported IE as its default browser I thought that Microsoft must of thought of this (think anti-trust with IE in europe).
The only reason to do this is either they think they can change it once it becomes a dominant player, or they want to force the issue so Apple must change. I can't think of any benefit to M$ for making Apple open up it's browser integration in iOS. But someone let me know if there is a benefit?
My guess is they thought thro
Re:Where's the one on Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
The point of antitrust laws is not to block monopolies. The point is to block anticompetitive behavior (which often, but not always, follows monopolies). Microsoft has a long history of aggressively anticompetitive tactics, where Apple has comparatively little.
Apple has also publicly stated the reason for the ban on other engines (coherent UI bahavior), which is perfectly in line with (and necessary for) their business model of producing devices that look and feel the same. Microsoft, on the other hand, has provided no reason (to my knowledge), and does not have any history of using such restrictions to actually improve the end product.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So, I don't follow your logic. Lets say I buy a car. But the dealership decides to put a lock on my engine hood, so I can't open it. Then a few thousand miles later, I go to put oil in my car. But I can't, because its locked. So I take it to the dealer and say, hey, unlock my car so I can put oil in it. And they say, sorry sir, only we are allowed to put the oil in, and it will cost X amount. And we are the only ones that can do it. We won't unlock it for you, or any other mechanic shop.
That's not a
Re:Where's the one on Apple? (Score:4, Insightful)
The devil's in the details... If your car was sold to you under a big banner that says "every part is certified by $BRAND to be right for the car" and the $BRAND reputation is built on parts all working together perfectly, that's not anti-competitive. That's just plain old lock-in. Still bad in my opinion, but not illegal, and certainly not running afoul of antitrust laws. Anyone buying a $BRAND-brand car likely knows that they're locked down, and is paying a premium for that near-perfect operation. The lock is a part of the car's quality-control design.
On the other hand, if your car's reputation is based on being a generic vehicle and the brand has been built on support for aftermarket parts, a sudden addition of a locked hood, while requiring the expensive oil and limited service locations, would be seen as anti-competitive.
Law is not a computer program. It's based on human judges interpreting guidelines to maintain a society. They can look at history and reputation in their decisions, to judge the likelyhood of an entity, corporate or individual, breaking the spirit of the law. Apple's just not that likely to screw over other mobile device makers like Microsoft is.
Re: (Score:3)
Going along with that analogy, MS can claim that Windows RT is a new brand and that Windows 8 is the old generic brand.
>Apple's just not that likely to screw over other mobile device makers like Microsoft is.
HAHAHAHAHAHA what? We are talking about browser makers here, not mobile device makers. They already got screwed by Apple.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Where's the one on Apple? (Score:5, Interesting)
Still bad in my opinion, but not illegal
Warren Magnuson and John Moss [wikipedia.org] would like a word with you:
So yes, your hypothetical scenario is specifically illegal. That law is why you can buy Fram air filters (instead of AC Delco), Pennzoil 10W-30 (instead of Ford Lubr-o-matic), and Shell gas (instead of Huile d'Fiat) without voiding your car's warranty.
And illegal. There are times when car analogies are appropriate and reasonable. This isn't one of them.
Re: (Score:3)
Intent is a major part of any legal issue. Do they intend to cut others out of the market, or do they intend to prevent others from mucking around with the user experience? If both, in what proportions? Did they take any actions to hurt competitors (like buying and closing) over promoting themselves?
Prior history goes a long way toward establishing a case for intent.
Re: (Score:2)
The question I suppose is then whether the iPad exists at all because there is no MS slate. If Microsoft made a half arsed effort to get slates out there would they completely destroy the iPad and Android sales by virtue of using their monopoly in x86 to crush the non MS ARM business.
I would think this is a tricky dance for MS. Ideally Windows 8 slates should play nice with Windows 8 desktops and there should be some compelling reason to have windows 8 on both. But making that 'compelling reason' versus
Re: (Score:2)
THIS
What Microsoft is doing is nothing compared to what Apple has been doing pretty much since the launch of iOS - and they have a far greater mobile market share than MS ever did - and yet not only do we not see this elephant in the room, but when an anteater steps in we call it an elephant and shoo it out.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
IDC suggests it's 68%. [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Don't be ridiculous; there's certainly a "tablet market". Of course, it's utterly dominated by Apple's iPad, but there are other vendors selling tables, such as the Kindle Fire. The alternatives may be selling in much, much lower quantities than the iPad, but they are out there; I think I even saw some Samsung tablet in CostCo recently.
