[tino]

No, the restriction applies to all third party Metro apps, not just web browsers. Metro apps are contained within a sandbox, and Mozilla wants to go out of the sandbox (so to speak) to speed up the rendering engine. That's my understanding of it, anyway. You could easily write a Metro web browser, but it wouldn't be as fast as IE10, which is allowed to access restricted functions since it's a first-party application.

The fact that we are in the third page and there are still so much confusion speak for value of MS's PR failure. And it will definitely spark a law suit and 90% of the news coverage will report it wrong.

My stand is I am ok with Firefox not getting access to the first party API as long as a third party browser can get on the home page and can be set as default browser. If MS deny people putting an "inferior" browser on start page then they will be in legal trouble, for the entire duration of W8.

[Treefingers]

The public doesn't really care either way. Android is doing just fine on phones (where you'd think people would be even more 'security' conscious). This says more about what Apple and Microsoft want than it says about what the public wants.

Exactly, I agree. There is a huge market for both types of platforms.

[strata8]

The public doesn't really care either way. Android is doing just fine on phones (where you'd think people would be even more 'security' conscious). This says more about what Apple and Microsoft want than it says about what the public wants.

There's a very good reason for it. With WinRT, all resource usage is managed/balanced by the OS. This isn't really possible if you start allowing apps to do things beyond the scope of the API.

[Mael]

The public doesn't really care either way. Android is doing just fine on phones (where you'd think people would be even more 'security' conscious). This says more about what Apple and Microsoft want than it says about what the public wants.

Yeah because Mc Afee is installed on phones by default doesn't mean it's less secure and considering the bang up job Apple is doing on its other OS I'd argue that public perception is actually funny.
Heck considering how much time Apple is always taking to patch their java stacks on OSX I wouldn't trust them on iOS, I don't use it for other reasons so I don't care one way or another.
Still the thing that Apple have and MSFT doesn't have is choice and the public clearly like choice (which was more my point, I agree that people don't care about security).

Because they're aping the strategy of the most successful vendor?

Actually they're aping their strategy that landed them to court...

[Greyface]

Exactly, I agree. There is a huge market for both types of platforms.

No it doesn't mean that there is a huge market for this restriction. It could just as well mean that people are using these platforms despite their restrictions not because of it. I personally don't think Microsoft would lose any sales if it gave special dispensation for third party browsers.

[Azih]

You don't really suggest why the latter would be more likely.

Not a matter of more or less likely. If the EU does go after Apple for not allowing competing browsers to run natively on iOS than obviously MS can't use that as a justification. It's just that thus far the EU hasn't. Also if the cloud workaround is good enough for iOS than why isn't it alright for W8?

So I don't think it's as easy as "Let MS get away with it after all look at Apple".

Speaking as a layman (not a lawyer) it seems odd that MS would be held to a higher standard in a category where not only are they not a monopoly but are in fact just a bit player.

It makes sense to me to categorize W8 ARM as a different product from W8 desktop. Desktop apps won't even run on ARM right? Only Metro apps run on both.

[Azih]

Actually they're aping their strategy that landed them to court...

In a market where they had a dominant monopoly which is completely not the case in the phone/tablet market as that is a market in which the biggest player also has the same policies in place.

Aside from Microsoft's poor reputation in European courts I don't understand what they're doing that Apple isn't (aside from having to justify themselves whereas Apple doesn't need to for some reason).

[Mael]

Not a matter of more or less likely. If the EU does go after Apple for not allowing competing browsers to run natively on iOS than obviously MS can't use that as a justification. It's just that thus far the EU hasn't. Also if the cloud workaround is good enough for iOS than why isn't it alright for W8? Speaking as a layman (not a lawyer) it seems odd that MS would be held to a higher standard in a category where not only are they not a monopoly but are in fact just a bit player. It makes sense to me to categorize W8 ARM as a different product from W8 desktop. Desktop apps won't even run on ARM right? Only Metro apps run on both.

