Why we are suing Apple for better HTML5 support in iOS(nexedi.com)
nexedi.com
Why we are suing Apple for better HTML5 support in iOS
https://www.nexedi.com/blog/NXD-Apple.Lawsuit.Blog
237 comments
Currently in the UK there is some controversy about human rights legislation and it being used inappropriately.
I think human rights legislation is fundamental. As such I really, really hope no-one ever uses it for something like this, even worse to win a case. It demeans it to use it to save someone having to write a bit extra code to have their commercial application sell better in China.
I think human rights legislation is fundamental. As such I really, really hope no-one ever uses it for something like this, even worse to win a case. It demeans it to use it to save someone having to write a bit extra code to have their commercial application sell better in China.
I understand your point of view and you are probably right.
But to my opinion, everyone here knows Apple is blocking HTML 5 somewhat and there is almost nothing we can do about it.
PS. General public/buyers don't know and i already changed from iOS, because "add to homescreen" doesn't work as well as on Android
But to my opinion, everyone here knows Apple is blocking HTML 5 somewhat and there is almost nothing we can do about it.
PS. General public/buyers don't know and i already changed from iOS, because "add to homescreen" doesn't work as well as on Android
> there is almost nothing we can do about it.
Don't buy their devices. Apple is not a government that can coerce you into submission.
Don't buy their devices. Apple is not a government that can coerce you into submission.
Now i might be in the minority here, but I feel this is akin to telling someone that lives somewhere with a landlord that won't maintain the building to "just move".
I know it's not the same scale, and i'm not trying to compare poverty and human suffering to a web browser, but IMO there are some similarities.
Switching to an entire other OS which many believe to be less secure, that in many cases doesn't have many of the same applications, and significant changes to everything you do on your device (which for many is their ONLY device connected to the internet), for a web browser?
People won't do it, and I (as a web developer) don't think they should give up everything for a few web features. But when one party is purposely holding the ecosystem back, something should be done. They need to improve, or open up the playing field to others that will improve.
IMO forcing "operating systems" to be more inclusive would be a good thing, and could really improve not only iOS, but Android and Windows as well.
I don't know how this would look legally, i'm pretty far from a lawyer, but the discussion is at the very least worth having without hand waving any complaints away with "just buy an android"
I know it's not the same scale, and i'm not trying to compare poverty and human suffering to a web browser, but IMO there are some similarities.
Switching to an entire other OS which many believe to be less secure, that in many cases doesn't have many of the same applications, and significant changes to everything you do on your device (which for many is their ONLY device connected to the internet), for a web browser?
People won't do it, and I (as a web developer) don't think they should give up everything for a few web features. But when one party is purposely holding the ecosystem back, something should be done. They need to improve, or open up the playing field to others that will improve.
IMO forcing "operating systems" to be more inclusive would be a good thing, and could really improve not only iOS, but Android and Windows as well.
I don't know how this would look legally, i'm pretty far from a lawyer, but the discussion is at the very least worth having without hand waving any complaints away with "just buy an android"
If I put on my naïve glasses for a moment:
Apple has a monopoly on iOS devices. There is no competition. And if somebody would built a better or freer iOS device, Apple would use the full force of the state to stop them. So, in a very narrow fashion, Apple does use their government-granted rights to coerce you to buy it's devices, if you want an iOS one.
Of course, nowadays Android devices are more than adequate replacements for many users, so most people do have the option to buy outside of the Apple world, as you suggest.
Apple has a monopoly on iOS devices. There is no competition. And if somebody would built a better or freer iOS device, Apple would use the full force of the state to stop them. So, in a very narrow fashion, Apple does use their government-granted rights to coerce you to buy it's devices, if you want an iOS one.
Of course, nowadays Android devices are more than adequate replacements for many users, so most people do have the option to buy outside of the Apple world, as you suggest.
> Apple has a monopoly on iOS devices.
And if you were complaining as a developer, that wants to distribute your software around, you'd have a point.
But the GP is complaining as a user, that has complete freedom to choose the phone he is buying. He just want the shinning locked-up one, but don't want the consequences of the locking-up. He has all the right in the world to complain about it, but if he won't do anything about it, why would anybody care to listen?
And if you were complaining as a developer, that wants to distribute your software around, you'd have a point.
But the GP is complaining as a user, that has complete freedom to choose the phone he is buying. He just want the shinning locked-up one, but don't want the consequences of the locking-up. He has all the right in the world to complain about it, but if he won't do anything about it, why would anybody care to listen?
McDonalds has a monopoly on McDonalds's hamburgers too.
However! you can make your own Big Mac if you are dedicated: http://aht.seriouseats.com/archives/2011/05/the-burger-lab-b... I tried once and the result was pretty good.
But no one can sell me e.g. an iPhone 7 with audio jack. And I can't build one on my own.
But no one can sell me e.g. an iPhone 7 with audio jack. And I can't build one on my own.
But McDonalds cannot just put whatever ingredients they want in their burgers. They have to follow rules. Like not putting Nicotine in them.
Apple has a monopoly on Apple branded devices. Well, ok.
I was waiting for this timeless - and useless - HN riposte.
"Apple is blocking HTML 5 somewhat and there is almost nothing we can do about it."
Sure we can! Vote with your wallet and don't buy Apple's products. Or at least write a complaint to one of their support centers..
Sure we can! Vote with your wallet and don't buy Apple's products. Or at least write a complaint to one of their support centers..
The problem is that this approach is perfectly fine when it comes to us programmers or more technical people, but for "normal" users this approach won't work, simply because they don't know the possibilities an up-to-standards iOS Safari would bring.
There's a saying; "What you don't know can't hurt you", and that can be applied for these users - whom make up the majority of iOS device users - since they don't know what they're missing out on. While you and me on the other hand knows what we're missing out on, both as programmers and users, we at least have the chance to vote with our wallets. I do, perhaps even you do, but as you can clearly see it's still not enough to even make a dent in Apple iOS device sales.
