Microsoft plans to boot Chrome, Mozilla off of Windows tablets
The move creates a bit of cognitive dissonance, since Microsoft was charged with anti-competitive violations by the Department of Justice specifically over their attempt to lock Windows customers into Internet Explorer by giving it away for free on every PC (for those of you who don’t remember, that’s what helped to kill Netscape, whose demise helped spur the advent of Mozilla’s Firefox).
Of course Microsoft controlled more than 90% of the PC market at the time, while Windows 7 has less than 2% of the smartphone market in the U.S., and they’ll have no serious presence in tablets until the launch of Windows RT later this year. Still, if Microsoft finds success as the market shifts away from PCs to mobile devices, they could potentially lock a lot of people into Internet Explorer, a feat they have not been able to accomplish the last few years as their once-commanding market position has been eroded by competing browsers.
Google and Mozilla have both called foul. They won't be the only ones complaining for long - it turns out that Microsoft won't be allowing competing media players on their tablets either. Perhaps one or several of the affected companies will file a grievance with the DoJ, but until such time as Windows 8 tablets start to win significant market share, we doubt we'll see much action from the government. Still, it’s an interesting about-face from Microsoft's PC days – it appears their tablets will live in even more of a walled garden than Apple’s iPad.
source: ZDNet via 9to5Google
1. Droid4Life posted on 10 May 2012, 15:09 13 3
That is ridiculous. I am using Chrome to read this post. This will last until Microsoft bans Safari and Apple sues them.
28. dirtydirty00 posted on 10 May 2012, 15:58 17 4
ive never used safari in my life besides the few unfortunate times ive had to deal with using a macintosh. why on earth would i want to use safari?
34. Whateverman posted on 10 May 2012, 16:08 13 4
To be fair, Safari is a great browser. But then came Chrome and it just kicked the crap out of it. I haven't used Safari on my Mac at all since downloading Chrome almost a year ago.
43. blinkdagger posted on 10 May 2012, 16:40 0 4
well too bad, google chrome going to shut the door to mac os x.https://support.google.com/chr
ome/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer =2599452&p=ui_mac_leopard_supp ort
46. blinkdagger posted on 10 May 2012, 16:45 3 0
forgot to mention, only 10.5(leopard)
88. Whateverman posted on 10 May 2012, 20:30 1 0
I'm running 10.6 so I'm good.
110. -box- posted on 11 May 2012, 08:54 0 0
They're not offering it for anything pre-10.6 because of the security holes
117. akshaye.shenoi posted on 11 May 2012, 13:21 0 0
Safari is a great browser. So is chrome. But on a Mac, Safari makes the most of the multitouch gestures on the trackpad and the experience is just too great. Zooming in is just like how you would zoom in on your smartphone, the pinch gesture. Swiping through pages just using two fingers is awesome too. There are many more features. Don't hate a comment now just coz its 'made by Apple'.
93. shayan posted on 10 May 2012, 22:50 2 0
actually thats ridiculous because the only thing a windows tablet can offer now, is the applications. not small apps. windows is familiar for developers and it shouldent be hard making your application work with windows RT. but if microsoft is stupid enough to kick the compitition out, the will never be able to compete with iOS and android in tablet world...
97. enigmatikexile posted on 11 May 2012, 00:24 3 0
This article isn't telling the whole story properly.
Windows RT will allow Firefox and Chrome to run in the Metro instance with all required APIs. Mozilla and Google are referring to not being able to create their programs in the Desktop instance WITHIN WinRT. These are two separate things. NOBODY has been given the rights to tinker with the Desktop instance on WinRT. But there's absolutely nothing stopping them from developing for the platform within the Metro instance, which seems to be the main purpose of WinRT anyway.
Moreover, the anti-competitive argument doesn't stand when Microsoft doesn't hold any marketshare in the domain.
This whole ordeal is a non-issue.
109. -box- posted on 11 May 2012, 08:53 0 0
What an excellent comment!