There's something you're missing here.
Apple is in no way a monopoly (heck Samsung has it beat for smartphones here too) so it isn't comparable with MSFT and it's humonguous hold on desktop OS.
Also justice is notoriously slow so if Apple have problems it won't be now but later (and also I believe that it was other companies that sued MSFT for anti competitive behaviour, Google is being sued right now for that in the search market).

In a market where they had a dominant monopoly which is completely not the case in the phone/tablet market as that is a market in which the biggest player also has the same policies in place. Aside from Microsoft's poor reputation in European courts I don't understand what they're doing that Apple isn't (aside from having to justify themselves whereas Apple doesn't need to for some reason).

the court is probably unaware of the tablet market as a separate entity or some shit like that, or it just takes time.

[Azih]

There's something you're missing here. Apple is in no way a monopoly (heck Samsung has it beat for smartphones here too) so it isn't comparable with MSFT and it's humonguous hold on desktop OS.

Fair enough, in which case the worry of a dominant monopoly abusing its power wouldn't apply to either iOS or the smaller W8 ARM.

the court is probably unaware of the tablet market as a separate entity or some shit like that, or it just takes time.

Well yeah none of this has been tested in court.

[Mael]

Fair enough, in which case the worry of a dominant monopoly abusing its power wouldn't apply to either iOS or the smaller W8 ARM. Well yeah none of this has been tested in court.

If they see tablets as a separate market Apple certainly is liable.
Also IANAEL

[Treefingers]

No it doesn't mean that there is a huge market for this restriction. It could just as well mean that people are using these platforms despite their restrictions not because of it. I personally don't think Microsoft would lose any sales if it gave special dispensation for third party browsers.

It's a fine line, especially when some third party browser may turn out to be a huge security or stability risk. They could very well lose sales from a lot of people if their OS gets a reputation for being insecure or not as stable as iOS. Apple's approach seems to be working well and practically removes the chance for something like this to happen - and if it does happen it would be in their control.

I'm not sure though if this approach will work for them, or if they're better off going after the Android userbase.

[Tobor]

All of this would be a lot easier if they had given up their idiotic one OS for every platform nonsense. It was always untrue, and complicates the messaging and the branding.

They should call the phone/tablet OS something other than Windows and move on.

[Treefingers]

All of this would be a lot easier if they had given up their idiotic one OS for every platform nonsense. It was always untrue, and complicates the messaging and the branding. They should call the phone/tablet OS something other than Windows and move on.

This I agree with. I can see a lot of confusion happening.

[Greyface]

It's a fine line, especially when some third party browser may turn out to be a huge security or stability risk. They could very well lose sales from a lot of people if their OS gets a reputation for being insecure or not as stable as iOS. Apple's approach seems to be working well and practically removes the chance for something like this to happen - and if it does happen it would be in their control. I'm not sure though if this approach will work for them, or if they're better off going after the Android userbase.

Again you're implying that the public cares about this stuff. It's very low on the list of priorities. Windows has historically been less secure and not as stable as linux so how come nobody switched? Android has a somewhat undeserved reputation for being more insecure and less stable than iOS (at least on the tech blogs, not sure if the general population feels the same way) but they aren't losing sales.

Microsoft would be stupid to be chasing after Android on tablets or tablets. The primary selling factor for Android is price and Microsoft can never match that without giving up their OS fees. Microsoft should be gunning after iOS hard. There it's a competition on quality. Promise the same high quality experience and show that your ecosystem has more options than Apple's and then Microsoft can get those customers while charging a premium at the same time.

