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.

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.

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.

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

> 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.

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.

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?

> 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.

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.

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.

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.