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.
Certainly, Apple will reject the app and Opera knows it. Maybe Opera tries to strengthen Apple's "Evil Empire" image and deal with it with the help of EU (just like they did with Microsoft recently).
At least not in the strictest technical sense. It doesn't understand html, etc. ..."just" it's own, highly compressed format; sent to it from Opera servers.
Not that it'll make a difference to Apple.
One that hath name thou can not otter
Hmm. Maybe I can answer my own question. It would be much easier to roll out Opera Mini for iPhone, since it is already implemented in Java (making it OS / hardware independent). If Apple approves Opera Mini, then Opera can begin investing the resources into porting Opera Mobile to the iPhone platform. So perhaps Opera is testing Apple with a low-risk, low-investment browser first. If Apple approves mini, then Opera could perhaps have some legal ground to challenge Apple should they later deny Opera Mobile.
Better known as 318230.
Apple introduced DRM-free tracks in iTunes not long after few European countries expressed the possibility of blocking iTunes outright (not saying that was the only possible reason)
One doesn't have to be a monopoly to be reminded of obligations. Abusive is enough; braking law is enough (as you...sort of pointed out). I wonder which iPhone will finally have removable battery...
One that hath name thou can not otter
But they didn't do that. In any way. They simply didn't include everyone else's browser by default.
A little more egregious than that. They intentionally deviated from HTML standards to cause incompatibilities with other browsers, and they used "security" updates to reset IE as the default browser.
It's nowhere in the same ballpark as what Apple has with the iPhone. But it's a very different beast -- a primary appeal of a Windows machine is the huge list of compatible software. The iPhone wasn't conceived that way -- but it's steadily heading into that territory; wouldn't be surprised if Warren G pays them a visit before too long.
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.
Explain how Apple has engaged in anti-competitive behavior with its tiny OS market share and still-small smartphone market share. (Especially in the EU. Its market share in Europe is even smaller than in the US)
Maybe it's not engaged in anti-competitive behaviour with its tiny smartphone market share, but aren't these apps also available on the iPod? There they have a much higher market share (90% of the hard drive MP3 player market, and 70% of the entire market). Surely locking down competitor apps on the iPod would fall within the anti-competitive behaviour laws? I wonder, if they were forced to open this up on the iPod, would they still keep it locked down on the iPhone - that would be interesting to see (of course, it's all moot until we see if they actually don't allow Opera on iPhones).