There's a saying; "What you don't know can't hurt you", and that can be applied for these users - whom make up the majority of iOS device users - since they don't know what they're missing out on. While you and me on the other hand knows what we're missing out on, both as programmers and users, we at least have the chance to vote with our wallets. I do, perhaps even you do, but as you can clearly see it's still not enough to even make a dent in Apple iOS device sales.
>they don't know the possibilities an up-to-standards iOS Safari would bring.
To be fair, they also don't care at all.
To be fair, they also don't care at all.
> everyone here
I think we have different definitions for "everyone".
I think we have different definitions for "everyone".
There is not a single browser that implements 100% of all HTML standards out there. Lets sue them all for violating human rights.
The browser landscape is complicated. Firefox is ahead in some ways, behind in others. WebKit has fantastic support for some things that Edge does not do. Chrome lacks some things that Firefox does.
Does any browser lack "basic internet access"? Nope. They all provide a solid foundation that lets everyone use the web. Are some experimental standards missing? Sure. It's complicated.
The browser landscape is complicated. Firefox is ahead in some ways, behind in others. WebKit has fantastic support for some things that Edge does not do. Chrome lacks some things that Firefox does.
Does any browser lack "basic internet access"? Nope. They all provide a solid foundation that lets everyone use the web. Are some experimental standards missing? Sure. It's complicated.
I really doubt you could pass HTML5 compatibility as a "basic internet access".
obviously the standards process moves slower than innovation on web technologies, but many of the things that iOS doesn't support are not yet standards. E.g. WebRtc, which Nexedi's link shows had an update to the draft in September, so clearly it is not yet stabilized. The legal basis for requiring compatibility seems much thinner for complying with working drafts (or a working group note, edited August 31, September 7, and September 15, in the case of the webm link).
I mean, what level of compatibility should you have with a document that says:
> Implementors who are not taking part in the discussions are likely to find the specification changing out from under them in incompatible ways.
I mean, what level of compatibility should you have with a document that says:
> Implementors who are not taking part in the discussions are likely to find the specification changing out from under them in incompatible ways.
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.
Lets be honest here, are you saying that a web-based real-time-communications API is a basic human right?
> Apple has no reason to "not" include it, except financial gain.
The reason they have not to include it is that they have different priorities than browser vendors who want to jam mobile browsers full of every unripe API under the sun (like those that dangerously leak user's real connection info even when behind a VPN).
> Apple has no reason to "not" include it, except financial gain.
The reason they have not to include it is that they have different priorities than browser vendors who want to jam mobile browsers full of every unripe API under the sun (like those that dangerously leak user's real connection info even when behind a VPN).
I'm saying that yes, webrtc is part of the HTML 5 web and so should be a basic human right.
I'm not saying that it is though.
I'm not saying that it is though.
Except when WebRTC actually isnt a part of HTML5 (yet), it's only a draft specification.
Apple doesn't provide Internet access -- ISPs do. Nobody forces you to choose Apple's products, there are plenty of others to choose from.
This is the answer. If you have a problem with the product, don't buy it.
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 .
- 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 .
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.
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.
Calling HTML5 a basic human right erodes the concept of basic human rights. Please don't do it.
Could you argue that developers using HTML 5 are violating human rights because not every browser fully supports it? Developers are fully aware that not every feature is available on every browser -- yet they willingly use those technologies anyway. It's clear we should drag developers in front of a UN Tribunal to account for their willingness to deny the world basic human rights.
This has gotten beyond absurd. I can't remember when I voted to make HTML 5 a human right. I can think of a lot more important things that might ought to be addressed (and enforced) first.
This has gotten beyond absurd. I can't remember when I voted to make HTML 5 a human right. I can think of a lot more important things that might ought to be addressed (and enforced) first.
HTML 5 as a human right? How about JavaScript?
This argument is just absurd. Apple isn't denying anyone access to the web. Could we argue that a company forcing IE 6 on employees is violating human rights?
This argument is just absurd. Apple isn't denying anyone access to the web. Could we argue that a company forcing IE 6 on employees is violating human rights?
We were suggested for the lawsuit an approach quite similar to what you describe. However, it seemed less likely to succeed quickly.
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.
It's the Chrome version of the apple store also restricted in its html5 features?
Afaik All 'browsers' in the app store have to be just a skin on top of Safari. Apple has rules against independent rendering code.
Calling it a 'skin on top of Safari' does not really do justice to all the hard work my team has been putting in Firefox for iOS.
Apple gives you (limited) access to WebKit. Basically: a rectangular area on the screen that renders web content. To 'skin' it, you have to build a browser application around that. A complete application that handles tabs, user settings, sync, history, bookmarks, reader mode, anything that does not happen in that 'rectangular view that renders web content'.
Apple gives you (limited) access to WebKit. Basically: a rectangular area on the screen that renders web content. To 'skin' it, you have to build a browser application around that. A complete application that handles tabs, user settings, sync, history, bookmarks, reader mode, anything that does not happen in that 'rectangular view that renders web content'.
The simple truth is that 99% of the time when browsing is spent on that "rectangular area".
Maybe the term "skin" is not adequate, but IMO the features added by Chrome and Firefox on iOS are not that significant for the browsing experience compared to the "rectangular area". Thanks to Apple, WKWebView based browsers are always going to be second class citizens.
Personally I never understood why you decided to move to iOS. I think you should have stick to your guns.
Maybe the term "skin" is not adequate, but IMO the features added by Chrome and Firefox on iOS are not that significant for the browsing experience compared to the "rectangular area". Thanks to Apple, WKWebView based browsers are always going to be second class citizens.
Personally I never understood why you decided to move to iOS. I think you should have stick to your guns.
If you mean the Android store, then no. You can for example find the "real" Firefox on the Google Play store. (The one on the Apple store is a Safari skin which has the problems the article points out)
Sorry, I didn't express myself correctly. I meant this chrome app[1] in the apple store. I was wondering if people with iPhones can at least install a different browser to take advantage of those features. But if you say that it's just a skin they are pretty much trapped there.
[1] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/google-chrome-fast-secure/id...
