Slashdot Mirror
Opera For iPhone To Test Apple's Resolve
Barence writes "Opera is launching a version of its Mini browser for the iPhone in what could prove a landmark decision for Apple's app gatekeepers. Apple has been traditionally hostile to rival browsers, with Mozilla claiming that Apple made it 'too hard' for its rivals to develop a browser for the iPhone. However, Opera remains bullishly confident that its app will be approved. 'We have not submitted Opera Mini to the Apple App store,' an Opera spokesperson told PC Pro. 'However, we hope that Apple will not deny their users a choice in web browsing experience.'" I can't imagine what would motivate them to do that.
Microsoft was forced to do so after being convicted of anti-competitive behaviour. The differences between Apple and Microsoft aside, Apple would be no more forced to apply by the same rules as Microsoft, than you are forced to spent the rest of your days in prison, just because someone else was sentenced that for their crime.
We have not submitted Opera Mini to the Apple App store
Really? Then what the hell is this story about? I read the article through a number of times, but that sentence really doesn''t make any sense. Are they targetiing this at jailbroken phones? Was that quote from some time ago and was unwisely used here?
Perhaps I just need some caffeine, or is my confusion shared by others?
You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
It could be accepted.
Apple forbids code interpreters other than Apple's own, BUT this is Opera Mini, not full Opera Mobile. Mini executes JavaScript server-side and only sends rendered result to the phone. There's likely no (turing-complete) interpreter on iPhone side, so it should be fine within terms of SDK.
Apple has already accepted number of WebKit-based browsers, so browsers in general aren't forbidden.
And for iPhone users, especially on EDGE, there is very good reason to use Opera Mini: it's going to be faster. iPhones before 3GS are also very low on RAM, and Safari only uses RAM for caching. Presumably Opera Mini would be able to keep many more tabs open and fully cached.
Microsoft is very much a Monopoly. The fact that there are other products on the market doesn't change that. It's about market control and position. If Microsoft tomorrow decides that a particular OEM cannot sell Windows, that OEM is dead. If Microsoft decides that a particular business can't run Windows, that particular business as just lost a lot of its data and many of its applications won't run anymore, leaving them dead in the water.
"Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
Apple does not allow developers to develop in Java. You can use a cross compiler to compile from java to Objective-C, but I doubt this is why Opera went with Mini. As I understand it, Opera Mini executes JavaScript on Opera's servers, renders the page and sends a rendered version to the browser. If this is true, it sheds light on why Opera is doing Mini. It does it because Opera Mobile would require a full-fledged javascript interpreter and Apple will not allow an app to provide a platform for scripting or arbitrary code execution. Opera Mobile will not be on the iPhone until this policy changes, but Opera Mini might just be able to get around this restriction.
Web pages are processed by Opera's proxy servers and stripped down for mobile viewing on underpowered devices.
If Opera reduces the bandwidth to the iPhone, then AT&T should be on the front line encouraging Apple to accept the app!
Uhm, Opera Mini is primarily an app for more then a billion or so "feature phones" out there, the ones with j2me; it gives them rather nice browsing experience (especially since many have slow data access and/or data costs are very high)
So of course it will be less featured, that's the point - having a sensible browser on devices which were thought uncapable of running one at all.
That said, latest Opera Mini 5 beta releases show great progress.
One that hath name thou can not otter
I really wish Opera would just go away already. I'm quite happy with IE8/Safari4/Firefox3 lineage no more players needed thank you.
Opera has the source of most big innovations in browsers for quite some years now. If it disappeared, where would firefox addons developpers find ideas of new features to implement?
By using any of their binaries on the same system you do whatever it is you do on encrypted web pages, you trust whomever compiled that binary implicitly. The end-to-"end" encryption of Opera Mini terminates at an Opera, ASA server. The end-to-end encryption of Opera (Desktop) terminates at the control of just that closed-source browser. If they were in it to fuck you over, well, they can.
The same applies to MSIE and Safari (even more, since they're distributed by the OS manufacturers), Chrome (a lot; seeing how much data is exchanged between a typical computer and Google's servers, a lot could be hidden somewhere in there), Firefox (slightly less because development is more visible and done by Mozilla, Google only bankrolls it), for binary-distributions.
But they didn't do that. In any way. They simply didn't include everyone else's browser by default.
Apple would be no more forced to apply by the same rules as Microsoft, than you are forced to spent the rest of your days in prison, just because someone else was sentenced that for their crime.
Or rather, because someone else was sentenced for the same crime you've committed.
It's sad to see comments like yours modded up because they simply indicate how prevalent and popular ignorance is. Your problem and the problem with everyone who modded you up is that you don't know what crime MS was convicted of, or at least what that crime is. MS was convicted of the crime of antitrust abuse, where they undermined the operation of the free market. Apple, not having sufficient influence on any related market, doesn't even have ability to commit this crime with regard to browsers.
Its like someone arguing everyone who goes to the range and fires a pistol should be arrested for murder because they believe murder means "shooting a gun" because someone who shot someone with a gun was convicted of murder. Additionally, they're too willfully ignorant to go educate themselves before spouting off.
You are running a software built by said commercial 3rd-party company. They don't need that server in the middle to see all of those things.
So there's no increase in capability if they are malicious. There is an increase in risk if they are incompetent - and do something like cache requests/responses containing that data.
Microsoft doesn't make and/or sell their own computers. Windows goes on other companies' machines. Microsoft used agreements with those other companies to their advantage against other OS vendors.
Apple makes their own computer. Apple only puts their OS on their computers. Apple's app store only sells to Apple's own hardware. Apple allows competition between products. You can easily chose not to buy an Apple product and live a happy Apple free life. Apple does not allow competition within its products. It's Apple's store for Apple's hardware. Why should any other company have say over what is and isn't on Apple's store for its own products?
If you can't see the difference between Microsoft's dealings with OEMs and Apple wanting control over Apple product lines you must have some pretty hefty blinders on.