“Jay Sullivan, Mozilla’s VP of Product, has revealed that the not-for-profit organization is not going to build an iOS version of its Firefox web browser as long as Apple doesn’t mend its unfriendly ways towards third party browsers.” So that would most likely be never.
This is just one of the *many* reasons, why I’ve not bought anything from Apple in the last 2 – 3 years, and I’ve no intention of buying anything from them again in the foreseeable future unless they change quite a few of their practises.
Yeah.. Apple hardware is awesome, but the software feels kind of obsolete and restrictive by now compared to Android phones.
Apple only permit WebKit-based browsers on their system, Mozilla isn’t interested in that, their focus is Gecko.
But Mozilla don’t allow any non-Gecko browser on Firefox OS; all apps are HTML, so are they not calling the pot black?
Where does Mozilla say they don’t allow anything? Apple says it explicitly in their iOS SDK license.
The word implicit was added to the dictionary for a reason. I think you’ve stumbled upon a usage.
The limitation is implied, because the fundamental architecture of the OS prohibits it.
So what? ARM code can’t run in x86 (without emulation) because architecture prohibits it. I don’t have a problem with that. Apple forbids things not architecturally, but legally. If you don’t see the difference – there is nothing really to discuss here.
Edited 2013-03-10 22:28 UTC
Its an issue of practicality. How practical is it to upend the entire platform of the OS, replace it with WebKit, just for the sake of running a third party browser?
They are effectively the same thing. Mozilla getting a pass is a disgusting double standard.
But I get it. Apple bad. Mozilla good. That’s essentially what your argument boils down too, once you look past you splitting hairs.
Apple’s policy is effectively a restriction on developers, just like their policy on certain forms of multitasking, on certain types of adult content, and on certain restricted APIs.
Edited 2013-03-11 04:21 UTC
Is there actually source for this one? Not questioning it – just wondering where it’s from.
I think Kroc was implying that you can’t run native applications in Firefox OS, so no other browsers implicitly as well. But it’s a design restriction, not some sick legal prohibition so it’s not comparable. It’s like saying that JVM discriminates the native code.
Edited 2013-03-10 18:51 UTC
Apple’s reason is completely technical. JIT engines are not allowed at all.
They always attempt to mask political reasons into technical ones. Which only added to their hypocrisy.
Ok, so just so we’re clear, this is your conspiracy theory, right?
Oooook.
Here it’s pretty clearly anticompetitive. Any kind of masking won’t hide it.
Apple does it: Its wrong and anti competitive.
Mozilla does it: 30 justifications.
Just so we’re even more clear.
Edited 2013-03-10 20:54 UTC
There’s no conspiracy to it. Just Apple’s excuses for assholish behaviour. Forced obsolescence, DRM, anti-competitive actions, they and their fanbois will always make up semi-plausible excuses for what can more reasonably explained by profit motives.
I find the technical explanation to be more reasonable than just saying “anti-competitive” or “profit motive”. That seems like a cop out to me.
I’m not arguing Apple is altruistic in every instance, certainly not. In this case though, it is definitely in line with the other app stores that impose reasonable restrictions on developers.
Right. And you believe so because … because … ? You forgot to make an argument, you simply made the statement that it’s more reasonable.
No. I believe I have multiple times in these comments provided an explination, which has never been addressed at face value.
The fact is that a JIT engine by definition is executing untrusted Javascript code.
It may be just Javascript code, but the APIs needed to facilitate a JIT have ramifications beyond Javascript.
They allow any type of dynamic code compilation, on any app, for any reason. The fact that this exists means that apps can behave in ways that are unpredictable and even malicious.
Apps can download code at runtime which use privileged APIs and would be beyond the scope of static analysis, which would render a lot of app store security measures irrelevant.
So it’s not a technical reason, then, but a matter of corporate policy.
Driven by a technological limitation which led to a security concern, yes.
In the same vein, it is a corporate decision to not allow apps to run in kernel mode on an OS as well.
Your argument is nonsensical.
Meanwhile in the real world the status of this issue is pretty much summed up by this”
http://news.cnet.com/8301-14013_3-57573440/mozilla-says-no-plans-to…
That’s about the sum of it, nobody really cares. There are plenty of good browser on iOS and users of iOS have a rich web browsing experience with the opportunity to try different browsers. If Firefox don’t want to join the party that’s up to them, the vast majority of iOS user would find it hard to think of a single tangible advantage that adding Firefox to the browser mix on iOS would bring. Can anybody tell me what unique and specific benefits Firefox would bring to browsing on iOS that none of the other browsers already delivers?
I like the over all model of curated software management on iOS. I have never turned my iPad 2 off since I got it and it has only ever required a reboot for OS updates (Android users can Google ‘OS Update’ to find out what that means) and I have never once had to worry about malware. What’s not to like? What real tangible benefits can the non-curated software model bring me as an end user, what functions do Android users have that iOS user don’t? And I, along with about 99% of the buying public, don’t consider the ability to tinker with the inner workings of my device a benefit. Tinkering with the inner workings of devices is a pain, I don”t tinker with the inner working of my TV or fridge so why do it with a phone or tablet.
Apple uses a JIT so Firefox can too.
