11–20 of 238 posts
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)
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Probably not the best way to renew their interest in web standards
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.
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)
Edit: That is not allowing an alternate browser to be the default.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
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)
It certainly appears to be an abuse of one's monopolistic position. Edit: That is not allowing an alternate browser to be the default.
I'm also very curious about the monopoly. iOS has an estimated 13% market share.