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.