Apple considers itself part of the trusted code base. FYI: Apple also uses other off-limits APIs you’re not allowed to touch.
The entire point is preventing apps that have been certified to do X, from doing Y.
Then just issue a warning to the user and let the user choose. Most users know Firefox and trust it, in fact that’s why they would want to install it.
It’s as simple as that.
I agree with you. I state this in a comment below. I think apps should be able to apply for exemptions if the circumstances warrant it.
I just strongly disagree that the move has anti-competitive motives.
Microsoft’s reasons were also completely technical : everyone knows that it was completely impossible to separate Internet Explorer from Windows OS. Yeah, Really.
That has nothing to do with anything. Your comment is stupid at best and spam at worst.
The irrefutable fact is that JITs inherently allow execution of untrusted code by an untrusted app on a system where the user has not consented to do so.
When a user downloads an app, he knows it has been vetted by Apple (or Microsoft, or whoever) to do exactly what it says it does.
While in the context of a browser it may just be a JIT, these same APIs can also be used for more nefarious purposes.
This cowboy style approach to app stores is the reason 1 in 5 Android apps contain some form of malware.
at the same time, they didn’t stop you from installing other browsers, they just stopped you from removing IE, the two are not even in the same country, let alone ballpark.
That’s not a technical reason. For it to be a technical reason, there would have to be a full explanation as to why they do not allow JIT runtimes. Until then, it’s a political restriction. They don’t want someone like Google showing them up with V8 as opposed to Apple’s own js runtime. It really is that simple.
I provided the rationale, many times. If you (or others on OSNews) don’t want to acknowledge that it in fact exists, then that’s between you and your delusions.
That’s not a technical decision, it’s a policy decision.
Its not a policy decision, its a sentence! You see how stupid this is? It is a decision made on a technical basis. Apple didn’t have a meeting and decide to wake up and screw Firefox.
That’s a really good question in fact. I believe that the difference is that you can take Mozilla’s Firefox OS and replace Gecko by the Web engine of your choice, provided that that engine implements the same Web APIs that Mozilla added to support the various things needed on a phone — which has already started, with Samsung already adding some of these APIs to WebKit. By contrast, you can’t take Apple’s iOS and replace WebKit by the Web engine of your choice.
Not even that I believe, the only thing other browser vendors can do on iOS is use the existing installed WebKit library.
Yes, that’s what I think. (i.e. only one browser engine) I wondered how they got rid of being sued as anti-competitive.
People forget that the EU punished Microsoft for abusing their monopoly, not just for their business practices.
Apple has no monopoly, the market share of Android is bigger and growing.
This isn’t news. Apple banned all programs which can download and interpret code from the Web from even being legally built with iOS SDK like forever already? Which mostly boils down to browsers with JavaScript. This restriction is completely anticompetitive and deserves some serious antitrust measures, but Apple just gets away with it.
Just to clarify, the restriction is not in accepting these applications in the “app store” (even though they wouldn’t be accepted if proposed most probably). The prohibition is in legally building them with iOS SDK. So if in theory someone could build these applications using alternative tools – this restriction wouldn’t apply and one could distribute them through Cydia or something. But I’m not aware if such tools exist for iOS. Using development tools as an anticompetitive filter is completely ridiculous, but that’s Apple, what else can we expect from them.
For the reference, some points in the iOS SDK license:
Edited 2013-03-10 18:57 UTC
It is hard to sandbox this sort of thing. It would potentially open the door to apps doing things outside of what Apple’s gate keepers certified.
An app could be a fart app, download and execute some code and become much more malicious.
That said, I think Apple (and MSFT) use a heavy hand here. On Windows Phone you can apply for a “Technical Exemption” which means, yeah I broke the rules, but I have a good reason for doing so.
Considering what a memory and resource hog Firefox is, I wouldn’t install it even if they were creating it. Note that I’m not endorcing Apple’s unfriendly tactics (although to be honest I don’t feel an effect from them either) but, should Apple ever allow it, I’d be much more excited to install a version of Chrome with V8 than anything based on Gecko.
1. competition is good.
2. I believe Chrome as any browser can only use the existing already installed iOS libraries. So there is no v8 on iOS. They all use the same rendering- and javascript-engine. Even worse, HTML5 hybrid-apps aren’t even allowed to use the full capabilities as you can with HTML5 in the browser on iOS. Let’s just say Apple is pretty strict.
3. There aren’t many benchmarks, but the ones I’ve seen show Firefox on Android is actually faster than Chrome on Android.
4. Firefox on the desktop usually uses less memory than Chrome these days (Chrome memory uses has increased, Firefox has decreased). Depending on addons it is still possible that Firefox will leak memory though, but these problems have become less and less of a problem they fixed most of those problems.
So I wouldn’t just blatantly dismiss it.
Edited 2013-03-10 19:31 UTC
Sorry, I’m tired, need to read better.
Sorry haven’t read through all the comments. Just noticed the article.
Q. What about the “Junior” web browser which is a webkit browser developed by Mozilla?
I am excited about it and waiting for it.
Reference = https://www.google.com.au/search?q=junior+web+browser&aq=f&oq=junior…
That was just a short-lived experience by one employee, not a company-endorsed thing.