
Why we are suing Apple for better HTML5 support in iOS - zoobab
https://www.nexedi.com/blog/NXD-Apple.Lawsuit.Blog
======
NicoJuicy
Looks like a pr stunt.

But, here is another point of view (perhaps it can help, i'd love to see html
5 support improve on iOS).

Internet Access is a "human right" and according to the United Nations (
[https://www.article19.org/data/files/Internet_Statement_Adop...](https://www.article19.org/data/files/Internet_Statement_Adopted.pdf)
) , they condemn countries that intentionally take away or disrupt its
citizens’ internet access.

Perhaps by not allowing "basic internet access" ( html 5 is part of the web),
Apple is a distrupter of a basic human right.

The platform, where we could least of all platforms, use our basic human right
to browse the web is iOS. So Apple is, in it's own way, a company that blocks
a basic human right. And the block it because of own financial gain ( using
the app store instead of the browser earns them money)

~~~
kbart
I _really_ doubt you could pass HTML5 compatibility as a "basic internet
access".

~~~
NicoJuicy
HTML 5 IS part of the web, so why shouldn't it? By not having several html 5
functions, you actually disallow access/usage to certain websites.

~~~
kbart
Apple doesn't provide Internet access -- ISPs do. Nobody forces you to choose
Apple's products, there are plenty of others to choose from.

~~~
NicoJuicy
For basic internet access to the general public you need:

\- broadband

\- a browser

Broadband is by ISP's and a browser is in this case by Apple.

And yeah, i don't buy Apple ( obviously). "Add to homescreen" is probably my
most used functionality :p .

~~~
dogma1138
You are confusing the internet with the World Wide Web, Apple does not support
Flash do you want to claim that a flash plugin is a human rights issue?
Because I can guarantee that the amount of content you cannot access due to
lack of flash is orders of magnitude greater than what you cannot access due
to lackluster HTML5 support.

In fact I can't think of any HTML5 content which you would not be able to
view, it might not be formatted properly but it will be accessible.

------
kyriakos
Many of the HTML5 technologies Apple is steering clear from make the Web more
App like meaning they become a threat to their dominance with the App Store on
their own platform. The longer they take to adopt them the longer they can
benefit from the exclusiveness and control over iOS app ecosystem. I don't
think sueing them will get them anywhere but it might be a push to get them
understand that users are aware of the shortcomings.

~~~
coldtea
From ordinary users, nobody cares about the web platform on mobile.

Native apps are faster, with better integration to platform APIs and features,
lighter on battery, and consistent (even if a large part of an app is just a
webview in a native app shell).

And for developers, they can actually be monetized and attract paying users,
unlike mobile browser-based apps.

Safari on mobile is pretty up to date as mobile technologies come. Google
Chrome is hardly any better:

[http://mobilehtml5.org/](http://mobilehtml5.org/)

So I don't really buy the conspiracy theory. People just want all kinds of
desktop level HTML5 stuff on mobile browsers that they might or might not be
suitable for. The most common HN response to Web 3D demos, advanced SVG/canvas
etc is that people's fans started to blaze, CPU jumped to the sky...

~~~
amelius
> From ordinary users, nobody cares about the web platform on mobile. Native
> apps are faster

Well, that's a problem right there. Instead of helping the web forward, Apple
is keeping the web and web-apps second-class citizens. And of course this
helps their own app platform and app store to be successful, and as a bonus it
keeps developers within the walls of their garden.

~~~
coldtea
> _Well, that 's a problem right there. Instead of helping the web forward,
> Apple is keeping the web and web-apps second-class citizens._

The are de-facto second class citizens. The are apps that run on a second
platform (the browser).

If someone wants first-class support, build for the OS.

Apple already spends tons of money to make an OS and a dev SDK for it.

~~~
amelius
> If someone wants first-class support, build for the OS.

Yes, that was my argument: Apple is favoring native apps.

Developing native apps helps Apple further build and exploit its ecosystem,
and pushes us further down the rabbit hole.