[Treefingers]

Again you're implying that the public cares about this stuff. It's very low on the list of priorities. Windows has historically been less secure and not as stable as linux so how come nobody switched? Android has a somewhat undeserved reputation for being more insecure and less stable than iOS (at least on the tech blogs, not sure if the general population feels the same way) but they aren't losing sales. Microsoft would be stupid to be chasing after Android on tablets or tablets. The primary selling factor for Android is price and Microsoft can never match that without giving up their OS fees. Microsoft should be gunning after iOS hard. There it's a competition on quality. Promise the same high quality experience and show that your ecosystem has more options than Apple's and then Microsoft can get those customers while charging a premium at the same time.

That is a very different situation. Windows has had a monopoly in the desktop space for many reasons that aren't analogous to the tablet space at all.

When the public has a negative view of MS already and they're new to the mobile market I could easily see public perception of their OS being a huge factor in their success.

[Somnid]

What's the problem? No, that's incorrect. IE10 on Windows 8 and RT runs as a privileged, classic process. http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/a...-classic-.html

Sounds vague but perhaps they are referring to how the Trident engine is low down in the OS because its a platform for other apps? The only thing I could think of is there's a apecial software abstraction from SoC graphics hardware where x86 has Direct X.

[giga]

Sounds vague but perhaps they are referring to how the Trident engine is low down in the OS because its a platform for other apps? The only thing I could think of is there's a apecial software abstraction from SoC graphics hardware where x86 has Direct X.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Windows_8_I...lar_Metro_Apps

[Vlightray]

I see Windows 7 as the new Windows XP. So far Windows 8 puts a sour taste in my mouth.

[Dead Man]

Well this makes my brain hurt.

[tino]

All of this would be a lot easier if they had given up their idiotic one OS for every platform nonsense. It was always untrue, and complicates the messaging and the branding. They should call the phone/tablet OS something other than Windows and move on.

Windows RT = Windows CE 2.0

[Utako]

IE has come a long way since the shitty days. It's not like it used to be.

It is still YEARS behind others.

It lacks WebGL, filters, shaders, real-time communication, camera/mic access, gamepad support, mouselock, and many, many other features either shipped or shipping soon in Firefox/Chrome.

You should not use IE. You should never use IE.

[tino]

Only the oldest 1/3 of net population use IE.

The older they are, the earlier version of IE they use.

Incidentally the IE 6 users also drive Buick.

[Raistlin]

I mean natively using the Metro APIs.

It does. Like IE, they are making a single application that utilizes the correct API's (WinRT or Win32) depending on which mode you're in.

I also love how we're supposed to just trust IE10 is secure when most of us have years and years of evidence to the contrary. In my corporate environment IE causes a hell of a lot more work for support staff than if they were allowed to use FF or Chrome but unfortunately we have business apps that only work in IE.

This isn't quite what the 'security' is in reference to, at least not directly.

antitrust sanction in 3...2...1

no

The fuck is this shit?!? Way to drive me to Android...

Have fun with that. I have 3 Android tablets, 1 'real' (Transformer) and 2 cheapies to play around with (HP TouchPad and Nook Color). There's a reason I have no plans to get another. It's going to be Win RT, Win 8, or iPad once I get a look at the playing field.

The fact that we are in the third page and there are still so much confusion speak for value of MS's PR failure. And it will definitely spark a law suit and 90% of the news coverage will report it wrong.

To be fair, there really isn't any PR to speak of. I suspect C|Net / Mozilla kind of blind-sided them with this story to some extent.

There's a very good reason for it. With WinRT, all resource usage is managed/balanced by the OS. This isn't really possible if you start allowing apps to do things beyond the scope of the API.

yep

Let me get this clear. MS is doing the same thing, but they don't use the "no duplicated function" excuse, but they use the "no 3rd party allowed" excuse? So there is no reskin browser allowed either?

Where was that mentioned anywhere? There's been no statement either way, and based on WP7 I don't see why one would assume this.

Actually they're aping their strategy that landed them to court...

This is a totally different situation. Even if you discount the entire (lack of) monopoly, the issue with PC's was MS bundling 'unrelated' software on an open platform. Here they have a closed platform where in order to get a modern browser functioning you would need OS privileges that aren't exposed to devs.

