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.

Comments

Forced to include in EU?

[DarkHorseman]

First! (Presumably) I wonder how this will play out in EU where MS was forced to include multiple browsers...

Re:Forced to include in EU?

[Carewolf]

First! (Presumably) I wonder how this will play out in EU where MS was forced to include multiple browsers...

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.

Re:Forced to include in EU?

[Rhaban]

Difference is, apple does not have the same market-share on smartphone OSes as microsoft has on desktop OSes.

Re:Forced to include in EU?

[RedK]

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.

Re:Forced to include in EU?

[Anonymous Coward]

a more correct wording would be: microsoft was convicted of shady business practices, and got a "exit of jail free" card with a "we will watch you" condition attached. and this is exactly what is happening.

no law require interoperability and openness of platforms. some states don't punish reverse engineering in the wake of interoperability, but that is another story.

Re:Forced to include in EU?

[Sockatume]

It's not the same thing in practice, though. The actions of a corporation with a near monopoly on the market have different repurcussions than the same actions performed by a minority player. I mean, if Apple's locked down the iPhone browser, they've removed browser developers' ability to compete, and customers' browser choice, but only on the iPhone. They're a minority player in a competitive market, so the remaining 85% of smartphone owners are unaffected, and the 15% with iPhones can switch easily. If Microsoft locks down the Windows browser, they've removed browser developers' ability to reach the overwhelming majority of computer users, and thanks to Windows' near-monopoly, there's precious little to switch to.

Re:Forced to include in EU?

[Grimbleton]

But they didn't do that. In any way. They simply didn't include everyone else's browser by default.

Re:Forced to include in EU?

[Sockatume]

Hence "if". I'm pointing out that identical actions do not lead to identical repurcussions and should not necessarily be treated equally, and probably won't be by the courts.

Re:Forced to include in EU?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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.

Re:Forced to include in EU?

[Richthofen80]

>It's not the same thing in practice, though. The actions of a corporation with a near monopoly on the market have different repurcussions than the same actions performed by a minority player

That's kind of a horseshit argument. That's like saying that if a poor minority smokes crack, its worse because he makes less money and it has a larger impact on his family; but if a rich white guy does it, it's less of a big deal since he's rich and he's not influencing his neighbors and setting a bad example.

Shouldn't the law be blind to the status of the offender? Shouldn't the action itself be the only arbiter of what is a crime, and not the action biased by WHO is committing it? I think it is a terrible precedent to have two sets of laws, one for the 'little guy' and one for the 'big guy'. Then it becomes a less objective 'which guy am I', not 'what actions can I perform'.

Re:Forced to include in EU?

[Fast Thick Pants]

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.

Re:Forced to include in EU?

[Dishevel]

It is as if Microsoft were doing 70 in a monster truck painted bright yellow blaring rap music with the radio turned up to 11 and apple were driving its Prius at 70 while listening to John Denver with the radio at 3. The cop is gonna pull over Microsoft.

Re:Forced to include in EU?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

"Apple, not having sufficient influence on any related market" I believe they're the top pick in the smartphone market right now.

Yeah, Apple has 25% or so market share. Regulators usually start investigating at about 70%.

Locking out a browser would probably be the same thing as Microsoft not allowing browsers on their machines, or saying that IE was "integrated" into Windows.

If Apple had 70% or more of the relevant market, and that market was already established in previous court cases, then it might be the same. There's a long way before we're there though.

Re:Forced to include in EU?

[tomcrick]

...Warren G...

Regulate!

Re:Forced to include in EU?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Your analogy didn't work. A crime is a crime. Circumstances come into play sometimes. You feel that anti-competitive behavior is only illegal for big companies. That's fine.

It doesn't have anything to do with big companies. That's like beating someone to death is only illegal for big strong people and not for infirm grandmothers. The size speaks to capability to commit the crime. An infirm grandmother can come up and punch me and that is not murder. If Mike Tyson does it, it may well be murder. It's not because the law treats boxers and grannies differently, it's just those people have different capabilities to commit the crime.

It doesn't mean we are uneducated. It merely means we differ in our ideas on monopolies, market, and government intervention.

No, it means you misunderstand what the crime is, and don't comprehend the reason for the crime.

What happens when Apple gets big, then we punish them? Is it fair to let them get bigger by being anti-competitive?

But that's just it, Apple is being competitive. They're competing against Dell and RIM and a dozen other companies. What they're doing is legal and in no way undermines the free market. Apple is rewarded and punished for their actions by the operation of the market. Some people will buy alternatives to the iPhone because they want more choice in browsers.