~~~
coldtea
> _Yes, that was my argument: Apple is favoring native apps._

Yes, but one can make it sound like a conspiracy, when it's in fact a DUH!

~~~
amelius
Lots of things are "duh" in hindsight.

------
madeofpalk
It's really hard to believe that Apple is holding back the 'mobile web' when
it's shown time and time again that they have the best performing web platform
in the market. It was true when iPhone was introduced in 2008, it was true in
2015[0] and it is still true now[1].

"In a nutshell, the fastest known Android device available today -- and there
are millions of Android devices much slower than that out there -- performs 5×
slower than a new iPhone 6s, and a little worse than a 2012 era iPhone 5 in
Ember. How depressing."

[0]: [https://meta.discourse.org/t/the-state-of-javascript-on-
andr...](https://meta.discourse.org/t/the-state-of-javascript-on-android-
in-2015-is-poor/33889) [1]:
[https://twitter.com/CraftyDeano/status/779461778677895169](https://twitter.com/CraftyDeano/status/779461778677895169)

~~~
franciscop
It's obvious you are not a web developer using HTML5/CSS3/ES6. iOS has became
the new Internet Explorer hands down, and now it's the first platform I test
on to check for compatibility issues (as it's the one that normally gives
those issues).

~~~
madeofpalk
Nope. (Front end) web developer by trade. What I say I say from experience -
I've never had a client ask for a feature that Safari doesn't support.
However, clients do ask for things like a carousel, which Chrome doesn't
support natively.

iOS is a significantly easier support target compared to Android due to how
much of a stable target it is. Android is a bit of a 'which Android?' when it
comes to browser support.

~~~
zajd
I could be swayed that iOS is easier to target than some other browsers but
Chrome? You can definitely build a slider natively...

Maybe the confusion is that Chrome =/= Android Browser

~~~
madeofpalk
> You can definitely build a slider natively...

Nope [http://caniuse.com/#search=snap](http://caniuse.com/#search=snap)

~~~
sgtpepper43
"Build natively" means to create it yourself in vanilla JavaScript, like this
[http://meandmax.github.io/lory/](http://meandmax.github.io/lory/). What's the
use of a native element that only one browser has when you need cross browser
support anyway?

~~~
madeofpalk
"Natively" as in 2 lines of CSS rather than yet another JS dependency. The
cool thinks about CSS Snap Points is that they fall back rather gracefully on
brothers that don't support them to just standard overflow scrolling.

~~~
zajd
Well that's not what native means. Beyond that, the issue isn't that Safari is
not implementing HTML5 features fast enough, it's that they are choosing to
not implement specific ones in order to protect their platform. You just don't
see that from other browser vendors (today)

------
natch
To Nexedi, if you're reading this discussion:

As you know Apple these days has devices and platforms to which users entrust
a tremendous amount of very personal and often private data. Therefore, Apple
is relatively careful about security issues, and slow to introduce features
that may open holes that expose users' private data.

Your entire blog post does not even once mention the word security. It seems
this concept does not even enter your thinking at all as an explanation for
why Apple must be very conservative about adding the types of functionalities
you list.

When weighing the tradeoffs between the benefits you mention versus protection
of user security and privacy, I'm pretty sure Apple has the right to make the
choice it is making, and you'll find your argument is a difficult one to make.

~~~
ac29
>It seems this concept does not even enter your thinking at all as an
explanation for why Apple must be very conservative about adding the types of
functionalities you list.

Read the article again -- I don't think they are asking Apple to add more
HTML5 functionality, they are asking Apple to allow other browsers which have
already implemented the functionality they need onto iOS. Their legal team
thinks French law is on their side.

The security thing is a bit of a strawman, you are implying that Google,
Mozilla, or Microsoft, who all have better HTML5 support, do not take browser
security seriously. That's simply not true.