A court mandating this being opened would be the equivalent of them telling Nintendo, MS, and Sony that they need to grant root access to game developers on their console. On the technical merits, that's obviously an untenable request.

[Marty Chinn]

It is still YEARS behind others. It lacks WebGL, filters, shaders, real-time communication, camera/mic access, gamepad support, mouselock, and many, many other features either shipped or shipping soon in Firefox/Chrome. You should not use IE. You should never use IE.

I'd rather use IE than Firefox. IE9 is a solid browser and I have no qualms with using it. I've had to for work purposes for for everyday usage, it's fine.

It does. Like IE, they are making a single application that utilizes the correct API's (WinRT or Win32) depending on which mode you're in.

Ah didn't know that. I assumed they were just skinning the Win32 version and that the only way you'd be allowed to use the Metro API is if you're releasing your app in the Windows store. What's to stop people from circumventing the Windows store for Metro apps then? I thought that was a walled garden.

[Raistlin]

Ah didn't know that. I assumed they were just skinning the Win32 version and that the only way you'd be allowed to use the Metro API is if you're releasing your app in the Windows store. What's to stop people from circumventing the Windows store for Metro apps then? I thought that was a walled garden.

Read this: http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/a...refox_for.html

This is for Win 8, not Win RT.


Win RT only allows applications from the marketplace to be installed.

[Marty Chinn]

Read this: http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/a...refox_for.html This is for Win 8, not Win RT. Win RT only allows applications from the marketplace to be installed.

That's what they want to do, but what will Microsoft allow you to do? Is Microsoft allowing Metro style apps for an x86 tablet that will integrate seamlessly and bypass the Microsoft store?

[Raistlin]

That's what they want to do, but what will Microsoft allow you to do? Is Microsoft allowing Metro style apps for an x86 tablet that will integrate seamlessly and bypass the Microsoft store?

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/a...-classic-.html

It's not precisely "running a browser in Classic" that matters for Windows on ARM. It's that running a browser in Classic is the only way that Microsoft has allowed us to get access to the APIs that a browser needs to deliver modern capabilities and performance in Classic AND Metro. A browser running exclusively in Metro does not have the APIs necessary to compete with IE or any other modern browser. On x86, Microsoft has given browser vendors the same privileges and APIs that IE uses. They have not done this on ARM. That's why Windows Classic on ARM matters. update: I've been asked by a couple of people on Twitter and email to elaborate. Let me give it a try. On x86 Windows 8 PCs, there are three kinds of software programs. First, there are Classic programs that are basically the same as they are Windows 7. Because of the rich win32 API available in Classic, these kinds of programs can be really powerful (or not,) but they can only operate in the Classic environment and cannot use any of the cool new features available in Metro and they cannot be run in Metro. In this category you can think of programs like Adobe Photoshop or Microsoft Word. Second, there are Metro apps that are touch-focused, simpler, but have rich interactions between themselves and Metro and other Metro apps. These apps have access to some cool new Metro features but they live in a Metro sandbox and cannot use any of the more powerful features available from the Classic win32 environment -- APIs necessary for building a modern browser. In this category you can find apps like Angry Birds, Microsoft Stocks, or Hulu. Third, there are Metro style desktop enabled browsers. These are programs that straddle Classic and Metro. They have access to the underlying win32 API like Classic programs and they also have access to the cool new features of Metro. They can have a classic front end and a Metro front end but under the covers they're calling into both the Classic and Metro APIs. In this category you have Internet Explorer 10, Firefox, and likely other browsers including Chrome and Opera. Microsoft has made it clear that the third category won't exist on Windows for ARM (unless you're Microsoft) and that neither will the first category (unless you're Microsoft.) That means that IE on ARM has access to win32 APIs -- even when it's running in Metro mode, but no other Metro browser has that same access. Without that access, no other browser has a prayer of being competitive with IE..