You're right of course about Apple getting away with things that MS can't, but that's what MS gets for being a convicted monopolist; everything they do now is subject to ex
Re:Where's the one on Apple? (Score:5, Informative)
All the browsers available in the App Store are just wrappers and skins on the Safari browser engine, except Opera Mini, which runs the browser engine in the cloud to escape Apple's banning of running Javascript(or any other JIT code).
That's why there is no Firefox or Chrome(or even IE ;) for iOS.
Re:Where's the one on Apple? (Score:5, Interesting)
How many copies of webkit do you want on your phone/pad. ;-)
Count the number of gekko/webkit links and bundles you find on a well-augmented Ubuntu or Fedora box.
So, you solution is to ban all those browsers on the Linux box, I presume?
Ff Webkit is all important, why is Chrome way more popular than Safari on Windows? They use the same Webkit engine, don't they? A browser is much much more than it's engine.
"I" may or may not want something, but that doesn't mean browser makers must be banned from providing alternate rendering and JS engines.
Re:Where's the one on Apple? (Score:5, Funny)
why is Chrome way more popular than Safari on Windows?
Thanks to Mozilla, we know the answer to this. It's because Chrome has a higher version number.
Re: (Score:2)
But what if I want Opera?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Where's the one on Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
At least give other browsers (and IMO all software) the chance to be crappy and ruin my device if I so choose.
It's the same as on the PC really. Even though I hear from many that FF sucks their memory and CPU, that isn't the case with me and I choose to run it. I'll pick another browser when the time comes, but at least *I* pick.
Re: (Score:3)
Firefox will balloon in memory for me, but despite that I still prefer it to the other browsers due to a number of add-ons.
Re:Where's the one on Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
Dude, do you even read what you link to?
A new Google-funded study of browser security by security research firm Accuvant Labs crowned Chrome the champion of security features, and ranked Firefox below Internet Explorer in terms of protection available from web-borne threats.
How is it even relevant, when ARM version of IE won't have plugins, so no (how carefully you copypasted those!) sandboxing or plug-in security.
By your logic, MS should have insisted on Chrome, then.
PS: You gotta get paid, I know, I know, but - please! - do you really have to sound so much like a sales pitch? Tell your higher-ups that not having to follow an obvious script, but rather having a degree of freedom in your postings adds to your value as a marketing asset. Just add something about leveraging synergies for better monetization of social media resource and you won't have to sound like a broken record.
Re:Where's the one on Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's stance is the same reason we don't want non-Microsoft browsers ruining the security of our Windows RT tablets and draining battery.
That's pure bullshit. If a browser can "ruin the security" and "drain the battery", then so can any other third-party app.
Re:Where's the one on Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where's the one on Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
How many copies of webkit do you want on your phone/pad. ;-)
Strawman - as the consumer who purchased and supposedly owns the device, that should be for me to decide, not Apple.
Re:Where's the one on Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't buy Apple. I don't want to be limited to their sandbox. I might have bought Apple if it weren't for their draconian control measures over the hardware and software. (Though there are now enough other reasons to avoid them that it's unlikely they'll be on my consideration list any time in the foreseeable future.)
Do I still have to just shut up and accept it? I think they're bad for the industry. I think they're taking software development to a place that I don't want it to go. I think that the idea of being forced to pay a yearly subscription to a hardware manufacturer and going through some arbitrary review process shouldn't be the *only* sanctioned way of running code on a device.
--Jeremy
Re:Where's the one on Apple? (Score:4, Insightful)
The target audience isn't necessarily a tech savvy one. The more the user is allowed to do, the higher the potential for mishaps. When you promise a customer a fancy piece of shiny hardware and advertise it like a high-tech toaster - "press here, then magic happens" they aren't expecting a full blown PC with all the associated quirks, tweaks, gradual cluttering/slowing down/ buggyness, etc. They are expecting a magic little plastic box that does all the things that were printed on the outside of the big cardboard box it arrived in.
