I'm not sure I understand this complaint. Having a significant degree of expertise in the legalities of open source licensing, as I do, should raise my criticisms a little above "some people say".
Beyond that, if you're looking for "balance", maybe you can ask the FSF's Chief Compliance Engineer Brett Smith why he hasn't replied to my original emailed questions on this subject, nor to the couple of follow-up "pings" I sent him.
There isn't a lot of "speculation" required here: there's been bad blood between the FSF and Apple for years, entirely at the FSF's instigation. As I've mentioned, Richard Stallman told audiences for some two years that Apple had a "secret back door" in OS X, right up until the point where he was apparently "persuaded" by someone (and my money's on Apple's Legal department) to fully retract that claim and to offer a full apology, on the FSF web site, to Apple for having made defamatory statements about their business that he couldn't back up with a single shred of evidence other than "some people say".
Funny Thing. When you consider that and also the completely unprecedented nature of an "enforcement action" which requires not one, but two, high-profile blog entries on the FSF's site, something whichto the best of my knowledgehas never happened before, you have to wonder a little why Apple is getting such "special treatment" here.
I was hoping that a response from Brett Smith might clarify the FSF's position on GPL-licensed software in Google's Android Market and Microsoft's Windows Marketplace for Mobile. So far, no such response seems forthcoming from the FSF.