Win 8 is as open as it ever was.

[dLMN8R]

All of this stuff was known way back when Sinofsky finally talked about ARM:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2...hitecture.aspx

The problem is that everyone went on and on "lol 8000-word blog post" ignoring the fact that it was 8000 words because it needed to be 8000 words. If you go and read it, all of this stuff was obvious more than 3 months ago when it was posted.

The main point most people are missing is that Windows RT is as philosophically different from Windows 8 as Windows Phone is from Windows 8. It's a new platform. It's starting from 0% market share. It will not be sold separately. It is inseparable from the devices it will ship on. As a result, it is not beholden to the same anti-competitive complaints that Windows 8 is.

[Horse Armour]

Windows 8 is shaping up to be the worst version since Windows ME. There's absoutely no reason for Windows 7 or Vista owners to upgrade.

[dLMN8R]

Windows 8 is shaping up to be the worst version since Windows ME. There's absoutely no reason for Windows 7 or Vista owners to upgrade.

This thread isn't about Windows 8. It's about Windows RT. You can't upgrade from Vista or Windows 7 to Windows RT no matter how hard you try, or how much money you pay.

[Raistlin]

Windows 8 is shaping up to be the worst version since Windows ME. There's absoutely no reason for Windows 7 or Vista owners to upgrade.

OMG


THIS FUCKING ISN'T WINDOWS 8



AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH




lol

[Raistlin]

All of this stuff was known way back when Sinofsky finally talked about ARM: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2...hitecture.aspx The problem is that everyone went on and on "lol 8000-word blog post" ignoring the fact that it was 8000 words because it needed to be 8000 words. If you go and read it, all of this stuff was obvious more than 3 months ago when it was posted. The main point most people are missing is that Windows RT is as philosophically different from Windows 8 as Windows Phone is from Windows 8. It's a new platform. It's starting from 0% market share. It will not be sold separately. It is inseparable from the devices it will ship on. As a result, it is not beholden to the same anti-competitive complaints that Windows 8 is.

Agreed on all ... and shows how shitty the C|Net article is

[rozay]

All of this stuff was known way back when Sinofsky finally talked about ARM: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2...hitecture.aspx The problem is that everyone went on and on "lol 8000-word blog post" ignoring the fact that it was 8000 words because it needed to be 8000 words. If you go and read it, all of this stuff was obvious more than 3 months ago when it was posted. The main point most people are missing is that Windows RT is as philosophically different from Windows 8 as Windows Phone is from Windows 8. It's a new platform. It's starting from 0% market share. It will not be sold separately. It is inseparable from the devices it will ship on. As a result, it is not beholden to the same anti-competitive complaints that Windows 8 is.

Is microsoft going to make sure consumers know this distinction or are they going to continue with their "one windows on all platforms" message?

edit:are the arm tablets going to be marketed as "Windows 8 Tablets"?

[dLMN8R]

Is microsoft going to make sure consumers know this distinction or are they going to continue with their "one windows on all platforms" message? edit:are the arm tablets going to be marketed as "Windows 8 Tablets"?

Do you see Apple advertising iOS? Or Google advertising Ice Cream Sandwich on TV? No, of course not. What's advertised are the specific devices that are sold. iPad. Kindle Fire. ASUS Transformer.

Same thing will be with Windows RT. You'll have very specific devices advertised. You'll never see Windows RT in any marketing at all.


How Windows 8 will be differentiated is the question, though, since that of course will be sold both traditionally on pre-built machines and for purchase separately in stores.

[Raistlin]

Is microsoft going to make sure consumers know this distinction or are they going to continue with their "one windows on all platforms" message?

dLMN8R answers this well.




That said, I see a lot of people referencing this one windows thing, and I'm not really sure where it's coming from.