~~~
natch
Your points don't hold up, because Apple has to worry about platform security,
not just browser security. And taking Microsoft and Google as examples does
not support your argument. Mozilla, maybe (though possibly just by having
fewer users as compared to all of Android and all of Windows) but again they
don't have to worry about platform security as much as Apple does.

French law is outside of my expertise. I'm just talking common sense here. I
do recognize that there might not be much overlap between the two in matters
of technology, though.

------
keyle
Remember when Apple was bashing Adobe for Flash and how they were about
standards? (I'm going to get downvoted for this)

Anyways you were a fool for believing it.

~~~
madeofpalk
Blackberry CEO back in 2010[0]:

    
    
        For those of us who live outside of Apple’s distortion field, we know that
        7-inch tablets will actually be a big portion of the market and we know
        that Adobe Flash support actually matters to customers who want a real web
        experience. We also know that while Apple’s attempt to control the
        ecosystem and maintain a closed platform may be good for Apple, developers
        want more options and customers want to fully access the overwhelming
        majority of web sites that use Flash.
    

Adobe, 12 months ago[1]:

    
    
        Adobe said that it will now "encourage content creators to build with ne
        web standards," such as HTML5, rather than Flash.
    

[0]:
[http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/09/30/balsillie-2010](http://daringfireball.net/linked/2016/09/30/balsillie-2010)

[1]: [https://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/2015/11/flash-
html5-an...](https://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/2015/11/flash-html5-and-
open-web-
standards.html?scid=social_20151201_55826586&adbid=671559505906282496&adbpl=tw&adbpr=63786611)

~~~
pier25
You are missing the point.

Of course Flash was/is terrible, and not only for mobile phones.

But what keyle is pointing out is the irony of Apple arguing against Flash for
being a proprietary and non standard technology, praising HTML5, and now
relegating HTML5 as a second class technology in iOS.

------
jbob2000
My company builds software applications for hospitals and healthcare
providers. Across the board, we have stopped recommending Apple devices for
solutions.

Some of our applications use the headphone jack to communicate with our apps
(we take readings from an Ultrasound, for example). Without a headphone jack,
this solution is dead in the water. The unknowns around how this will work on
future iOS devices is too risky for us to invest in.

The app review process is brutal for project management. Our clients run
studies and trials on our software and we need to be able to say to them "yes,
your app will be on the store on this day". And if we need to make an update,
I need to be able to say that the update will be available at a specific date.
Submitting apps and patches into the Apple wormhole and praying it doesn't
take two weeks to come out the other side is a huge risk for us.

We just sent 60 android phones to Africa for an HIV study. If these were
iPhones, it would have cost close to $50,000 for the devices alone. But we
picked up 60 Samsung Galaxy Cores for $100 a pop and they work perfectly (they
stopped making Cores around the same time the iPhone 5 came out). Android
devices seem to age much more gracefully than iOS devices. I feel much more
confident advising a hospital to purchase 100 Android devices than I do iPads.

------
pflats
_A few years ago, France passed a Law to protect small companies such as
Nexedi against large companies that try to impose unbalanced contracts. [...]
Not allowing the publication in Apple 's AppStore of web browsers that are not
based on Apple's own Webkit raises in our opinion the same issues as if
Carrefour (a company similar to Walmart) was not selling any beans but those
based on Carrefour's seeds. This may be legal in other countries but in
France, it is most likely not._

This is incredibly weird to me. In France, you can sue to force a major
company to sell your product if you don't like their terms? Is this just
speculation, or is there actual case law? How is this even tenable?

And it only applies to contracts the aggrieved smaller party views as
unbalanced. So you can sue if you don't like the contract offered, but you
can't sue if you would accept the terms of their contract but MegaCorp just
chooses not to do business with you?