107. -box- posted on 11 May 2012, 08:51 0 1
I didn't even know Safari was available for non-apple stuff. Then again, I'd never think anyone would want to install it on anything, since it's such an awful browser with relatively gaping security holes. IE9/10, Firefox, Chrome, or Opera are just fine (for computers)
3. Sniggly posted on 10 May 2012, 15:18 9 1
Welp, never using a Windows 8 tablet then. Explorer's suck streak extends almost to the ten year mark now.
108. -box- posted on 11 May 2012, 08:52 0 0
@Sniggly have you tried it recently? Especially IE10? I've found it to be faster than Firefox and Chrome (I was surprised at that), more secure than those two and Opera, and the other functionality out of the box it brings is a welcome change to all the add-ons I had to put onto Firefox to make it do what I wanted
4. taco50 (banned) posted on 10 May 2012, 15:22 1 22
Sweet companies to to fight back against Google's anti competitive practices.
5. Sniggly posted on 10 May 2012, 15:27 12 1
You have got to be s**tting me. The whole article is about Microsoft being anti competitive, and somehow you translated that into Google being anti competitive?
Taco, I mean this very sincerely. I'm not even making fun of you or trying to be a jerk. You need, need, NEED to get your reading comprehension tested.
9. taco50 (banned) posted on 10 May 2012, 15:33 1 17
Windows has none of the tablet market so they can block stuff if they want.
Read up on google fudging search results. Also Google gives away products for free which is also anti competitive. It's called predatory pricing.
How can Tom Tom compete with that for example. I'm sick of Google.
12. troybuilt posted on 10 May 2012, 15:35 13 0
HAHA. You'd rather pay for the services instead of getting the same quality for free? You're the first person to say this in American History.
24. poojaroy posted on 10 May 2012, 15:51 7 0
haaaaa very right ,he s an ass lol
81. InspectorGadget80 posted on 10 May 2012, 18:57 3 0
you forget to add ass hole poojaroy.
14. Sniggly posted on 10 May 2012, 15:37 13 1
Are you really, truly, pissed off at Google for creating great services and giving them away for free? That's not anti competitive. That's ultra competitive.
Anti competitive is manipulating patent and copyright laws all the time to get anyone who could possibly interfere with your market position, branding, etc. banned from the market. Oh wait, that's what APPLE does. Imagine that.
16. taco50 (banned) posted on 10 May 2012, 15:40 0 13
It's called predatory pricing. They undercut the competition and drive them out of business.
20. Sniggly posted on 10 May 2012, 15:49 10 0
"In business and economics, predatory pricing is the practice of selling a product or service at a very low price, intending to drive competitors out of the market, or create barriers to entry for potential new competitors. If competitors or potential competitors cannot sustain equal or lower prices without losing money, they go out of business or choose not to enter the business. The predatory merchant then has fewer competitors or is even a de facto monopoly, and hypothetically could then raise prices above what the market would otherwise bear."
The kicker is at the end; it's only predatory pricing if the intent is to kill competition and create a monopoly so the company can then raise prices to the point of gouging.
However, when has Google ever, EVER done that? They've dominated search for a decade, and it's still free. Their ENTIRE BUSINESS MODEL is to offer as much as they can for free and make money off selling ads instead. To complete the definition of predatory pricing, as you put it, would kill their entire business and they would implode.
Today is just not a good day for you, Taco.
40. taco50 (banned) posted on 10 May 2012, 16:36 0 8
Bottin Cartographes first filed a complaint in 2009, and argued that Google was damaging its business by running Maps at a loss until it controlled the market.
"Google is ruining the market, they offer something that costs them. They want to crowd out the competition to gain a monopoly position in targeted internet advertising."
That's Google for you with the Orwellian gimmick "Don't be evil"
48. Sniggly posted on 10 May 2012, 16:55 6 0
That's the claim by a company suing Google, of course they're going to dress it up as predatory. Unfortunately, they don't understand Google's business model.
If anything, one can accuse Google of simply being too good at what it does.
27. poojaroy posted on 10 May 2012, 15:56 5 0
taco u r dum ass,i think something is missing frm ur mind hmm i guess ...brain lol
39. gallitoking posted on 10 May 2012, 16:34 1 6
wal-mart has been doing it for a while now and some people called that evil.. so I agree with taco on this one...