Has Microsoft ever directly said this? Everything I recall simply stated that they wanted to move to a single design language in order to keep the experience as consistent as possible. Are you sure this wasn't (another) case of the terrible tech media running with a story while not understanding the nuance? Basically just like the article in this thread?

Seems to be the tech equivalent of:

[Marty Chinn]

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/a...-classic-.html Win 8 is as open as it ever was.

I haven't been keeping up but I just assumed they were being a bit more restrictive when it comes to how the Microsoft store will come into play with Metro apps. Good to know. Windows RT always seemed a bit pointless to me as it takes away the true gem of what Microsoft is doing with Windows 8. I guess it leaves them an option, and there is some compatibility between the two, but I don't think I'll ever consider an RT tablet.

Agreed on all ... and shows how shitty the C|Net article is

Isn't that not exactly true? With Windows 7 and Windows Phone 7, there is no compatibility where as isn't the stuff in the Microsoft Store with apps is going to run on both RT and 8? (I'm assuming Microsoft's policy is you compile for both platforms to get listed in the store) There's a bi-directional compatibility there so it's not quite the same scenario.

[JNT]

First that WebGL bullshit and now this. Personally I think it's a play to create a software monopoly.

[giga]

I haven't been keeping up but I just assumed they were being a bit more restrictive when it comes to how the Microsoft store will come into play with Metro apps. Good to know. Windows RT always seemed a bit pointless to me as it takes away the true gem of what Microsoft is doing with Windows 8. I guess it leaves them an option, and there is some compatibility between the two, but I don't think I'll ever consider an RT tablet. Isn't that not exactly true? With Windows 7 and Windows Phone 7, there is no compatibility where as isn't the stuff in the Microsoft Store with apps is going to run on both RT and 8? (I'm assuming Microsoft's policy is you compile for both platforms to get listed in the store) There's a bi-directional compatibility there so it's not quite the same scenario.

Classic Win32 apps (.exe and such): no distribution restrictions
Metro style apps (.appx): distribution only through store and requires signing.

[Raistlin]

I haven't been keeping up but I just assumed they were being a bit more restrictive when it comes to how the Microsoft store will come into play with Metro apps. Good to know. Windows RT always seemed a bit pointless to me as it takes away the true gem of what Microsoft is doing with Windows 8. I guess it leaves them an option, and there is some compatibility between the two, but I don't think I'll ever consider an RT tablet.

They are being restrictive when it comes to the MS marketplace though. That Firefox browser will not be on it.

Anything you download from the marketplace will only use the WinRT API's, and will therefore run on Windows 8 and WOA (and maybe WP8?) as far as I know.

Isn't that not exactly true? With Windows 7 and Windows Phone 7, there is no compatibility where as isn't the stuff in the Microsoft Store with apps is going to run on both RT and 8? (I'm assuming Microsoft's policy is you compile for both platforms to get listed in the store) There's a bi-directional compatibility there so it's not quite the same scenario.

I don't disagree, but I'm not sure I'm following you here. Where was that in my reply or the quote I posted?

First that WebGL bullshit and now this. Personally I think it's a play to create a software monopoly.

So even though they are starting from 0% marketshare for WOA ... and Firefox Metro is available on Win8 .... they're going for a monopoly?

[JNT]

So even though they are starting from 0% marketshare for WOA ... and Firefox Metro is available on Win8 .... they're going for a monopoly?

I can't say I'm well versed in WOA, so I'm not sure what you are referring to in that regard. However, what I'm referring to is a software monopoly (not really a market-share monopoly, as such). These are generally created by making it hard(er) for developers to port their applications between platforms, or even completely denying third party applications to run in certain aspects.

[Cheebo]

Why are people comparing this to Apple? I am using iCab which is my proffered browser on iPad. iOS has tons of third party browsers.

[Complex Shadow]

don't understand the blind hate. iOS doesn't have firefox either. if you don't like it go buy an droid tablet, if you don't want that then get an W8 tablet. there is a choice, you don't have to act so inane.