[1] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/google-chrome-fast-secure/id...
The fact that Apple doesn't allow competing browsers on iOS is what the entire article is about. It's why the article's authors are suing Apple.
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/
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...
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/
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...
> 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.
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.
I don't understand how they can ever have parity though. Whatever a html/javascript web app can do is always going to work better in a native browser, regardless of your platform.
True, but the question is really how much better. Phone hardware is nowadays sufficiently advanced to draw DOM trees and handle mouse clicks in reasonable time and with reasonable energy.
>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.
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.
> Apple already spends tons of money to make an OS and a dev SDK for it.
Developers have to spend tons of money in building and maintaining cross platform apps written in any way: native, hybrid, or with a VM like NativeScript does.
In the real world budgets are limited and going native isn't always an option. Apple acts as if native was the only viable option, and as if we only had to develop apps for iOS.
Developers have to spend tons of money in building and maintaining cross platform apps written in any way: native, hybrid, or with a VM like NativeScript does.
In the real world budgets are limited and going native isn't always an option. Apple acts as if native was the only viable option, and as if we only had to develop apps for iOS.
> 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.
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.
> From ordinary users, nobody cares about the web platform on mobile. Native apps are faster
> All iPhone apps are web apps (C) S. Jobs
ヽ( ´¬`)ノ
> All iPhone apps are web apps (C) S. Jobs
ヽ( ´¬`)ノ
At some point the browser becomes an OS, eh? I can't stand Apple, and their reasons for poor treatment of web-apps are surely from pure greed as you note, but I can't help but not care in this case.
The web-app development paradigm is terrible and can't die fast enough.
The web-app development paradigm is terrible and can't die fast enough.
> Safari on mobile is pretty up to date as mobile technologies come. Google Chrome is hardly any better: http://mobilehtml5.org/
Safari on iOS is missing ten checkboxes in your link; Chrome on Android is missing two.
Safari on iOS is missing ten checkboxes in your link; Chrome on Android is missing two.
This also shows how much checkboxes mean: the last version tested there is Mobile Safari 9. We are currently at 10, which has a huge number of improvements in the area of JavaScript and HTML5 standards.
You probably never used "add to homescreen" before.
PS. 50% of these group of apps are web applications - https://postimg.org/image/59r83pe5f/
Why shouldn't i be an ordinary user? All of these web apps are money related ;)
PS. 50% of these group of apps are web applications - https://postimg.org/image/59r83pe5f/
Why shouldn't i be an ordinary user? All of these web apps are money related ;)
What feature does AliExpress on Android have that isnt supported by Safari?
Is that DHL site using Web Push Notifications for either Android or Apple platforms?
Is that DHL site using Web Push Notifications for either Android or Apple platforms?
In the example of using web applications on mobile, this is a apprioriate screenshot. Not for something else
>You probably never used "add to homescreen" before
Used it. Never liked it.
>Why shouldn't i be an ordinary user? All of these web apps are money related ;)
Ordinary user meant as in about numbers/outliers, not about some specific characteristic of the user.
Used it. Never liked it.
>Why shouldn't i be an ordinary user? All of these web apps are money related ;)
Ordinary user meant as in about numbers/outliers, not about some specific characteristic of the user.
Web apps are cheaper and faster to develop. This makes it possible to try more new ideas and serve more niche markets that might not justify the upfront cost of full-blown native development. Why not let developers and users have a choice here?
Fancy graphics are not really the issue. It's things like service workers and shadow dom that are really crucial.
Fancy graphics are not really the issue. It's things like service workers and shadow dom that are really crucial.
"Web apps are cheaper and faster to develop." - Depends who you ask. This is a very grey area and it heavily depends on the type of app.
I've never heard anyone argue that developing native apps on two platforms (iOS + Android) is cheaper than developing a single web app that works on every device (including desktop).
I'm genuinely curious - is that actually a commonly held opinion?
I'm genuinely curious - is that actually a commonly held opinion?
Yeah it does depend on the app but a lot of things can be prototyped and iterated on a lot faster on the web. Building a real native app can come later, if necessary, once the idea has been validated.
> Safari on mobile is pretty up to date as mobile technologies come.
Quite the contrary. The number of bugs (which in many cases are many years old) and non standard behaviours on Safari for iOS is astounding.
For example not being able to set the height on an <iframe> tag.
Quite the contrary. The number of bugs (which in many cases are many years old) and non standard behaviours on Safari for iOS is astounding.
For example not being able to set the height on an <iframe> tag.
Yes, but people DO care about bad web browsing experiences. False correlation here.
Which is beside the point, as here we're talking about web apps, not mere browsing.
Is there much missing from Safari for 99% of web browsing needs?
Is there much missing from Safari for 99% of web browsing needs?
Google Cloud Messaging for Push Notification is one great features which iOS stunted support for. It's amazing on Android, users can subscribe through a webpage, receive push notifications for news and stuff after leaving or closing the site. It's as if they have a native app installed and it's great for engagement. Shamefully not easily implementable on iOS like on Android.
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... [1]: https://twitter.com/CraftyDeano/status/779461778677895169
"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... [1]: https://twitter.com/CraftyDeano/status/779461778677895169
Perhaps they should do more about HTML 5 features ( which is holding back the mobile web) instead of js execution.
This just means they can do it, but they won't due to own personal gains
This just means they can do it, but they won't due to own personal gains
Or at least allow other browsers to compete on the platform.
This!!!! I cannot believe that Apple is allowed (even by EU) to only allow their own browser on App Store. Having a choice is always good.
If it was Microsoft, the story would have been completely different today.
If it was Microsoft, the story would have been completely different today.
Microsoft's problem was that they had a monopoly of the market and were distorting it. Apple has nowhere near close to a monopoly on the smartphone market, and there still is plenty of innovation in the 'mobile web' happening.
Microsoft had 90% percent marketshare in the '90s. Apple is not in that position.
>If it was Microsoft, the story would have been completely different today
Yes, because, for the 10000th time: Microsoft was a monopoly in the desktop market.