41. taco50 (banned) posted on 10 May 2012, 16:37 0 7
It's nice to have at least one objective poster
52. remixfa posted on 10 May 2012, 17:01 4 0
lol. you really have to try harder to be a good troll, gallito.
77. InspectorGadget80 posted on 10 May 2012, 18:22 3 0
He's only piss @ GOOGLE cause he thinks they copy everything from APPLE Sniggly he just won't get it through his dumb thick head.
17. remixfa posted on 10 May 2012, 15:40 8 0
your mad because google makes tons of products and gives them away? Tom Tom could compete if it found a way to be better.. a way to justify the price tag. It doesnt. Google offers more options, generally works a lot better, and yes, its free. But its also one of the best if not THE best mapping program there is. On the flip side, MS sells a ton of Office suites even though google has been giving it away for free for years. Why? because MS Office beats the pants off of Google Docs for options. You compete by being the best, or you die like the rest.
When you go out in to the real world and you are faced with paying bills and such, u can whine about how evil google gives away so many great products for free when your counting out your paycheck and watching it go to bills.
You are the only person I've ever met that gets MAD that something isnt expensive..
44. gallitoking posted on 10 May 2012, 16:42 1 5
I am calling g bs on your comment remix (surprise?)... Google maps is not the best.. Nokia maps is.. Google search engine is not totally free . you can to appear on the 1st page.. is free to consumer but since companies pay for advertising most people will not go beyond the 1st page that Google made you look... telling you fandroids wants choices as long as it involves Android as long as some else doesn't.. they they are bad people... not too long ago remix was worshiping Bill Gates for his charity I don't see Google doing any lately....
56. remixfa posted on 10 May 2012, 17:08 5 0
gallito, you have to try harder.. your failing at being an effective troll.
How often do you use Nokia maps to know the comparison gallito? I use both. Both are exellent and have their strong suites, but Google Mas is better developed in more areas and has way more options. Of course, i also said "ONE of the best IF NOT the best". The best is subjective.
Who cares what other companies pay. Why do you iTrolls worry about every one elses money and not your own? lol. Android is not "free" to anyone that wants to use Google Apps. Play apps have liscencing fees associated with them that manufacturers pay.. try again.
You can chose whatever OS you want. Just dont act like a stupid fool about it. Thats why people get upset at you trolls.. your not honest. If you want to have a conversation, know the facts or shut your trap. Tired old troll lines just dont cut it.
The comparison was between Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Gates won on every level personality, philanthropic, and intelligence.
115. gallitoking posted on 11 May 2012, 11:22 0 1
'Why do you iTrolls worry about every one elses money and not your own?"
hmmm why you fandroids always worry about what Apple does?...
78. InspectorGadget80 posted on 10 May 2012, 18:23 4 1
At least Bill Gates give his time for giving Charity i don't see APPLE or the late Steve Jobs give money away to charity
80. TROLL.ISAHA (banned) posted on 10 May 2012, 18:55 2 0
They never have and never will. They like thirsting
Blood out ov people.
114. gallitoking posted on 11 May 2012, 11:20 0 1
and you still crucify his company..
120. medicci37 posted on 11 May 2012, 15:55 1 0
He's still a d**k.
82. TROLL.ISAHA (banned) posted on 10 May 2012, 18:59 1 1
U are totally ibrainwashed... Do u not think when u talk? Do u have any common logical senses....
83. TROLL.ISAHA (banned) posted on 10 May 2012, 19:01 1 0
YOU ARE JEALOUS...
31. Whateverman posted on 10 May 2012, 16:01 3 0
Haha! This is hilarious!
75. InspectorGadget80 posted on 10 May 2012, 18:15 6 0
laughing my ass off reading taco argument when he's completely wrong.