If that's actually the case, I wouldn't be surprised if Carrefour changes
their policy from "we only sell Carrefour beans and beans grown from Carrefour
seeds" to "we only sell Carrefour beans".

~~~
Millennium
>Is this just speculation, or is there actual case law?

France is a civil-law system, so case law is in theory irrelevant. In practice
it isn't so irrelevant these days, but it still doesn't carry nearly the same
weight that it does in common-law systems (like most of the US, though not
Louisiana). On the one hand, this makes it much easier to ignore previous
rulings by clearly corrupt judges. On the other hand, it makes consistent
interpretation of the law much harder to achieve. It's a tradeoff.

In other words, Nexedi knows that case law is against them in the US, so they
cherry-picked a location for the lawsuit that would allow them to circumvent
this obstacle.

~~~
Doctor_Fegg
France is their HQ (Lille), so I'm not sure it's fair to accuse them of
cherry-picking. (Not that I agree with the suit.)

------
bluesign
It is long shot, in my opinion PR stunt.

Cited law 'déséquilibre significatif entre les droits et obligations des
parties' means 'significant imbalance between the rights and obligations of
the parties'

I dont even think it is related (it is not even translated in the post)

~~~
Drakim
Definitely a PR stunt, but even so, being sued because you are so behind on
standards that it's hurting other businesses certainly puts the spotlight on
you.

~~~
stephenr
"So behind on standards".

Remind me which browser engine has 100% es6 support?

Now remind me which half-baked web api exposes local network information to
the JavaScript environment.

Oh right. It's HN so apple is the work of the devil and Google is basically
Jesus returned.

~~~
roblabla
The problem isn't so much about how apple is so behind on standards.

The problem is that they make it impossible for alternative browsers providing
more up-to-date standards to exist on their platform, effectively locking away
that userbase.

------
themihai
Some(Apple) may say that the web/browser ecosystem is mess and it's not worth
the investment though. However the restrictions on 3rd party browsers is
weird. The application is sandboxed (thus no additional security threats
compared to other apps) so I think the argument is political not technical.

~~~
madeofpalk
Third party code execution environments seems like a bit of a slippery slope
that I can understand Apple wanting to avoid.

~~~
iancarroll
Pythonista presumably runs Python on the device and is allowed on the App
Store.

~~~
knocte
I guess the restriction is about downloading and executing software, not
executing alone?

------
thealistra
The point is that feature compatibility is not everything. Apple may say that
they develop webkit in a more power saving/secure/better manner than other
browsers and this is the reason they lag on html5 features.

~~~
gtirloni
If a user wants to use a different browser because of $reasons and is happy
with it draining the battery, the user should be allowed to. There is no
technical reason for not allowing other browsers to work on iOS, it's purely a
ToS/market/profits issue.

~~~
redial
I'm not 100% sure, but I think most of the jailbrake exploits use some form of
safari or webkit bug to modify the system. Apple is very aware that the
browser is the most targeted point in the OS. By the nature of modern JS
interpreters they would need some kind of low (or lower) level access to the
CPU to be competitive and that will open a new vector, maybe multiple, for
attack that Apple would not be able to control.

I think their decision is about a lot of things including the App Store, but
security is certainly one.

------
st3fan
Allowing alternative browsers on iOS would be great. But the real change will
happen when there is a way for users to change the default. I hope that is
part of their "request".

With just that smaller change people could start using any of the existing
alternatives available right now.

------
mikegerwitz
I'm far from one to defend Apple on most things, but is Apple doing anything
intentionally malicious here?

In the United States, forcing someone to write code is compelled speech, which
is a violation of the First Amendment. I'm not aware of laws in France, but in
any case, this seems like a completely wrong approach to solving this problem.

The real problem here is Apple's proprietary platform.

~~~
fpgeek
I agree that Apple's management of their platform is the underlying problem,
but there's no compelled speech here.

Writing code to provide better HTML5 support is only one of the ways Apple
could satisfy this complaint. Lifting the developer agreement / Apple App
Store restrictions that prevent third-party developers from writing browsers
with better HTML5 support is another.