That's part of the problem, if you ask me: by patronizing this attitude of "I don't want to know how it works, so long as it does," society in effect creates a disincentive to learn what is going on 'behind-the-scenes,' and thus subconsciously trains people to never question the how or why, just accept your fate (and license agreement) without question like a good little drone.
I fear for future generations if this trend continues - the world is pretty fucked up right now, largely due to general indifference on the part of the populace-at-large, and the less attention we pay to the actions of the powerful few (governments and corporations), the more fucked up it will become.
... by locking things down, it lets the manufacturer ensure the device works the way they want it to until they make it obsolete.
... which forces the consumer to play by the device maker's rules, which doesn't really mesh with the whole 'free-market capitalism' idea.
On the other hand, if a person is willing to plunk down hundreds or thousands of dollars to essentially 'rent' a piece of hardware, then give the same company even more money to 'rent' the software that the hardware runs, that's their prerogative.
I personally find that pretty durn stupid, trusting a for-profit corporation, but what can I say, I failed Normalcy 101. Miserably.
If I want a device that works the way I want it to, I stay away from Apple, tablets and smart phones, and get a real computer.
Really, that's pretty much what's kept me out of the tablet market... well, that and having difficulty coming up with a scenario in which a tablet would be more useful than either my smartphone or laptop, but I digress. I run CM7 on my Droid X, and aside from issues with recording video, I think it's the cat's ass! When I become eligible for an upgrade next month, I fully intend to keep my DX and turn it into a portable network analyzer/pen testing device (Here's hoping for Backtrack: Android Edition).
That's assuming I actually do upgrade; there seems to be a trend among hardware manufacturers to lock their devices down even more than before, going so far as to seal the power system so you can't even do a battery-pull, which is a serious turn off for me as a consumer.
Like the Makers say, 'If you can't open it, you don't own it," and I for one won't tolerate not owning the expensive devices I paid for.
Re: (Score:2)
All the browsers available in the App Store are just wrappers and skins on the Safari browser engine, except Opera Mini, which runs the browser engine in the cloud to escape Apple's banning of running Javascript(or any other JIT code).
That's why there is no Firefox or Chrome(or even IE ;) for iOS.
Perhaps the browsers available in the App Sore are just wrappers and skins for Safari, however the developers are welcome to charge for them, hence there are other browsers available, hence no monopoly. Sorry.
I think similar logic can be applied to Windows RT as well. If it's anything like Windows Phone(which I very well suspect it is), you can wrap and skin IE in an app and charge for it.
Eg. http://www.windowsphone.com/en-US/apps/60aa8848-6cc8-4ec4-94b7-1d134550b57b?wa=wsignin1.0 [windowsphone.com]
Hence, no monopoly. Sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
Being able to skin the only browser allowed (aka, Monopoly browser) does not undo the fact that there is no real browser choice -- hence there is a monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
How about: Windows RT market share is currently ZERO. You can't have a monopoly until you actually have a product. Hence, no monopoly.
On the other hand, Apple has both a huge market share of tablets and a very closed system with absolute say of what goes on the hardware you own. Maybe Mozilla and the Senate should stop wasting their time and look into that, instead...
Re: (Score:3)
Now if MS made the platforms that run it's various operating systems, they could mandate what software ran on it. IE only, no problem W8? You got it!
That makes no sense and really has no legal basis whatsoever. It's like arguing that AT&T runs their own phone network, and should be allowed to mandate the phones plugged into it. Oops, that was already an anti-trust issue that went *against* them.
As long as Microsoft is no longer using anti-competitive practices to force their OS on someone's hardware (which they aren't, for quite a while now) then it has nothing to do with Microsoft. It's completely up to the hardware manufacturer.
You don't "buy W
Re:Where's the one on Apple? (Score:4, Informative)
I guess that depends how you define "browser". If the definition includes the engine, and you're not permitted to choose which engine your browser uses, then that lack of choice may be a legal problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Who cares if Ford is the only one making the engines for your vehicles as long as the badge on the front of your car says Corvette! Obviously, you can't go after Ford for monopolistic practices since you're driving a shell that says it was made by Chevy. I mean, can't you see how this works? You do have a choice... a choice of badges.