[JNT]

Why are people comparing this to Apple? I am using iCab which is my proffered browser on iPad. iOS has tons of third party browsers.

IIRC, all web browsers on iOS are running through the Safari browser. That might not be he case anymore though. Something about browsers being interpreted code (which I believe is not allowed in third party iOS apps).

[dLMN8R]

iCab uses the same Safari rendering engine behind the scenes. It's simply a UI layer on top of the existing engine. Developers are free to do the same thing on Windows RT (and Windows 8, of course) using the IE10 rendering engine.

There's Opera Mini, of course, but Opera Mini is barely a web browser. It's essentially a dumb client rendering web pages that were processed on a remote server. That, too, would be perfectly fine to distribute through the Windows Store.

[Marty Chinn]

I don't disagree, but I'm not sure I'm following you here. Where was that in my reply or the quote I posted?

I was referring to this that you were replying to:

Windows RT is as philosophically different from Windows 8 as Windows Phone is from Windows 8

Why are people comparing this to Apple? I am using iCab which is my proffered browser on iPad. iOS has tons of third party browsers.

Because it's the same as Apple. Any third party browser in iOS has to use WebKit. Any third party browser in WinRT will have to use IE. Same thing.

[Raistlin]

I can't say I'm well versed in WOA, so I'm not sure what you are referring to in that regard.

Sorry ... Windows on ARM (the actual public name for the OS). I thought maybe we should go by that rather than its internal name of Windows RT. The problem is many people are short-handing it to Win RT which is actually the name of the API for WOA and one of the API's in Windows 8.

However, what I'm referring to is a software monopoly (not really a market-share monopoly, as such). These are generally created by making it hard(er) for developers to port their applications between platforms, or even completely denying third party applications to run in certain aspects.

But this is no different than basically every other CE device. The only devices that aren't like this are either fully open source OS's, or traditional computers.

The why has been gone over in this thread, and it's a pretty valid reason. It's not like MS is doing the same thing on Windows 8.

Why are people comparing this to Apple? I am using iCab which is my proffered browser on iPad. iOS has tons of third party browsers.

Because iCab is using Safari's rendering engine - it isn't a native browser. iOS has the same limitation, and for the same general reasoning.

There is nothing here that says MS would prevent similar things ... and based on WP7, I'd expect there to be plenty. I use SurfCube on my WP7. Same idea.

I was referring to this that you were replying to:

I getcha.

The philosophy is just as different. One is a computer and one is a CE device (walled off). From a high level, it's like iOS vs MacOS. What MS is doing though, and where I think it has a huge advantage over Apple, is instead of relying on a different visual design and the syncing of certain data for the devices to talk ... they're instead creating a specialized type of app that directly run on either. That way not only is your user experience the same, but data sharing is direct. There is no conversion, etc. Moreover, all sorts of management can be handled via the cloud so all your devices have the same apps, shared data, etc.

[tino]

don't understand the blind hate. iOS doesn't have firefox either. if you don't like it go buy an droid tablet, if you don't want that then get an W8 tablet. there is a choice, you don't have to act so inane.

iOS allows reskin browsers. If W8ARM allow that I don't have a problem. Most of the browsers I have issues with are just UI problems. I don't care about how standard compliant the browse is.

[Raistlin]

iOS allows reskin browsers. If W8ARM allow that I don't have a problem. Most of the browsers I have issues with are just UI problems. I don't care about how standard compliant the browse is.

There's been no indication they would prevent that. Not in this article or anywhere else to my knowledge.

Moreover they do allow this on WP7, so there's no reason to assume that would change.

[dLMN8R]

The IE rendering engine is a native control any developer can make use of in their own metro-style apps. So whether it's simply a small window inside of a larger app, or whether the control takes up the full screen and the app is essentially an alternative IE skin, it's completely allowed.