I would assume because MS wants to have end-to-end quality control on links that are built-in to the OS.
This is the kind of edge case that would bother me to no end if I was an OS vendor because any ole program can install itself as a protocol handler. The last thing I want is to have happen is clicking something in the OS opens in a broken browser or doesn’t open in a browser at all. And the only browser I know for sure is there and works the way I want is Edge or IE. The alternative is what Windows used to do is bundle (and still does) is open up its own window in an IE webview.
Seems that way to me too. In this case too it seems to be a hack around Windows 10 still bundles IE11 to this day and there are some situations where users (for whatever wild reason such as wilting old Group Policies that should have been updated half a decade ago) still have IE11 as a default browser, and yet Microsoft knows from a QA perspective these pages no longer work on IE11 at all.
On the one hand, at least this "hack" is implemented as its own protocol handler ("microsoft-edge:") which is how Brave and Firefox can "intercept it" (it's not like they are hacking some "interceptor", they are registering for the protocol just as any other protocol might see multiple registrants). On the other hand it is sad that this protocol was seen as necessary hack to Microsoft to get around Windows 10 backwards compatibility needs and the mistake of bundling IE11 with Windows 10 as a "fully supported browser for the life cycle of Windows 10" rather than an optional enterprise feature with an end date on the box.
I think it would be this 2nd last paragraph from the article.
“ So, how did we get here? Until the release of iOS version 14 in September 2020, you couldn’t change the default web browser on iPhones and iPads. Google has many apps for iOS, including a shell for its Chrome browser. To tie all its apps together, Google introduced a googlechrome: URL scheme in February 2014. It could use these links to direct you from its Search or Mail app and over to Chrome instead of Apple’s Safari browser.”
Google did it first and Microsoft would like to link from its settings app to its browser.
I’m having a hard time deciding if these are the same thing or not?
> I’m having a hard time deciding if these are the same thing or not?
Well, obviously Microsoft would say they are.
But any common sense evaluation of the situation would recognize that Google introduced their feature to get AROUND a limitation and offer customers choice (If you install Chrome on iOS you're saying you want that to be your browser), and Microsoft introduced the same feature to INTRODUCE a limitation (In spite of any other browsers installed, Microsoft is ignoring all signals and already supported protocol handling capabilities to force you into their browser).
While a pedantic techie can read this and say it doesn't matter, the courts may see it differently.
Spivak|4 years ago
This is the kind of edge case that would bother me to no end if I was an OS vendor because any ole program can install itself as a protocol handler. The last thing I want is to have happen is clicking something in the OS opens in a broken browser or doesn’t open in a browser at all. And the only browser I know for sure is there and works the way I want is Edge or IE. The alternative is what Windows used to do is bundle (and still does) is open up its own window in an IE webview.
WorldMaker|4 years ago
On the one hand, at least this "hack" is implemented as its own protocol handler ("microsoft-edge:") which is how Brave and Firefox can "intercept it" (it's not like they are hacking some "interceptor", they are registering for the protocol just as any other protocol might see multiple registrants). On the other hand it is sad that this protocol was seen as necessary hack to Microsoft to get around Windows 10 backwards compatibility needs and the mistake of bundling IE11 with Windows 10 as a "fully supported browser for the life cycle of Windows 10" rather than an optional enterprise feature with an end date on the box.
hacker_homie|4 years ago
“ So, how did we get here? Until the release of iOS version 14 in September 2020, you couldn’t change the default web browser on iPhones and iPads. Google has many apps for iOS, including a shell for its Chrome browser. To tie all its apps together, Google introduced a googlechrome: URL scheme in February 2014. It could use these links to direct you from its Search or Mail app and over to Chrome instead of Apple’s Safari browser.”
Google did it first and Microsoft would like to link from its settings app to its browser.
I’m having a hard time deciding if these are the same thing or not?
deanCommie|4 years ago
Well, obviously Microsoft would say they are.
But any common sense evaluation of the situation would recognize that Google introduced their feature to get AROUND a limitation and offer customers choice (If you install Chrome on iOS you're saying you want that to be your browser), and Microsoft introduced the same feature to INTRODUCE a limitation (In spite of any other browsers installed, Microsoft is ignoring all signals and already supported protocol handling capabilities to force you into their browser).
While a pedantic techie can read this and say it doesn't matter, the courts may see it differently.