Monopoly on browser engines (Score:2)
Re:Where's the one on Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean if I don't like IE10 on my WinRT tablet I can't just go buy an iPad bundled with Safari?
Likewise, if I didn't like IE on my Windows 98 box, I could have just bought a Mac or a UNIX workstation. The U.S. government didn't see it that way.
Re: (Score:2)
You are talking about search engines. I am talking about browser rendering engines.
Opera Mini uses the cloud to run it's rendering engine thus is not a real browser(compared to Safari atleast) because it cannot run Javascript on the device like Safari can.
Re: (Score:2)
you sir are a dumb ass. "search engine" != "html css javascript rendering engine".
Re: (Score:2)
Chrome uses WebKit as well, actually.
Re: (Score:3)
Only Opera Mini is in the App Store, and that's because most of layout and some of rendering happens server-side for it, which means that it's not a full-fledged standalone browser. Opera Mobile (which is a full-featured browser) is not available, and neither is Firefox.
Re: (Score:3)
yet again, opera cheated. it is rendered on their server and sent to your device as a binary not as plain html. thus skirting the rules
Re:Where's the one on Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Cheated", really? Do you seriously think they've made it work that way just because they were so desperate to get into the App Store?
Opera Mini has worked that way since it first appeared on J2ME feature phones. It's the main feature of the damn thing - that it offloads heavy processing to the server, thereby allowing it to run on low-powered devices and not strain the battery.
Also, there's no "skirting the rules" with Apple, since they are the final arbiter of what goes in, and can ban your app for any reason - including no reason at all. It's not like there's some kind of due process there where you can prove your innocence and be guaranteed to walk away.
Re:Where's the one on Apple? (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know whether you're a) using sloppy terminology and are just flat-wrong, because there are other browsers available for the iPad b) you're using accurate terminology and being misleading, because hell no Apple does not allow you to replace the system-level browser engine, but that's not at all what Microsoft is doing.
All "other browsers" available on iOS are wrappers around WebKit. You can't use your own engine there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no Chrome on iOS.
Chrome is not "just" WebKit. It's Google's own version of WebKit, plus their own JS engine (V8), plus UI. On iOS, however, all you can change is the UI part - you have to use Apple's WebKit and their JS implementation.
Re:Where's the one on Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's more than just being required to use WebKit. It's being required to use a particular version of WebKit, with no ability to extend or change it in any way.
I want Firefox to keep using its own engine, thank you very much. Last thing we need for the Web is to see "best viewed in WebKit" monoculture, and it's already starting to to trend that way. Didn't a decade of IE dominance teach people anything?
Re:Where's the one on Apple? (Score:5, Interesting)
ok. if other browsers are allowed then please recompile (or ask someone else to) Mozilla Firefox for iOS and submit to Apple for submission. What do you anticipate happening?
Either browsers are allowed and Mozilla can launch Firefox for iOS, or browsers are not allowed and they can't. Letting me skin a browser isn't an alternative web browser. That would be like saying IE6 didn't rule the interwebs back in the day because you could install 3rd party varients of it!
And the answer "I don't want Firefox" isn't a valid answer. We're not talking what you want to do, we're talking what you CAN do. Installing a non Safari based browser is not allowed (note Opera is the Mini version and gets around it by offloading the rendering to the cloud)
Sorry but I'm really tired of this "BUT THEY DO ALLOW IT!" comments I keep seeing on here. Show me Mozilla Firefox or Chrome or IE or something that doesn't need Safari on the phone AND does it's rendering on the phone and I'll believe it. Until then.. wrong. Apple will deny the app.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think everybody is arguing about the same thing here....
Re: (Score:2)
"I do not think that word means what you think it means"
Yes, I think your correct. However my point still stands in my view. Apple does explicitly prevent 3rd party browser engines on their devices. Saying that browser X is unique because it has a different front end is like saying that my Ford is just like that Ferrari cuz it's red and has windows. It's a completely different car/browser.