Apple has never been a monopoly on the phone market.
Yes, because, for the 10000th time: Microsoft was a monopoly in the desktop market.
Apple has never been a monopoly on the phone market.
Both can be true.
Speed is an important metric, but only up to a point. Once a browser renders a page faster than a user can interact with it any further improvement has very little impact. Any phone released in the past year or two meets that criteria for a well constructed page (obviously a badly written site is always going to perform badly, even on the best hardware.)
So, while it may be true that an Android phone is 5x slower than a new iPhone, that doesn't make a difference to the end user. They see the website working well on both devices. At that point it starts being about features, so iOS's lack of support for WebRTC, Beacons, Gamepads, Fetch, etc means the experience is worse. Not that Android supports everything, but if you compare iOS Safari to Chrome on Android[1] it's very clear that Safari is behind, even if it's faster.
[1] http://caniuse.com/#compare=ios_saf+10,and_chr+51
So, while it may be true that an Android phone is 5x slower than a new iPhone, that doesn't make a difference to the end user. They see the website working well on both devices. At that point it starts being about features, so iOS's lack of support for WebRTC, Beacons, Gamepads, Fetch, etc means the experience is worse. Not that Android supports everything, but if you compare iOS Safari to Chrome on Android[1] it's very clear that Safari is behind, even if it's faster.
[1] http://caniuse.com/#compare=ios_saf+10,and_chr+51
As pages get more and more complex (say, because they have new fancy HTML5 APIs) that performance actually begins to matter, right?
I'm a web developer and I don't feel like iOS Safari is holding me back in producing the types of web experiences that myself or my clients are looking for. They're not asking for HTML5 Gamepad support. Instead, they just want an image carousel - Chrome doesn't support that but Safari does http://caniuse.com/#search=snap.
I'm a web developer and I don't feel like iOS Safari is holding me back in producing the types of web experiences that myself or my clients are looking for. They're not asking for HTML5 Gamepad support. Instead, they just want an image carousel - Chrome doesn't support that but Safari does http://caniuse.com/#search=snap.
How are the two related at all? You point at the performance of Apple's browsers and imply that means they are likely spec-compliant as well.
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).
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.
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.
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
Maybe the confusion is that Chrome =/= Android Browser
> You can definitely build a slider natively...
Nope http://caniuse.com/#search=snap
Nope http://caniuse.com/#search=snap
You don't need snap to build a slider natively. Also interestingly snap is NOT supported when Safari is rendering stuff in a different app, only when you're actually in the Safari App.
As the note says, WKWebView is an embeddable web view for apps. This is what iOS Chrome uses FWIW.
Doh, that is precisely the whole problem being discussed here.
WKWebView is a mess just like UIWebView.
WKWebView is a mess just like UIWebView.
"Build natively" means to create it yourself in vanilla JavaScript, like this 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?
"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.
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)
Isn't that the point of this article? I don't think it's fair to criticize Apple for lagging HTML5 support in iOS, then say "what's the use of this element?" when it cuts the other way.
The criticism isn't that they are lagging HTML5 support in iOS(although it would be valid- that's no reason to sue), it's that they are specifically avoiding parts of the implementation to protect their platform. Things like full screen support, notifications, etc
[deleted]
Are you kidding me? "Which Android" doesn't even make sense in terms of the browser, it's not tied to OS releases and is therefore the same on every phone (except freaking Samsung... Their browser is even worse than Safari). Maybe WordPress sites that need a "carousel" work better on iOS, but I can't tell you how many times I've had to go back and fix something because it won't work on iOS right. I can tell you, however, that that number is now higher than it is for ie10. So yes, it IS the new internet explorer.
thanks for writing that, now it's obvious you've never touched any frontend code
Amen.
Isn't it obvious?
If they supported things like PWAs and other mobile web initiatives, people could build applications that run seamlessly on their phone, look like native apps etc, and they wouldn't go through their highly lucrative app store.
As phones get more and more powerful and things come along and mature like webgl etc, the reliance on native apps drops more and more. As does Apple's control.
Maybe I should get back under my tinfoil hat, idk, but that is my guess as to where their reluctance comes from.
If they supported things like PWAs and other mobile web initiatives, people could build applications that run seamlessly on their phone, look like native apps etc, and they wouldn't go through their highly lucrative app store.
As phones get more and more powerful and things come along and mature like webgl etc, the reliance on native apps drops more and more. As does Apple's control.
Maybe I should get back under my tinfoil hat, idk, but that is my guess as to where their reluctance comes from.
Mobile safari was literally one of the reasons we decided to build an app instead of just having a mobile optimized website. So if that's they're strategy, it's working. Though it is a free app so it's not working _that_ well.
For Apple, the App Store is not 'highly lucrative'.
Really? Don't they make 30% on every sale, including any subscriptions, iaps, and basically any money that changes hands? Don't they make it impossible for you to sell software that runs on iOS devices without them taking a cut? Wouldn't PWAs + some kind of external payment engine (paypal or whatever) completely bypass this?
I realise they also make a lot on hardware, but it seems like that's a revenue stream they wouldn't want to lose.
I realise they also make a lot on hardware, but it seems like that's a revenue stream they wouldn't want to lose.
Their financial statements are pretty clear. Hardware is highly lucrative. Services, like the app store, are only recently consistently profitable. They definitely wouldn't intentionally make their devices less desirable to customers to increase service revenue.
Do you have any thoughts as to why they don't allow people to install things from outside of the app store? Or why they require all purchases through apps to go through their payment methods where they take a 30% cut?
Because it is definitely making devices less desirable. I presume you still can't buy books from the Kindle iOS app, for example. I know you can't sub on twitch on iOS.
To continue with the kindle example, Amazon could build a kindle PWA that works offline, allows you to buy books, and in every way works identically to their thick client app (it's just displaying text after all, it's not technically demanding). And Apple wouldn't be able to block them from allowing you to buy things, because you're effectively just using a web browser.
