Hacker News Reader

Comment by NicoJuicy | Hacker News Reader

Looks like a pr stunt.

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

Internet Access is a "human right" and according to the United Nations ( https://www.article19.org/data/files/Internet_Statement_Adop... ) , 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)

View on HN

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 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

"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..

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.

>they don't know the possibilities an up-to-standards iOS Safari would bring.

To be fair, they also don't care at all.

> 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.

I was waiting for this timeless - and useless - HN riposte.

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 Apple branded devices. Well, ok.

> 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?

McDonalds has a monopoly on McDonalds's hamburgers too.

But McDonalds cannot just put whatever ingredients they want in their burgers. They have to follow rules. Like not putting Nicotine in them.

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.

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"

> everyone here

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.

I really doubt you could pass HTML5 compatibility as a "basic internet access".

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).

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.

Except when WebRTC actually isnt a part of HTML5 (yet), it's only a draft specification.

Stop bringing logic and facts to a pitchforks and torches kind of discussion.

/sarcasm

I upvoted him ;)

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 .

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.

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.

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.

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?

We were suggested for the lawsuit an approach quite similar to what you describe. However, it seemed less likely to succeed quickly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com