"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.

So why isn't Apple under the same type of scrutiny?

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.

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.

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.

The chain's going to go more like this:

1. Your business network runs on Windows. MS has a monopoly here.
2. If you want a phone/tablet that integrates with your business network, you need to have one that runs Windows RT. Others won't be given access to what they need to integrate smoothly.
3. And if you want a browser on your Windows RT phone/tablet, it must be Internet Explorer. Others won't be allowed.

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.

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?

>>>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. Though I doubt they'd be convicted since their smartphone share is about around half, and their tablet share is rapidly shrinking with the Amazon Fire and other tablets selling extremely well.

Strawman - as the consumer who purchased and supposedly owns the device, that should be for me to decide, not Apple.

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.

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.

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.

Dude, do you even read what you link to?

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.

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.

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?

That's pure bullshit. If a browser can "ruin the security" and "drain the battery", then so can any other third-party app.

"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.

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.

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).

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

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.

... 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.

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.

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?