Because it is definitely making devices less desirable. I presume you still can't buy books from the Kindle iOS app, for example. I know you can't sub on twitch on iOS.
To continue with the kindle example, Amazon could build a kindle PWA that works offline, allows you to buy books, and in every way works identically to their thick client app (it's just displaying text after all, it's not technically demanding). And Apple wouldn't be able to block them from allowing you to buy things, because you're effectively just using a web browser.
Because they want control over their platform and one (but not the only) reason for that control is to deliver a consistent and safer experience to their users. The app store is a part of that control but it's not some moneymaker.
The fact that you can't install random apps from anywhere on an iPhone doesn't make the device less desirable to anyone, statistically. Incidentally, if you have source, you can install an app on your phone without paying a dime to anyone.
The fact that you can't install random apps from anywhere on an iPhone doesn't make the device less desirable to anyone, statistically. Incidentally, if you have source, you can install an app on your phone without paying a dime to anyone.
It is, because having a superior app ecosystem is one of the strongest selling points of Apple devices vs the competition.
If speed is truly the deciding factor, the Links text-only web browser is pretty fast.
I can single handedly can make the faster browser the world has ever seen, by only displaying a white page.
Don't use speed as an argument.
Don't use speed as an argument.
Why not? Speed is a perfectly valid criterion for a browser's usability.
The problem is not hardware speed, as you point out, but software.
It would be lovely to see a real Chrome benchmark on iOS, but alas, Apple doesn't want that to happen.
It would be lovely to see a real Chrome benchmark on iOS, but alas, Apple doesn't want that to happen.
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.
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.
Isn't bringing up security a red herring in this case?
Desktop operating systems are arguably less secure than iOS, yet Google and Mozilla have already finished it and Microsoft is close to finishing it.
Yet Apple can't even confirm they'll eventually try it? How is that a security limitation?
Desktop operating systems are arguably less secure than iOS, yet Google and Mozilla have already finished it and Microsoft is close to finishing it.
Yet Apple can't even confirm they'll eventually try it? How is that a security limitation?
Except French law doesn't care about reality when it comes to these kinds of disputes. This is a country that makes it nearly impossible to fire employees despite a company needing to downsize due to reduced revenues or other legitimate business situations. Also France doesn't have much to lose by siding against Apple -- it isn't as if they have a large employee base here and thus a limited number of people available to start fires and throw rocks if the ruling goes against Apple. (See what would happen if the French government had sided with Uber for example.) Also look at how France denied the sale of Dailymotion to a US company and are waging a constant battle against AirBnB and Uber -- even going so far as to fund a series of taxi apps using taxpayer money.
Am I being unfair in this case? Maybe, however, I do own a (very) small business in France and it is fair to say that France is hostile towards business -- and for a company like Apple, the French courts would rule against them just out of spite. A small, insignificant French startup going against 'American' Apple -- it's no contest. Apple has a good chance of losing this fight. If this startup we're going against Peugeot however, the startup would get crushed because the Peugeot constituency is much more politically 'dangerous.'
I admit I am highly cynical but the reality is that there is no upside to a French court siding with Apple in terms of politics.
However I have to ask: what's the desired remedy of this company? Do they actually think a French court is going to rule that Apple must develop technology to support the claims of this company or are they seeking to get paid? Is there actually an injury here? My phone doesn't make pizza, so could I sue to force Apple to adopt pizza making technology assuming such technology existed on Android?
The argument that Android can do it is interesting, given Android's market share, a monopoly argument would be difficult to make against Apple. This company seems mad because their target market uses iPhone -- that sounds like a business problem rather than something that's Apple's fault. If their product were so vital and compelling, customers would switch if they were so inclined -- much how people switched from the ubiquitous Blackberry -- even 'top' executives.
Additionally, more to the parent comment's point -- are consumers being harmed by not being able to use this company's products? Probably not. If fact, it could be argued that consumers are being protected from potentially unsafe situations. So what is the greater good here?
Also what's stopping them from writing an app to do what they want? HTML 5 is a particular technology, however everything they want to do could be done in Swift.
Should we sue Android for not allowing us to use Swift and iOS APIs when building apps?
I do agree that I wish WebRTC could run on iOS Safari (or any Safari for that matter,) because my startup deals with video conferencing, however this certainly isn't the way to 'force' them.
Am I being unfair in this case? Maybe, however, I do own a (very) small business in France and it is fair to say that France is hostile towards business -- and for a company like Apple, the French courts would rule against them just out of spite. A small, insignificant French startup going against 'American' Apple -- it's no contest. Apple has a good chance of losing this fight. If this startup we're going against Peugeot however, the startup would get crushed because the Peugeot constituency is much more politically 'dangerous.'
I admit I am highly cynical but the reality is that there is no upside to a French court siding with Apple in terms of politics.
However I have to ask: what's the desired remedy of this company? Do they actually think a French court is going to rule that Apple must develop technology to support the claims of this company or are they seeking to get paid? Is there actually an injury here? My phone doesn't make pizza, so could I sue to force Apple to adopt pizza making technology assuming such technology existed on Android?
The argument that Android can do it is interesting, given Android's market share, a monopoly argument would be difficult to make against Apple. This company seems mad because their target market uses iPhone -- that sounds like a business problem rather than something that's Apple's fault. If their product were so vital and compelling, customers would switch if they were so inclined -- much how people switched from the ubiquitous Blackberry -- even 'top' executives.
Additionally, more to the parent comment's point -- are consumers being harmed by not being able to use this company's products? Probably not. If fact, it could be argued that consumers are being protected from potentially unsafe situations. So what is the greater good here?
Also what's stopping them from writing an app to do what they want? HTML 5 is a particular technology, however everything they want to do could be done in Swift.
Should we sue Android for not allowing us to use Swift and iOS APIs when building apps?
I do agree that I wish WebRTC could run on iOS Safari (or any Safari for that matter,) because my startup deals with video conferencing, however this certainly isn't the way to 'force' them.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Anyways you were a fool for believing it.
Yes, exactly my thoughts as well. Good thing you said it first :).