~~~
mikegerwitz
Ah, I see, thank you for the clarification.

That would indeed be beneficial.

------
heisenbit
This will be interesting to watch. Apple has become a dominant player in the
mobile industry and being in that role it restricts what they can do now (and
could earlier get away with). Bundling related rulings had huge impact in the
past on e.g. IBM and Microsoft.

~~~
bluesign
Apple is not that much dominant like Microsoft or IBM in the past.

~~~
sturgill
In the mobile space? They own the mobile space. Which is why everything is
labeled an "iPhone killer." No one labels a new product as an "Android
killer."

This is still their market to lose.

~~~
vertex-four
They have some of the high end, competing heavily with Samsung's Galaxy S line
and the occasional high end phone from other manufacturers. There's a _lot_ of
space in even the high-end market that's not owned by Apple, never mind all
the lower markets.

Just because tech magazines really like them doesn't mean they actually have
most of the market.

If you really want to go look for something to pick on... go look at how US
telecoms companies fuck over the market by directly selling phones tied to
contracts, making it incredibly difficult for a manufacturer to sell a phone
if the telecoms companies don't want to put their weight behind it.

------
jdright
Very Nice, hope this will get anywhere. Apple got too far with its
restrictions, but I also hope that this doesnt go sideways directly into flash
issues. :)

------
barumrho
Looking through the list of features that iOS Safari doesn't support, I am
happy that Apple doesn't blindly implement these features. I think a lot of
these present tricky user experience issues (fullscreen support,
notifications, background, file system api) and can be abused by websites. (I
am also noticing a lot of these are still proposals and experimental
features.)

------
sigzero
I am sorry, I get what their intent is but suing? Really? I hope that it gets
nowhere. We cannot start a precedent of "Company won't implement this
technology so sue them.".

------
gok
Well this should be easy. Their metric (html5test.com) gives points for things
utterly unrelated to HTML or web standards like WebP support. Apple just needs
to convince them to start giving out points for wide color gamuts and proper
tail calls in JavaScript. Hell, those two even are standards, which makes them
nearly as relevant to what most web developers care about as Google's fiat.

------
simonh
I'd like to launch a law suit against Nexedi because ERP5 is based on Zope
instead of Django and I'd like to run a version on Django becaus Zope doesn't
have the features I need but Django does. As a result they are unreasonably
denying me access to those features. Does anybody know how I can start the
litigation process in France?

~~~
marianoguerra
nobody stops you from using another ERP, they can't use another browser.

They don't own the platform where the ERP runs, apple does.

~~~
simonh
Nobody is making them support the iPhone.

~~~
scarface74
Back in the day, PageMaker ran only on Macs because only Macs had the
underlying technology to support it. People bought Macs to run PageMaker. It
was the "killer app".

If Nexedi's product was that good, they could convince people to buy Android
devices.

