When is a version of Windows not Windows?
Summary: Mozilla and Google are just now complaining about Microsoft's design decisions with Windows RT. But Microsoft's response seems a bit flimsy.
Mozilla and Google are complaining that Microsoft is going to bar versions of their browsers from running on the Desktop on Windows RT.
Microsoft isn't disputing this fact. The Windows brass have made it known for months that Microsoft planned to limit the Desktop in Windows RT -- the product formerly known as Windows on ARM (WOA) -- to run only Microsoft software, including four Microsoft Office apps, Internet Explorer 10 and a few other system components.
But what Microsoft is disputing here is rather odd. News.com is reporting that Microsoft Deputy General Counsel David Heiner told Mozilla that Windows RT "isn't Windows anymore" (according to Mozilla). Huh. Microsoft, you lost me there.
The name of the product in question is Windows RT. One might expect a product named Windows included at least enough of the Windows components to constitute it being named "Windows"-something. Windows Compact Embedded, Windows Embedded Standard, Windows Server, Windows Phone, Windows Embedded Automotive -- would Microsoft also claim these aren't "real" Windows? They aren't identical to Windows client, but they do share common components with it.
If you go back and read Windows Chief Steven Sinofsky's comments about Windows RT, he made it quite clear that while Windows RT was not identical to Windows 8, it includes quite a bit of shared Windows 8 code. In an interview with TechRadar in February of this year, he called Windows RT "a new member of the Windows family."
What is Windows these days? Is it just a brand? No. It's still an operating system. But it's an operating system has evolved considerably over the past 27 years since Windows 1.0 hit the market.
By the time Microsoft developers were building Windows Vista, Microsoft's own admitted that Windows had become a mess of code with too many interdependencies. That's what the "MinWin" project at Microsoft was all about: Untangling the Windows mess into a bunch of smaller pieces that could be recomposed for different environments..
The Softies seem to have moved beyond the MinWin name and mission, but they're still following the same general course. Microsoft teams building any kind of Windows operating system can pick and choose the pieces of Windows they need for different platforms. Some teams use more of the pieces than others. The coming Windows Phone 8 operating system, for example, is going to use a few of the "core" pieces of Windows -- the kernel, networking stack, security components and multimedia elements.
And what about Windows RT? It is another Windows SKU built using many of the elements of Windows Core. Windows RT does include various optimizations and removal of older/unnecessary features to reduce its install size on the smaller hard drives that are going to common on ARM devices, but it's still Windows.
I agree with my ZDNet colleague Ed Bott that the chances that Microsoft is suddenly going to allow Firefox or Chrome to run on the Desktop in Windows RT are close to zero. (And as Bott also notes, given Microsoft's tiny market share in tablets, it would be tough for either complaining party to find much of an antitrust leg to stand on here.)
Windows RT is more like Windows Embedded Compact, or even iOS on the iPad, than it's like Windows 8. It is optimized for performance and power and isn't designed to be replaced, dual booted,etc. But the truth is, it's still Windows...
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
turnabout
Why doesn't Goole allow API access to YouTube from Windows Phone?
the DOJ must step in
It's not up to the DOJ
No
And FYI you still get to pick a browser on Win RT (just like the iPad), it is the desktop component that is going to be unavailable to other browsers (similar to Safari on the iPad). But considering IE 10 only has limited "desktop" access I can't understand why this is a problem.
Microsoft is a monopoly on these types of devices, Microsoft is just entering this market and you want to limit their ability to compete?
Well, Windows RT is not an "Intel compatible PC operating system"
It's interesting that Judge Jackson found that there was a "high barrier" to entry in that market, and then, very soon afterwards, Apple moved away from PowerPC and because a viable competitor in the Intel compatible space. Perhaps his findings weren't "fact" afterall :-)
but what is Windows
That's the big question. Also a big question whether the EU will consider Windows ARM tablets to be outside the scope of their settlement with MSFT which requires providing browser choice on new PCs. If they do, I don't see how MSFT sells Windows ARM tablets in Europe.
ARM tablets aren't PCs?
It was a different market, so a different product
The Risc market was largely irrelevant anyway, because by the time the case was settled, all of the non-x86 ports of Windows NT had been cancelled. Windows 2000 (NT 5.0) only ran on x86.
In both the EU and US, competition cases always include a careful market definition. It is highly improbable that competition authorities in either would view Windows RT on tablets as being part of the same market as Windows 8 on PCs, rather than the same market as the iPad and Android tablets. If they did, they would have to include Android tablets, iPads and possibly even mobile phones running iOS and Android in the same market as Windows tablets, phones and PCs. This would greatly reduce the likelihood of Microsoft???s position being found to be dominant at all.
Microsoft Arrogance or Stupidity
It seems to be working for Apple
And not many people have a problem with that.
I'm not sure but most of the iPad browsers, if not all, are Webkit based
Opera for the iPad isn't a real browser
There are a couple of exceptions, but the majority of them are following the ruling of "use the engine on the tablet that we provided". I don't really see a problem with that, I was simply stating that it isn't as clear as some might assume.
When it comes to browsers, a majority will just stick with what they're given anyway. This goes double for tablets.
Apple has proved that consumers don't give a damn!
Silly consumers aren't worried about long-term
That said...
all ipad "proved" was that there was an untapped market...
I do agree tho... they should have the right to sculpt there own products how they see fit and let the customers choose. The questionable decision that microsoft was a monopoly has long since rusted out. God bless OS competition!
Own choice = Not giving a damn = Herd mentality
I hope they dont allow Goog or FF any access..
And I hope to God that MSFT does not allow Google or Firefox and access to Win32 API. By now it is pretty much proven that quality user experience is closely related to the control one exerts on it.
I got the Lumia 900 and I might have restarted it just once since day 1. My friend at dog park got the Motorola Droid Razr . I asked him if he had to restart the phone and he said twice weekly.
I don't get it
Mozilla is a has-been. Even on the (arguably) largest mobile OS, Android, Firefox gets more 1-star ratings than they do 3 or 2-star ratings. The bleeding Dolphin browser (I know, I know - I hadn't heard of it either) has 8.5 TIMES more reviews than Firefox, and gets an average rating of 4.7/5 compared to Firefox's 3.6.
BTW: What ever happened to Mozilla getting into the mobile OS space?
When is a version of Windows not Windows?