Blackberry CEO back in 2010[0]:
[1]: https://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/2015/11/flash-html5-an...
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 said that it will now "encourage content creators to build with ne
web standards," such as HTML5, rather than Flash.
[1]: https://blogs.adobe.com/conversations/2015/11/flash-html5-an...
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.
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.
Apple bashing Adobe was for much more than standards, but for keeping aspects out of their mobile browser that they felt caused either security or performance issues. I feel that their stance on this is honestly fairly consistant with that.
Well, Apple was bashing Adobe for anything and everything. I remember they bashed Adobe for being late to finish moving to Cocoa, at a time when some core Apple products hadn't moved yet (e.g. Finder, IIRC).
I remember Google I/O 2010 when Google made a big push to drive Flash support as a differentiator for Android, but every single attempt to demo Flash on a mobile device crashed it.
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.
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.
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".
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".
Some legal comments on the law (in French):
http://www.efl.fr/actualites/affaires/contrats-regles-commun...
Basically, if there was a clause in the Apple Store contract that said "to publish your software on our platform, you must give us three fingers of your right hand and your first born son", a judge could declare it void.
Basically, if there was a clause in the Apple Store contract that said "to publish your software on our platform, you must give us three fingers of your right hand and your first born son", a judge could declare it void.
I feel that it's fair (at least the bean argument):
Say I ran a couple of farms which grew beans and employed 250 people to work on my farms. What would happen if my main customer Carrefour, one of the biggest supermarkets in France, decided to stop selling my beans and sold only theirs (grown and packed in a foreign country)?
I could try and sell to local shops, but it's unlikely they would buy the same volume as Carrefour. Or I could try and sell to another big supermarket, but they probably already have enough beans from other suppliers.
I'd probably have to let go of a lot of people, or even shut down the business, which would mean a lot of people would be out of work, and most likely relying on the welfare system to support them. So in return for a megacorp boosting their profits slightly, the country has to pay a lot in return to support unemployed people.
(How it applies in this case to Apple I'm not really sure though :P)
Say I ran a couple of farms which grew beans and employed 250 people to work on my farms. What would happen if my main customer Carrefour, one of the biggest supermarkets in France, decided to stop selling my beans and sold only theirs (grown and packed in a foreign country)?
I could try and sell to local shops, but it's unlikely they would buy the same volume as Carrefour. Or I could try and sell to another big supermarket, but they probably already have enough beans from other suppliers.
I'd probably have to let go of a lot of people, or even shut down the business, which would mean a lot of people would be out of work, and most likely relying on the welfare system to support them. So in return for a megacorp boosting their profits slightly, the country has to pay a lot in return to support unemployed people.
(How it applies in this case to Apple I'm not really sure though :P)
That would be your fault for basing your business on the support from another. Carrafour has no obligation to you. You're the one that built a business ignoring the real distribution risk of relying upon one company. That's on you.
>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.
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.
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.)
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)
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)
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.
"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.
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.
> which browser engine has 100% es6 support?
They were talking about HTML5 standards, not JavaScript standards. Standards like fullscreen support and notifications.
> It's HN so apple is the work of the devil and Google is basically Jesus returned
No one here has made such hyperbole except you.
They were talking about HTML5 standards, not JavaScript standards. Standards like fullscreen support and notifications.
> It's HN so apple is the work of the devil and Google is basically Jesus returned
No one here has made such hyperbole except you.
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.
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.
It's more that Apple is being very selective about which features to not include. Full screen support? Why would you not have that implemented yet in iOS? Notifications... all of these things lead to the conclusion that this isn't about security, it's about protecting the platform.
It certainly appears to be an abuse of one's monopolistic position.
Edit: That is not allowing an alternate browser to be the default.
Edit: That is not allowing an alternate browser to be the default.
Certainly? How so?
I'm also very curious about the monopoly. iOS has an estimated 13% market share.
I'm also very curious about the monopoly. iOS has an estimated 13% market share.
It really depends how you define the market. If we look countrywide [0] France has ~20% iOS, here in the UK we have ~40%.
But the product my company is selling (in the UK) is currently faced with a OS distribution of ~80% iOS and ~20% Android (some small number of web only clients). Why? We hypothesise that our customers have greater cashflow than the average Brit and as such the iPhone is much more popular choice.
It is also worth noting that this dominance has caused us to drop at least one feature from our product because the iOS devices seemingly have no way of reliably running a process in the background.
[0] http://uk.businessinsider.com/apple-ios-v-android-market-sha...
But the product my company is selling (in the UK) is currently faced with a OS distribution of ~80% iOS and ~20% Android (some small number of web only clients). Why? We hypothesise that our customers have greater cashflow than the average Brit and as such the iPhone is much more popular choice.
It is also worth noting that this dominance has caused us to drop at least one feature from our product because the iOS devices seemingly have no way of reliably running a process in the background.
[0] http://uk.businessinsider.com/apple-ios-v-android-market-sha...
By your logic I could release an iOS only app and then claim iOS has a 100% monopoly because no one uses my app on android.
As for the background processes: that's by design. Only specific types of apps that have legitimate broad-appeal use cases for background processes (eg voip apps) are allowed.
There is a reason Apple products have high customer satisfaction survey results: a product is not just whatever shit you can throw together.
As for the background processes: that's by design. Only specific types of apps that have legitimate broad-appeal use cases for background processes (eg voip apps) are allowed.
There is a reason Apple products have high customer satisfaction survey results: a product is not just whatever shit you can throw together.
No you have completely misunderstood 'my logic'.
I was illustrating how product share depends on the market definition. I did not give a definition for a monopoly. This illustration could showed both that the parent comments' statistic is irrelevant/incorrect and that the market share is likely to vary significantly across a geographical population.
As for the background processes. I know that is by design. Believe it or not we are allowed by Apple to run our background process in a similar vein to most other Apps. Unfortunately the background process mechanism is not reliable enough for us. Hence why I said 'reliable'. Apple have no intention of improving this situation as we are not a large enough revenue stream.