Can a game maker sue Sony because it is extra work to port a game from XBox?
Can they force Sony to support Kinect?

~~~
DerekL
Furthermore, suppose Mozilla wants to port Firefox to the Nintendo 3DS. Does
Nintendo have to let it in to their eShop?

Most game consoles since the NES have had lock-out technology, and that's
legal everywhere, as far as I know.

------
dogmata
Seriously..... as an industry we've been back porting code and implementing
browser specific hacks since day 1. Since Netscape Navigator, since every
version of IE. Is it a pain? yes but ultimately it's the world we live in and
i for one am glad.

If every browser just focused on 'the specs' where would the innovation come
from. In fact i'd strongly argue that Apple / iOS is the reason we have such a
standard web based eco system at the moment. I mean who remembers the dark
days of Java Applets, ActiveX components and browser specific plugins? Apples
firm stance on the lack of plugin support was a major factor in their demise
and the birth of the amazing rich JS & HTML5 world that many here seem to take
for granted.

In short it strikes me as the wines of a spoilt child complaining about their
parents forgetting that they are the one's who taught them how to tie their
shoes.

------
coldtea
> _Why we are suing Apple for better HTML5 support in iOS_

Because you don't know how the law works?

------
aljones
Does the HTML5 standard specify which video formats browsers should support
now? Is webrtc part of the html5 spec now? Seems misleading for them to say
they just want the HTML5 standard when what they are asking for isn't in the
standard.

------
WhitneyLand
Succeding would require tons of money, political expediency, and novel
strategy from legal experts in French civil law, EU law, tech, and business.

So far the arguments seem weak. Apple scores a little lower on one test?

Some sites can't work offline due lack of service workers? This is a useful
but niche use case so it would seem hard to rally massive public support for.

Apple would argue users are not being hurt anyway because you could trivially
do what you want by wrapping your site in Cordova. Is a primary motivation
here to avoid app revenue sharing for your product? If so I understand but
that becomes a whole separate legal mountain to climb.

------
samuellh21
Good luck guys!! Apple is the only company now who slows down the innovation
in web.

------
samuellh21
There is a reason why Safari is called "the new Internet Explorer"

------
redial
In a civil case, this has no merit. What they should do is "sue" them using a
W3C "court", and if there is no such thing (as I'm pretty sure there is none)
it should be created. If members of W3C don't adhere by the standards set
after a lengthy and tiresome process of review, they should be "liable" to the
standards body.

This of course is not going to happen because members are the ones funding
W3C, and they would just take their money elsewhere and the W3C would be sad.

~~~
stephenr
> If members of W3C don't adhere by the standards set after a lengthy and
> tiresome process of review

Which standard would that be?

Web workers and Webrtc are not standardised.

Html5 makes no specification about video codecs.

So, what standards exactly are not being adhered to?

------
jbmorgado
This actually could be something to hold up in court at least in EU.

It's not really different from when Microsoft was doing something similar with
their browser, using their market position to force people using IE.

Apple could be forced to open their rendering engine and allow real fully
fledged browsers to be used in iOS, because at this point, just fixing the
compatibility to HTML standards on iOS may not be enough anymore.

~~~
madeofpalk
Actually, very different from Microsoft.

Apple has plenty of competition and the mobile web has not stalled.

------
chvid
I honestly think that the latest iOS safari has really good html5 support and
very fast JavaScript. Including support for things such as web workers.

------
puppetmaster3
Ah... Apple wants you in the app store they create.

Chrome is forced to use Safari under in IOS.

Google want's browser to get the ads revenue.

Suffers the web developer and end user.

------
ahmetkun
someone should also sue Apple (and Google?) for worse performance in the
webview. something that run smoothly on native Safari was laggy in webview.
haven't checked in a while though, not sure if this is still the case.

~~~
barumrho
WKWebView is supposed to fix this issue.

[https://developer.apple.com/reference/webkit/wkwebview](https://developer.apple.com/reference/webkit/wkwebview)

~~~
pier25
WKWebView is a mess.

There are bugs that have been there since it was released years ago and are
still unassigned.

[https://bugs.webkit.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=wkwebview&li...](https://bugs.webkit.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=wkwebview&list_id=2174173)

------
tambourine_man
Probably not the best way to renew their interest in web standards

~~~
gcp
I think the point is that they don't _have_ to care, as long as they allow
other browser engines than Apple's specific Webkit.

~~~
FussyZeus
Why do they need to do that? Their platform, their rules. You don't want to
play by Apple's rules then leave Apple's sandbox.

This is absurd. You have no rights and no freedoms while using a vendor's
software. They knew the restrictions going in. This is going to die quickly in
the courts.

~~~
sturgill
Do you feel the same way about Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer and trying
to crush all competition in the browser market? Or do you only feel this way
because it's Apple's sandbox? At least with Microsoft you _could_ install
Netscape. What's your choice here? Buy an Android?

