>They're not restricting Firefox on the basis of some policy that applies to everyone but singling out one piece of software.
>Framing this using Apple and it's policies/practices are an attempt at misdirection. If you take this attempt to play the Apple v. Microsoft card out of the equation and for a moment pretend Apple never banned FF and FF never even tried to get on iOS what you're left with is Microsoft unfairly discriminating against one company in an obvious attempt to stamp out any competition. It's a pretty cut and dry case of ant-trust once you weed out all the distractions.
Zero third party applications with access to the Win32 API will be allowed on Windows RT. You're way off base here.
Was your post meant to be sarcastic? I've seen some anti-Microsoft and pro-Apple FUD, but this one takes the cake. Only nirvana can beat this in the terms of rewriting facts and blanket unreferenced assertions.
If fact I wonder if Poe's law applies to your post and the post is in fact a troll.
I resent the implication that I'm a troll first off. Secondly, after reading a lot of the responses to what I wrote I feel like I've been vindicated. I have to admit that I was wrong about Microsoft arbitrarily applying policies unfairly. I plead ignorance on that one. I honestly though I knew what I was talking about.
However, I feel like most of these comments just reinforce my point about how this article frames the situation as being a red herring. If I'm not mistaken the main point of the article is that what Microsoft is doing regarding Firefox on ARM is okay. If that's the premise then what Apple does is irrelevant. The question is "are Microsoft's actions in this case monopolistic?". Now because the answer to that question is most likely yes the author has reframed the situation and brought Apple into the mix to stir up guilt in Apple supporters and sympathy from Microsoft fans. Let's say Apple is wrong which is the implication here. If that's true then so is Microsoft. And if we follow that logic then the author is really arguing that Apple should get in trouble too. So is this even about anti-competitive practices or is this just a way to excuse Microsoft's actions and take some of the heat off them? Seems like the latter to me. Like when you're a kid and your sibling gets away with something then you do the same thing and when you get caught your excuse is "well Billy did it too! He should also get in trouble". It's a childish argument. If one company does it and gets away with it it doesn't mean the others should too. Shame on Apple but let's stick to the issue. Like I said, the way it's framed is meant to muddy the issue by playing on people's allegiances. You implied I was a troll. I submit the author himself is a kind of troll.
Apple had their fiasco and it went the way it went. Whether it was right or not is not the issue. Everyone has played into the author's manipulative ploy.
I don't see the article as a troll, but raises a legitimate question about why Mozilla is only targeting Microsoft and not Apple.
First of all I think we can agree that Apple's actions with iOS and Microsoft's actions with Windows RT are exactly equivalent.
>The question is "are Microsoft's actions in this case monopolistic? Now because the answer to that question is most likely yes..."
How can they be monopolistic when they have zero marketshare in the tablet market and exactly zero apps from their Win32 monopoly will even run on the new platform?
If you think the answer is yes, then is Apple guilty of the same?
> Let's say Apple is wrong which is the implication here. If that's true then so is Microsoft.
Not necessarily, because Apple has a way larger marketshare in the tablet market. Your argument is like claiming in 2000 that it would be an anti-trust issue for Apple to bundle their browser with their computers.
>Framing this using Apple and it's policies/practices are an attempt at misdirection. If you take this attempt to play the Apple v. Microsoft card out of the equation and for a moment pretend Apple never banned FF and FF never even tried to get on iOS what you're left with is Microsoft unfairly discriminating against one company in an obvious attempt to stamp out any competition. It's a pretty cut and dry case of ant-trust once you weed out all the distractions.
Zero third party applications with access to the Win32 API will be allowed on Windows RT. You're way off base here.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/02/09/building-windo...
Was your post meant to be sarcastic? I've seen some anti-Microsoft and pro-Apple FUD, but this one takes the cake. Only nirvana can beat this in the terms of rewriting facts and blanket unreferenced assertions.
If fact I wonder if Poe's law applies to your post and the post is in fact a troll.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poes_Law