I'm reminded of doing help desk and someone says their computer won't work, and it's because their monitor is dead.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because PARTICULAR browsers aren't recompiled and available, doesn't mean that nothing is allowed. Any developer can write a browser (yes, webkit engine) and sell it - thus not a monopoly, your droid rage notwithstanding.
No, they can't. Not on the App Store. Apple will not allow it. The only way to get an alternate browser on the iPhone is by jailbreaking it.
Re: (Score:3)
Untrue. You can't bundle your own version of webkit, and you have to use iOS's own javascript interpreter as well.
Re:Where's the one on Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
particular browser? show me a browser that doesn't require Safari, and does rendering on device (you know, a real browser, unlike Opera Mini). Link to the Apple store please.
Show me one. Even one would be enough. I originally wrote a car analogy, but perhaps the words from an actual developer at Mozilla might help:
"I am a developer on the mobile Firefox team at Mozilla.
We currently have an iPhone App called Firefox Home, which lets you sync your Firefox tabs, history and bookmarks to your iOS device. You can get it from the app store, or read more here: http://www.mozilla.com/mobile/home/ [mozilla.com]
We have no plans to release the full Firefox browser for Apple iOS devices. The current iOS SDK agreement forbids apps like Firefox that include their own compilers and interpreters:
“3.3.2 An Application may not download or install executable code. Interpreted code may only be used in an Application if all scripts, code and interpreters are packaged in the Application and not downloaded. The only exception to the foregoing is scripts and code downloaded and run by Apple’s built-in WebKit framework.”
Other browsers for iOS use the built-in WebKit libraries (like Skyfire) or do not execute any JavaScript on the device itself (like Opera Mini, which uses a proxy server). But unless Apple removes these restrictions, full browsers like Firefox are not allowed on iOS."
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/will-firefox-mobile-ever-be-released-for-ios-devices-no-blame-apple/10770 [zdnet.com]
this is back in 2010, did something change? If so, show me the updated information.
Re:Where's the one on Apple? (Score:4, Insightful)
Your definition and mine of what a browser is are COMPLETELY different obviously. Sorry but if I write a front end and use some existing "library" as the rendering engine (AKA, the hard work / key part that makes the browser a browser and not a video game or a spreadsheet), and call myself a browser developer, that's kinda sad IMO. UI Developer? Sure! Absolutely. Browser? Nope.
Even if I say your right about your definition (which I don't think is correct), Apple is still restricting and locking out other parties from using their own browser technology. You have to use THEIRS.
So I guess your admiting that Apple restricts browsers, since you have to qualify your statement with "(and use built-in WebKit libraries)." Your iOS Rage not withstanding.
Safari doesn't implement 100% of HTML5 draft (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So how should a developer write a web browser that allows users to view sites that use a feature of HTML that the latest version of WebKit does not implement? One such feature is the HTML Media Capture [w3.org].
First, I have better apps to develop than a web browser, so I can't answer your technical question. Second, being able to implement a particular feature on a particular platform does not a legal case make.
Re:Where's the one on Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
FWIW, even with all the restrictions, WinRT is still less restrictive than iOS - you still can write a custom browser without using IE engine, and you can even register that browser as the default app to open URLs. The problem there is that it won't have access to all the APIs that IE does, and in particular it can't JIT-compile JS to native code, so it will always be slower. But e.g. Opera Mobile should run on WinRT just fine.
Re: (Score:3)
Microsoft is forcing Apples hand. Simple as that. Apple has had their time dominating the market and getting paid, and now Microsoft wants a 'level playing field' so they can make their market.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>because there are other browsers available for the iPad
Really?
Can I run Mozilla seaMonkey or Firefox?
Can I run Opera Mobile or Opera 11?
Can I run Non-google Chromium?
ASIDE - Seamonkey is on the same rollercoaster as Firefox, with one release every month. BUT at least they are using sane numbering: 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, et cetera. Seamonkey will be at version 3 sometime next year while Firefox will be at 20.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying that Apple produces "specific purpose" tablets?
Why the iPad is not a general-purpose computer (Score:2)
What do you mean by a "general purpose tablet"?
A computing device is a general-purpose computer if it allows the input and testing of computer programs developed by the owner of the device* that make use of all the computer's peripherals. A video game console is not a general-purpose computer under this definition, nor is an iOS device alone. An iOS device paired to a Mac is a general-purpose computer as long as the owner keeps the developer certificate paid up. Once the certificate expires, the device is no longer general-purpose.
