SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Google published a "Chrome browser" app in the Windows Store on Tuesday, but it simply opened up a Google Chrome download page in the default Windows browser. Most users would then have been able to download and install the Chrome browser, except for the minority of Windows 10 S users who are restricted to downloading Windows Store apps which must use the EdgeHTML rendering engine rather than Blink. Microsoft was not amused at the stunt and removed the "app" from its Store later that day:
Google published a Chrome app in the Windows Store earlier today, which just directed users to a download link to install the browser. Microsoft isn't impressed with Google's obvious snub of the Windows Store, and it's taking action. "We have removed the Google Chrome Installer App from Microsoft Store, as it violates our Microsoft Store policies," says a Microsoft spokesperson in a statement to The Verge.
Citing the need to ensure apps "provide unique and distinct value," Microsoft says "we welcome Google to build a Microsoft Store browser app compliant with our Microsoft Store policies." That's an invitation that Google is unlikely to accept. There are many reasons Google won't likely bring Chrome to the Windows Store, but the primary reason is probably related to Microsoft's Windows 10 S restrictions. Windows Store apps that browse the web must use HTML and JavaScript engines provided by Windows 10, and Google's Chrome browser uses its own Blink rendering engine. Google would have to create a special Chrome app that would adhere to Microsoft's Store policies.
Most Windows 10 machines don't run Windows 10 S, so Google probably won't create a special version just to get its browser listed in the Windows Store. Google can't just package its existing desktop app into a Centennial Windows Store app, either. Microsoft is explicit about any store apps having to use the Edge rendering engine.
Related: Microsoft Adds Store App-Only Restriction as Option in Windows 10
New Windows 10 S Only Runs Software From Windows Store
Microsoft Knows Windows is Obsolete. Here's a Sneak Peek at Its Replacement.
First ARM Snapdragon-Based Windows 10 S Systems Announced
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 20 2017, @03:43PM (5 children)
Wasn't there once an antitrust case because Microsoft tied their browser to their operating system? And now they do it again, openly? How come they get away with it?
(Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Wednesday December 20 2017, @04:02PM (1 child)
Yes. Microsoft lied about all kinds of things, artificially tied their browser to their OS, and in 2000 were found guilty of anticompetitive practices. But they only got a slap on the wrist. As you can see, it didn't stop their anticompetitive practices at all.
Presumably they have since found the right people in Washington DC to pay off.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Pino P on Wednesday December 20 2017, @04:41PM
The real reason Microsoft got a wrist slap is George W. Bush.
At the end of 2000, the U.S. elected a Republican President. The Republican Party has long favored a trickle-down approach [wikipedia.org], arguing that supply-side policies that reduce tax and compliance costs for business owners will eventually help employees and individual end users. This contrasts with the Democratic Party's more direct approach to protecting employees and end users through regulation of labor and competition. When a President of a different party takes office, it's traditional under the spoils system [wikipedia.org] to fire the upper management of ministries and replace them with appointees of the incoming party. In this case, incoming President Bush replaced Janet Reno with John Ashcroft as Attorney General (head of the Department of Justice).
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday December 20 2017, @05:16PM
Because now, it is only them that make the hardware.
That's the lesson they learned from Apple [stackoverflow.com] (linky as an example of control that Apple is permitted to apply).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Informative) by TheRaven on Wednesday December 20 2017, @08:06PM (1 child)
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 21 2017, @02:56PM
Yes. If I remember right it was a case that was brought by Netscape. By the time the litigation was over so was Netscape. However it is worth noting that this move by MS probably violates a previous court order, and in so doing could land MS in contempt of court.