I was illustrating how product share depends on the market definition. I did not give a definition for a monopoly. This illustration could showed both that the parent comments' statistic is irrelevant/incorrect and that the market share is likely to vary significantly across a geographical population.
As for the background processes. I know that is by design. Believe it or not we are allowed by Apple to run our background process in a similar vein to most other Apps. Unfortunately the background process mechanism is not reliable enough for us. Hence why I said 'reliable'. Apple have no intention of improving this situation as we are not a large enough revenue stream.
I wonder what it would take for Android and IOS to be treated as distinct markets so that we can make progress on the plethora of anti-consumer and anti-competitive issues. For a market as large, valuable and consequential as "mobile platform", only ever looking at percentage seems too simplistic.
Android is not a like for like replacement. A customer is not "free" to change platform because there are large financial penalties if they have invested in an ecosystem due to deliberate decisions to create lock-in - they lose all the media, software and peripherals they have purchased.
Android is not a like for like replacement. A customer is not "free" to change platform because there are large financial penalties if they have invested in an ecosystem due to deliberate decisions to create lock-in - they lose all the media, software and peripherals they have purchased.
Yes, that's exactly what is going on. Apple has market power from the lock-in they've established. Apple is abusing their market power to force customers on their platform to use their browser engine (and no others). Whether or not Apple has a monopoly is beside the point. This is anti-competitive behavior and if it is having a significant impact, it should be scrutinized and regulated.
In the US, all of the anti-competition laws more or less get described as monopoly law or anti-trust law. But distributor and partner programs have to be careful about laws in this category that have more to do with cartels and avoiding a situation where independent companies are agreeing not to compete. Those laws are more carefully enforced on monopolies but often hit individual manufacturers, etc.
19.3% market share in France according to this [0]. Not what would normally pass as a monopoly.
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/274123/market-share-held...
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/274123/market-share-held...
Yeah but Safari has pretty much 100% market share among iOS users.
As a web developer, Safari is a huge pain for me. Most of the time I can develop on Firefox and stick to the standards and most of the modern and/or commonly used browsers are fine. But Safari will have issues, and since I don't own any Apple devices and can't run Safari on the devices I've got, it's difficult to figure out which standard Safari isn't paying attention to and develop a workaround.
As a web developer, Safari is a huge pain for me. Most of the time I can develop on Firefox and stick to the standards and most of the modern and/or commonly used browsers are fine. But Safari will have issues, and since I don't own any Apple devices and can't run Safari on the devices I've got, it's difficult to figure out which standard Safari isn't paying attention to and develop a workaround.
When you develop in X you usually have problems with not X. Even when Safari and Chrome were working together on WebKit there were still differences.
Apple is the single biggest manufacturer with a 41% share of the US market.
http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Market-Rankings/comScore-Re...
http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Market-Rankings/comScore-Re...
Do you believe this makes them a monopoly?
40% is a threshold for "abuse of dominant position" enforcement actions in the UK.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...
It might be 13%, but it's a rather loyal user base.
Being whimsical about what would or would not appear on the App Store is certainly abusive.
--
Somewhat unrelated: https://blog.kapeli.com/apple-removed-dash-from-the-app-stor...
Being whimsical about what would or would not appear on the App Store is certainly abusive.
--
Somewhat unrelated: https://blog.kapeli.com/apple-removed-dash-from-the-app-stor...
Would a duopoly be more accurate for you?
Duopolies aren’t problematic in the eyes of the law.
On that note, neither are monopolies. The problem comes when a monopoly is leveraged to stop other companies from competing.
On that note, neither are monopolies. The problem comes when a monopoly is leveraged to stop other companies from competing.
I think winning in civil court is less likely than triggering a review and fines by the EU. If I were in Apple's shoes, I would fix this now that Microsoft wont distract anyone from their behavior. Any one of these butterflies could land on the wrong desk.
The Law that is being used actually gives power to the French Minister of Economy to cancel the provisions that bring 'déséquilibre significatif entre les droits et obligations des parties'. It can be very fast. It has already been used.
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.
The application is sandboxed but Apple does not really want to let third parties to put native compilers on their platform. I wonder if they could allow third party rendering engines but still force people to use Nitro (or how is their javascript engine called nowadays).
I think this is possible right now. The restriction in the license agreement only applies to executing code, not HTML rendering or network transfers. Since iOS 8 (I think), you can use JavaScriptCore separately from WebKit. So it should be possible to ship a browser app that uses its own renderer, as long as you replace the JavaScript engine with Apple's, but I don't know if that's worth the bother. Also, it will also run slower, because only the Safari app is permitted to do JIT compilation.
Since iOS8 all apps using can get JIT compilation if they use the WkWebView. From what I gather the JavaScriptCore does do JIT as well.
So, maybe it would be possible to build a browser that has its own renderer but uses JSC for javascript. But then, I suppose that most if not all of the demanded features are not HTML5 but actually javascript.
So, maybe it would be possible to build a browser that has its own renderer but uses JSC for javascript. But then, I suppose that most if not all of the demanded features are not HTML5 but actually javascript.
Third party code execution environments seems like a bit of a slippery slope that I can understand Apple wanting to avoid.
You can run C++ code in iOS, except if that code is functioning as a browser rendering DOM and running JS
Pythonista presumably runs Python on the device and is allowed on the App Store.
I guess the restriction is about downloading and executing software, not executing alone?
Which is surprising tbh given Apple's rules and actions.
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.
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.
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.
I think their decision is about a lot of things including the App Store, but security is certainly one.
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.
With just that smaller change people could start using any of the existing alternatives available right now.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ah, I see, thank you for the clarification.
That would indeed be beneficial.
That would indeed be beneficial.
I think they just ask for Apple to let developers publish custom web browsers (not based on Apple WebKit) on the App Store, which is currently not allowed by Apple.
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.
Apple is not that much dominant like Microsoft or IBM in the past.
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.
This is still their market to lose.
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.
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.