* I refer to the in
Re: (Score:2)
>They don't make a general purpose tablet.
>The tablets WinRT is going on WILL be general purpose tablets.
What's the distinction between Windows RT tablets and iPad that makes on general purpose and the other not?
Care to elaborate?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Say what??? "Apple just defends their own market..." WTF does that mean? Does Apple have some kind of natural right to some market? If so, exactly what is that market? Did Apple invent the music store? No, but they sure seem to want to rule that market. Did they invent the MP3 player? No, but they sure seem to want to rule that market. Oh, I know! They invented the smartphone! Nope, but again they seem to want to rule that market. Well, it must be that they invented tablets then. Nope, wro
Re:Where's the one on Apple? (Score:5, Informative)
That's because Apple has spent a lot more money on political campaign contributions than Microsoft.
Citation? Brief search so far has indicated that's completely false.
iPad (Score:4, Insightful)
So why isn't Apple under the same type of scrutiny?
Re:iPad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, bullshit. The question is not does Apple make OS's for other products, it is can anyone else make stuff for Apple's product. Microsoft did not get in trouble because it made browsers that ran on other OS's, it got in trouble because they made it difficult for someone else to make (and sell) a browser for THEIR OS. IBM did not get in trouble because they made software that ran on other systems, they got in trouble because they made it difficult for others to make software that ran on IBMs systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft got in trouble because the leveraged a monopoly in one market (desktop operating systems) to get an unfair advantage in another (web browsers).
Apple does not have a monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
That is true, but it still has absolutely nothing nothing to do with what the GP said and was somehow modded insightful.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple doesn't matter (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think the fact Apple doesn't allow this kind of thing matters. Apple has a very clear differentiation of products. The desktops/laptops run a different OS from the iPads. I'm going to ignore the "Apple shouldn't be able to do this" argument, which I don't really disagree with. The fact is that's status quo.
With Windows 8, all tablets get the same interface and run the same software. The difference is that, based on something esoteric to the population at large (the architecture of the CPU), you lose the ability to load some kinds of software. Not because that software wasn't ported, but because it can't be ported without being severely crippled. What this means is that when someone buys a tablet from BestBuy, they may or may not be able to run the software they expect. Some Windows 8 software runs on everything, some Windows 8 software doesn't. What's the lesson? That FireFox thing doesn't always work. Just use the built in stuff or you'll have problems.
If MS was clearly positioning the ARM tablets as something different from the non-ARM tablets, that would be different. They may call it "Windows RT", but when two tablets are in the store next to each other, looking identical, running identical interfaces, I think it's fair to say they're the same. Duck typing for tablets. Since I'd expect ARM tablets to really take off due to cost and efficiency, this certainly seems like a round about way to force people to use IE.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nope.
Win RT only allows for Metro apps (aside from Office and IE). It's NOT the same as x86 Windows.
The power of x86 tablets is that they will run REAL Windows and can all Metro AND classic apps. Win RT is a subset of Windows.
Re: (Score:3)
So, the Grand Unification of Windows that MS is promissing for ages will create... 2 versions of Windows? One for desktops, another one for portables?
Re: (Score:3)
Right, but MS is clearly pushing Metro style apps as the "correct" future direction. If you don't use the older desktop style apps, you could easily have the same experience with both Windows 8 and Windows RT.
What do most users spend their time on their computers doing? Web browsing, email, IM, and maybe iTunes/WMP for music, games. All those will be available in Metro.
I think for the average user, it will be quite easy to stay in Metro all the time, leading to the possible confusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't that be "If MS will be"? Or is the U.S. already being flooded with marketing material in which there's little to no differentiation being made, for devices that do not yet publicly exist running operating systems that are not as of yet finalized?
Because it's either that, or we're making assumptions here for the sake of bolstering arguments.
Re: (Score:2)
The desktops/laptops run a different OS from the iPads.
Not really.
