>There is a huge difference between iOS and other platforms.
>Apple, in legal terms, makes Firefox on iOS impossible. This was not the case with Windows; Microsoft was using covert means to undermine user choice.
Microsoft was using.. are you referring to the end 1990s or now?
Does the 'huge difference' between them go away if Microsoft puts in a legal clause similar to the one in the iOS agreement?
>To make a blanket statement that Mozilla thinks Apple's banning Firefox from iPad and the iPhone is 'not a problem' is wrong and disingenuous.
Then where are the similar posts about Apple's actions? Surely, the iPad has a much bigger marketshare and Windows RT can easily prove to be a real dud and be DoA? Why is only Microsoft being threatened with hints of anti-trust complaints and not Apple when they are the ones with a near monopoly. Remember "There is no tablet market, there is an iPad market".
There is constant talk of the post-PC world in the media and on HN, and I doubt they're referring to Windows RT instead of the iPad in those discussions which frequently claim that MS is dying in the new computing world.
To summarize, I am really failing at seeing a "huge difference" between iOS and Windows RT that you are.
So, because less people complain Apple does something similar (which is not really the same anyway) Microsoft gets a get-out-of-jail-free card? Because someone else does it, suddenly, doing it becomes right?
>Because someone else does it, suddenly, doing it becomes right?
No it doesn't. But do you think different laws should apply to a company just because you don't like it? Why are you so against equal justice for equal acts?
It's not hard if you pay attention: Apple introduced a new, completely incompatible platform that can't run OSX software, runs only on ARM and whose programs you can't run on OSX. iOS is not the future version of OSX.
Microsoft has an OS whose next version is getting a new API. It's Microsoft's most important product and one you pretty much can't buy a computer without. So, we can agree that, one year from now, most PC's will be running it. It runs on both x86 and ARM and the big deal is that, on ARM, due to a deliberate choice, only Microsoft browsers will run JavaScript code acceptably. Many people believe ARM will be more relevant than x86 soon and that the browser is the API programs will be written for. Microsoft wants to re-enact the IE6 farce by artificially limiting what browsers run on Windows 8 on the platform they think will be most relevant.
>Apple, in legal terms, makes Firefox on iOS impossible. This was not the case with Windows; Microsoft was using covert means to undermine user choice.
Microsoft was using.. are you referring to the end 1990s or now?
Does the 'huge difference' between them go away if Microsoft puts in a legal clause similar to the one in the iOS agreement?
>To make a blanket statement that Mozilla thinks Apple's banning Firefox from iPad and the iPhone is 'not a problem' is wrong and disingenuous.
Then where are the similar posts about Apple's actions? Surely, the iPad has a much bigger marketshare and Windows RT can easily prove to be a real dud and be DoA? Why is only Microsoft being threatened with hints of anti-trust complaints and not Apple when they are the ones with a near monopoly. Remember "There is no tablet market, there is an iPad market".
There is constant talk of the post-PC world in the media and on HN, and I doubt they're referring to Windows RT instead of the iPad in those discussions which frequently claim that MS is dying in the new computing world.
To summarize, I am really failing at seeing a "huge difference" between iOS and Windows RT that you are.