Apple accounts for about 1/8 of smartphone shipments (http://www.idc.com/prodserv/smartphone-os-market-share.jsp) and 1/4 of mobile web traffic (http://marketshare.hitslink.com). Based on those numbers, I don't think you can say they own the mobile space. They may be the most influential company in it, but they have real, effective competition
Sport cars are often compared to Ferrari, but we don't say that Ferrari "owns a car space". iOS falls behind Android in pretty much every market share statistics I've seen.
No. They own just "their portion" of the mobile space.
There are more Android phones in the market than iOS. It's very hard to say that iOS is abusing their position of 'power' and negatively influencing the browser market like Microsoft was back when.
There are more Android phones in the market than iOS. It's very hard to say that iOS is abusing their position of 'power' and negatively influencing the browser market like Microsoft was back when.
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. :)
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.)
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.".
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.
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?
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.
They don't own the platform where the ERP runs, apple does.
Nobody is making them support the iPhone.
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?
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?
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.
Most game consoles since the NES have had lock-out technology, and that's legal everywhere, as far as I know.
iPhone and Android ARE the market, not only OSes.
From the press release, I'm not sure anyone is stopping them from developing on iOS.
What they don't like is that they have to write some different code on iOS and that costs them money. IANAL but I'd be a bit surprised if "write once, run anywhere" is enshrined in French law.
What they don't like is that they have to write some different code on iOS and that costs them money. IANAL but I'd be a bit surprised if "write once, run anywhere" is enshrined in French law.
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.
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.
>Why we are suing Apple for better HTML5 support in iOS
Because you don't know how the law works?
Because you don't know how the law works?
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.
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.
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.
Good luck guys!! Apple is the only company now who slows down the innovation in web.
There is a reason why Safari is called "the new Internet Explorer"
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.
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.
> 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?
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?
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.
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.
Actually, very different from Microsoft.
Apple has plenty of competition and the mobile web has not stalled.
Apple has plenty of competition and the mobile web has not stalled.
Apple's rendering engine is already open. That isn't what the lawsuit is about. It's about opening the operating environment to other browsers (or rather, other rendering engines).
[deleted]
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.
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.
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.
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.
WKWebView is supposed to fix this issue.
https://developer.apple.com/reference/webkit/wkwebview
https://developer.apple.com/reference/webkit/wkwebview
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...
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...
Probably not the best way to renew their interest in web standards
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.
[deleted]
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.
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.
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.
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.
Microsoft had a functional monopoly on the desktop at the time of the IE wars.
Android phones are currently outshipping iOS about 4 to 1 http://www.idc.com/prodserv/smartphone-os-market-share.jsp
Android phones are currently outshipping iOS about 4 to 1 http://www.idc.com/prodserv/smartphone-os-market-share.jsp
> 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.
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.
Hard to argue they are not decreasing competition and not being anti-competitive when the TOS you quote specifically disallows competition. They literally prevent people from creating apps that compete with their own system apps. Again, at least you had the option of installing Netscape on Microsoft.
And I'm writing this from my iPhone. I don't love or hate Apple. But I don't think what they're doing is different than Microsoft.
And I'm writing this from my iPhone. I don't love or hate Apple. But I don't think what they're doing is different than Microsoft.
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?
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?
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
I feel like "You as a company must allow your products to run X software" is a terrible, terrible precedent to set.
This is in french court not US .European courts in general do not see it that way, Microsoft could not get away the same way with IE and Windows in european courts
Hard to know. If a court decision forces them to allow other browser (engines) on iOS and people start moving away from Safari Apple may decide that it is in their best interest to make Safari the best web experience if they want to (re)attract those customers. See Microsoft and Edge.
Right, but I know Apple has argued at W3C against certain web standards and for others on the basis of security in a mobile context, power efficiency and functional alignment with touch UI behaviours. We don't know why Apple has chosen to implement some features (so far) and not others. Do you really want French courts deciding those kinds of technical decisions or taking those decisions away from mobile platform vendors?
Apple's lack of support goes far beyond conscientious protest like you're suggesting. Mobile Safari has simple, egregious bugs that have been open for years. We're talking about things like being able to crash the browser with CSS or file selection, etc. I know this discussion is more feature oriented, but it's impossible to make the case that Apple is just rejecting features for the sake of the user.
Sure, that's the point of the standards process. Apple made their argument as a full member of the W3C and other standards committees. If they weren't convincing enough and the committee choose to go another way with the standard, then it's Apple's responsibility to accept that decision. After all, if the decision had gone their way, they'd expect the other vendors to adhere to it.
A standards body is not a suicide pact. If the standard in insecure, Apple should absolutely refuse to implement it.
If a standard is insecure, all of the members of the standards body should be able to recognize that and change the standard. If that hasn't happened, then the other members must not agree that the standard has a security problem. Maybe it's something else Apple wanted to do that's conflicting with the standard and causing the security problem, just for them.
You're not considering the obvious: different parties put different importance on security, performance, etc.
Webrtc absolutely has a security/privacy issue whereby local network information is exposed to the JavaScript environment of the page.
So, if Google don't think that's a problem, maybe you should ask them why not.
Webrtc absolutely has a security/privacy issue whereby local network information is exposed to the JavaScript environment of the page.
So, if Google don't think that's a problem, maybe you should ask them why not.
Apple can make those arguments all they want but then they should allow third party browsers on iOS and let users have a choice. I don't buy the argument that browser engines somehow pose a unique security risk and have to be completely banned from the platform.
Web browsers are among the most compromised software targets of anything ever.
Exactly. Competition drives innovation and progress.
And there is plenty of competition for the iPhone.
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/) on his iPhone"
[0] - "Anyone running html5test (http://html5test.com/) on his iPhone"
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.
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.
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".
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".
omg, get a life
I just did. 391/555. I ran it against FF 45 and got 429/555. Are we suing Mozilla now for not supporting the standard like we want them to? Obviously not.
Lawsuit is not just about not supporting web standards. It's also about preventing others from doing so. Even if gf 45 supports 48 more features it cannot do so in iOS
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... ) , 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)