Monopoly chain (Score:5, Insightful)
The chain's going to go more like this:
Whether Microsoft has a monopoly in ARM-based tablets or not is irrelevant. It has a monopoly in the desktop and business-network market, and it's using that monopoly to gain advantages in the ARM-based phone/tablet OS and browser markets.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple... (Score:5, Informative)
Please remind me what Apple's stance on browsers for their iDevices is.
Right...
What's Apple's share again? At least 90%, you say?
Right...
What's Microsoft's share? 0% in ARM tablets?
Right...
But Apple hasn't done this before! What? They kept certain OS functions reserved for Safari?
And Microsoft gets flak for disallowing other browsers in desktop mode? How often is an ARM tablet user going to use desktop IE? Other browsers are still allowed on the store, so it's not a case of locking other browsers out.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's what puzzles me... (Score:4, Insightful)
So why is Microsoft still calling it "Windows"?
Apple doesn't call its OS for iPad/iPhone/etc. "OSX" anything, even though that's what it's derived from. It calls it "iOS."
So can't Microsoft pick another name for this thing, just to eliminate confusion? Like, say, call it "Metro OS," after the visual style it uses?
Re: (Score:2)
Apple doesn't call its OS for iPad/iPhone/etc. "OSX" anything, even though that's what it's derived from. It calls it "iOS."
you forgot your /sarcasm
Re: (Score:2)
Because MS always called their portable OS Windows. What is interesting is that they were just anouncing that Windows 8 would be the same on portables or desktops. That'll teach people to trust MS' PR... oh wait, it won't, people don't learn.
Other intersting detail is that they are differentiating it based on the processor architecture. It is as if MS wants us to think that ARM is only good for toys, and real computers must be x86. (I bet Intel likes that.) Well, that may be true fow Windows, for now, but p
Re: (Score:2)
"...WOA builds on the foundation of Windows, has a very high degree of commonality and very significant shared code with Windows 8, and will be developed for, sold, and supported as part of the largest computing ecosystem in the world."
Steven Sinofsky, Microsoft
And THAT'S why -- Microsoft wants to have a single ecosystem.
Further
"Metro style apps in the Windows Store can support both WOA and Windows 8 on x86/64." Steven Sinofsky
(note that WOA is "Windows On ARM")
Windows RG? (Score:2)
Am I the only one who thought of Windows RG upon seeing the headline?
http://www.deanliou.com/WinRG/WinRG2.htm [deanliou.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I had thought the same thing. "RT" could stand for a lot of fun things. Like Windows "Rectal Thermometer" edition.
app store censorship is an issue / lock in (Score:2)
app store censorship is an issue and with the lock in is a even bigger one.
and censorship can be API locks and saying you can't compete with a build in app.
no emulations is censorship as well.
Also adult games / apps should be in the store even if they a hidden in away where you have to go to the adult room.
Now the 30% cut along with the 30% cut of in app purchase may be antitrust as well.
This may be a good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
I am not being anti-Microsoft here, but more to the point, if Microsoft is investigated for this issue, then Microsoft will easily also point the finger at Apple already doing this. Once that happens, both Microsoft AND Apple will get yelled at for it, but since Windows 8 is not released yet, Microsoft can get away with only a warning, while Apple may get a huge fine.
Wrong market definition. (Score:4, Insightful)
The market where Microsoft has monopoly is not just "desktop operating systems" but also "operating systems for general-purpose interactive computer devices". Even counting existing tablets as "general-purpose", what is a stretch for things like iPad, Microsoft is still a monopoly due to overwhelming numbers of PCs. Windows 8 for ARM is firmly in that category. It's marketed as the same Windows, just for smaller devices (just like Windows CE was, except then it was a lie, and now it mostly is not).
Re: (Score:2)
On another note I would probably give my money for an Apple device before giving it up for a Microsoft device, even though I'm rather ticked at Apple and am slowly forgiving MS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just do nothing (Score:4, Informative)
So how much did you pay for your copy of IE?
Browsers weren't always a free add-in.
Same for cd and dvd burning software, same for video playback software, same for anti-virus software, until MASV (Microsoft Antivirus for DOS 6.0) - the one that (arguably correctly) identified the upgrade program for Win95 as a virus.
Microsoft is quite happy to dump product at zero retail to kill the competition.