64. Non_Sequitur posted on 10 May 2012, 17:36 2 0
I'm sick of Apple. Google gives away products for free? So what? Anti-competitiveness is what you're angry about? Maybe Google doesn't WANT to fight with other companies. But apparently, that's what you want. Any way you put it, Google gives a lot more than Apple and earns less profit than Apple. Capitalism isn't bad in any way, but this is just another way to show that Google actually cares about their customers and users and loves to give back to the people. And if that isn't the case, it's a way to win the hearts of the people by giving away products for free. Google's cloud is free, Drive is less expensive, and so much more. People like it. It's not predatory pricing because people are still going to kiss the ground that Apple walks on. Google isn't "out to get" any other companies like Apple... Like I said before, Google still makes less profit than Apple. But anyway, how is giving away freebies a bad thing? I used to think that you were just a fanboy, now I know you're just crazy.
86. Dustin posted on 10 May 2012, 19:19 0 3
Really? Google cares more about their consumers then Apple? Does Google care enough to spend months on designing the BOX for ONE product to deliver to their consumer? Does Google obsess over every last detail- like that little arrow on the strip of plastic that covers your phone screen when you first tug it off? Does Google spend MILLIONS of dollars on making their retail store as beautiful as possible?
Apple is the only company that cares SO much about the experience their consumer has. Sorry if they like making a profit, and you don't spend your holidays and weekends working your tail off to get it.
87. VZWuser76 posted on 10 May 2012, 19:35 3 1
Thank you. I was wondering when we were going to hear the "you don't like Apple because you can't afford their products" rationalization. Yes, that's got to be the ONLY reason not to buy Apple products, any other reason is MADNESS, JUST MADNESS!
91. remixfa posted on 10 May 2012, 21:06 2 0
there is a difference between. obsessive compulsive and caring for your customers and they are not connected. you didn't express one idea of caring.. just various parts of advertisement, which is some thing apple is good at.
104. Non_Sequitur posted on 11 May 2012, 06:13 1 0
Apple does it to make their products look good. They don't care about user experience. If they did, they'd allow micro SD cards and a tiny bit of freedom.
6. gwuhua1984 posted on 10 May 2012, 15:28 3 0
I find it funny how you always try to and successfully make any article into a fan warzone between Google and Apple, in this case Mozilla is also affected.
10. troybuilt posted on 10 May 2012, 15:34 7 0
How is Google being anti competitive? Chrome is "Free" to use. It does not cost anything. Most if not all of Google's products are free. Microsoft and Apple charge for their products and services. Microsoft has licensing fees and Apple, well, Apple must charge to use any of their products and of course Safari is free to use on any Windows PC. I'm guessing it's some kind of deal with Microsoft and Apple.
89. taco50 (banned) posted on 10 May 2012, 20:53 2 3
Giving away stuff for free (ie at a loss) is anti competitive. They're trying to put people out of business and have a monopoly. It's actually illegal in some countries.
92. remixfa posted on 10 May 2012, 21:08 2 0
at a loss? you are such a fool, you can't possibly be this clueless. Google gives it away because they make money off advertising they stick in EVERYTHING.
36. Sniggly posted on 10 May 2012, 16:10 2 0
Who's more guilty of anti competitive practices again, Taco?
76. InspectorGadget80 posted on 10 May 2012, 18:17 0 0
Damn Sniggly if i would of known that I would of sue APPLE for HUGE MONEY after I lost my s**tty 2nd and 3rd gen. don't ask me why i have one
116. remixfa posted on 11 May 2012, 12:26 1 0
i was just watching that on the news today at the gym. i forgot all about that. Been in the works for quite a while. The news was basically telling everyone to join in if they bought ipods at that time.
7. steveymacjr posted on 10 May 2012, 15:29 2 2
Way to go there PhoneArena, your journalistic standards are showing through again!
Either you don't believe in research, or you simply don't care...
First some facts: Windows RT is NOT Windows 8. According to Microsoft Windows RT is a new member of the Windows Family(like Windows Embedded is a member of the Windows Family)
Second, there will be Windows 8 AND Windows RT tablets.. they will not be the same... Windows 8 tablets will use X86/64, and will support all legacy applications.
Windows RT will only run on ARM, and WILL NOT support legacy applications.
Mozilla and Google are free to write a browser for Windows 8 tablets(and both have stated that they plan to do that, incorporating the METRO programming language)
They cannot write a desktop browser for Windows RT... this is the same behavior that Apple uses for the iPad..
I hope this article is updated with the correct facts.