Originally Posted by tpi2007
You're not making sense. What does Unix have to do with this ? Microsoft didn't make Unix, so they don't have to explain anything.
What is the difference between both operating systems - WIndows RT and Windows 8 ? Both enable multi-tasking and both will ship in multi-purpose hardware. More interestingly, both will run on machines capable of being used with a keyboard and mouse or a touchscreen, and with an identical user interface - Metro.
Let's imagine for a second that ARM takes over the desktop, and all machines will then ship with the ARM version of Windows. Should Microsoft be allowed to make all those machines only run the code they want, and applications purchased through their own store ? Where do you draw the line ?
An Operating System should be just that, an operating system, and not a launcher for the applications made solely by the manufacturer of the OS. This is anti-competitive behaviour, any way you look at it.
What are YOU talking about? You do realize that was an analogy, right? Then you go on to explain features inherent in any modern OS.
The difference is ARM has no backwards compatibility with Windows x86 and its software, you can't buy WinRT separately, and you can only download applications from the app store. They have nothing in common except for the fact that they look similar. You made it seem as though explaining the differences were some monumental task.
Also, you do realize that Android is an app launcher ran on top of Linux and that you can't simply put Android on any kind of hardware and call it an Android device? Google sets
FireFox won't work on Windows RT in its current state because it uses a completely different programming model. This fact precludes any accusations of anti-compete. Its like you people are incapable of looking at whats on the surface, but pounce on any opportunity to try denounce the big bad Microsoft.
Personally, I don't care. You don't have to use Microsoft products just like you don't have to use Apple products or Google products, etc, etc.
This isn't any more anti-competitive than the way Apple limits your choices of browsers or the way Google limits your choice of browsers on its Chromebooks. In fact, its the same.
Originally Posted by Mygaffer
Well Apple makes and sells the whole platform the tablet, phone and the OS. Microsoft just makes the OS, then their partners in the mobile space make and sell the devices that run it. So there is a difference there. I don't know how exactly that impacts this situation if at all but I think we can all agree more openness and more competition is good for consumers.
No, Apple does not make tablets. The components are made by third-parties such as Samsung, LG, Micron, etc.
What Microsoft does differently from Apple is create a minimum hardware/software spec before they extend a license to OEMs.
Apple sets a minimum spec, but their the only OEM. There's almost no difference in their dealings.
Originally Posted by That Guy
Freakin' media at it again with ignorant and open ended articles.
Quoting from the Mozilla wiki regarding the Apple "Restrictions" on Firefox for iPad/iPhone/iPod
However, you can download Firefox Home for iPhone, an iOS app that uses Firefox Sync to deliver Firefox bookmarks, browsing history, and tabs to your iPhone or iPod Touch.
It's not a matter of it not being able to run, it's the fact that it can't run under the circumstances given.
There isn't a technical reason why Apple won't let others develop a native browser for their IOS. That was the point... Every other "browser" is a skin of Safari or a slow pre-rendered web page.Edited by BizzareRide - 5/12/12 at 4:40pm