I don't know you; this is a legitimate question. I don't actually know that I
have an opinion on the underlying issue (I'm quite libertarian but also hate
Safari). That said, I don't see how this is different from other bundling case
law.

But IANAL.

~~~
FussyZeus
> Do you feel the same way about Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer and
> trying to crush all competition in the browser market?

Not a comparison. Windows was effectively a monopoly at the time where iOS is
a strong but far from dominating force in mobile.

However if you want to make this comparison, honestly? Yes. I think the suit
against Microsoft was justified simply because of how blatantly obvious their
practices were designed to squeeze out other browser makers after the fact.
However it's a different situation here: Safari has _always_ been the defacto
browser for iOS since the first publicly available version. There is no
significant competition for Safari because there's no way to change iOS to
utilize it in the same ways, and the Apple TOS for developers specifically
states you cannot create apps that directly reproduce functionality of Apple's
built-in applications.

Ergo, they are not decreasing the competition or being anti-market because
there was no competition in the first place, and they made no secret of that.

~~~
amluto
This is a strange claim you're making. Squeezing out competition is bad, but
banning competition in the first place is okay?

Would it have been okay if Microsoft had charged a 30% tax on all sales of
anything (software and content) consumable on the Windows platform on day one?

Or what if the very first iPhone had a provision that for the rest of your
life you were not permitted to buy a competing smartphone or participate in
the development of one? If enforceable, Android might never have happened.
Would that make it okay?

~~~
FussyZeus
> banning competition in the first place is okay?

Yes. Anti-market behavior is the usage of monopoly (or near monopoly) to
destroy competing companies after the fact with underhanded tactics and is
generally agreed to be a Bad Thing.

Apple's behavior when setting up iOS could be construed as anti-market, but
the fact is that market never existed. Ergo if you setup a company to make a
web browser for iOS, you can't claim anti-market behavior because the policy
in question predates your company. You effectively attempted to enter a market
that does not exist.

~~~
gtirloni
Anti-competitive practices do not apply solely to monopolies.

If it's proven there isn't a technical reason why iOS can't support other
browser engine (like there wasn't in the Windows vs. Netscape case), a judge
could rule the artificial ToS terms should be lifted.

This happens every time a platform becomes too important/powerful. If Apple
smartphones were niche devices with a very small user base, nobody would care.
But they now have millions of users and are clearly a general purpose
computer, so they will go under increased scrutiny. It's the price of success
and they will sooner or later have to play by the (EU) rules. That or they
improve Safari so few people have a reason to engage in lawsuits with them.

~~~
FussyZeus
I feel like "You as a company must allow your products to run X software" is a
terrible, terrible precedent to set.

------
sarreph
When I see someone suing a company for not innovating fast enough and opening
with sexist terminology[0] I just close the tab and move on.

[0] - "Anyone running html5test
([http://html5test.com/](http://html5test.com/)) on his iPhone"

~~~
lasfter
I think it may have more to do with the article being written by a native
French speaker than sexism.

One of my friends routinely says things like "a woman has rights to his body"
when speaking in English because in French possessives agree with the object
not the subject, and the French word for body, "corps", is masculine.

In this case, since iPhone starts with a vowel, in French you'd say "son
iPhone", so "his iPhone", perhaps.

Alternatively, in French you also always tend to the masculine form in the
general case, so maybe that's it? It just strikes me as extremely unlikely
that anyone would think, consciously or otherwise, that women don't have
iPhones.

~~~
sarreph
Yes, of course! Thank you for pointing this out. I guess I'm the ignorant one
for not doing my research on the author/company before making such a loaded
statement.

On your point about it being "extremely unlikely that anyone would think,
consciously or otherwise, that women don't have iPhones", I was more referring
to the older (20th century) authoring style where masculine references were
used as a default rather than generalising such as "their iPhone".