It is only when one company has overwhelming market share for a market that they aren't punished for breaking interoperability or reducing choice. In that case, capitalism is broken. So we made a law to prevent that from happening. Shouldn't you have learned all this in both history and economics classes?

Is it okay for a child to cheat on a test as long as it's not an IMPORTANT test?

That's not even the right question. Rather sometimes it legal but unethical to lie and sometimes it is illegal because it causes significant harm to society.

When does anti-competitive behavior become a crime- 17% market share for some markets is considered dominating. For others, 40% would be dominating, still others not until you have close to 60% or 80%. When is a company big enough to be capable of committing a crime?

Illegal anticompetitive action is measured when a company gains significant influence on a market and uses that to harm competition in another market. A rule of thumb for investigators is 70%, but it is the effect upon the market that determines the law. Can't you just go read the law you're discussing so you actually know this?

Get off your high horse and understand that not all of us just assume the government is right about everything. Some of us view it as our duty to question what the fed says.

Questioning is fine, but question from a position of knowledge with some useful suggestions. Once you understand the laws and the purpose, it makes a lot of sense. So what do you think is wrong with the law? Be specific. What do you propose to change?

Re:Forced to include in EU?

[amicusNYCL]

Are you trying to assert that no update has ever reset the default browser, or just that you haven't installed one that did? If the latter is true, who cares?

Re:Forced to include in EU?

[StuartHankins]

I think the GP is referring to this well-known Bill Gates quote:
* One thing we have got to change in our strategy - allowing Office documents to be rendered very well by other peoples browsers is one of the most destructive things we could do to the company. We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office documents very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE capabilities. o 1998 a memo to the Office product group[2]

Re:Forced to include in EU?

[nine-times]

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.

Well also they put various hooks into the OS so that, regardless of what you set as your default browser, when you clicked on a link within the OS, IE might come up. There were even allegations that they designed some Windows updates specifically to break competing browsers and cause them to crash.

Anyway, it's not *exactly* the same thing, but it's still pretty crummy that Apple won't allow alternative browsers and mail clients. There was a rumor at one point that AT&T was requiring Apple to control application distribution to prevent things like VoIP and tethering, but there's really no excuse for preventing alternate browsers.

I'm a bit of an Apple fan, but they really need to just open up the iPhone and iPad and allow people to download whatever applications you want. For as much as Apple is benefiting right now from open source projects, they should understand the importance of openness.

Re:Forced to include in EU?

[200_success]

The Prius isn't going to stay at 70. As we all know now, Priuses are unstoppable.

Re:Forced to include in EU?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the case of the Prius, it won't matter if the cops try to pull it over, as the brakes don't work, and the accelerator sticks.

I can't decide whether your metaphor is out to lunch or unintentionally insightful.

Re:Forced to include in EU?

[Swift2001]

On the main computer platform, all browsers are available and easy as pie to install -- with the exception of Internet Explorer, which Microsoft stopped developing for the Mac years ago.

On the phone, Apple's Webkit runs on the iPhone, Android, and some other platforms. It's open source, after all. There are already other browsers on the iPhone. Check out the app store. What Opera had done was a weird construction based on Java that they didn't submit to the app store, because it demanded Java, which they know damn well the iPhone doesn't support. Gruber has the story here.

http://daringfireball.net/2008/11/opera_app_store

On the other hand, this PR genius seems to be starting off on the wrong foot. He's basically blackmailing Jobs to prove he's not a bully. That doesn't seem like a negotiation, but like blackmail. But it certainly helps them on Slashdot/Apple, where any wild surmise about the dictatorial Apple is taken as gospel.

Re:Forced to include in EU?

[Swift2001]

If a company is found guilty of monopolistic behavior, the law allows them to be broken up, sold, or disposed of in any way the judge deems correct. In fact, Judge Jackson's suggested restructuring would have resulted in three companies that would have each had a clear mandate. The software division would have concentrated on applications like the Office suite. The OS division would have developed more interoperable systems based on standards, because they wouldn't have been large enough to bully the rest of the world. Still quite large, though. The hardware division might have had a chance against the iPod, because they would have gotten off their asses and had to succeed. The Xbox would have had to survive on its own, and not be able to be sold as a loss leader.

After the company has been found guilty and a remedy -- fine or whatever -- is proposed, the entity is under court scrutiny, like an individual released on probation. For a parolee, talking to the wrong person is enough to put you back in jail, even if it wouldn't be an offense to anyone else.

Re:Forced to include in EU?

[hazydave]

You've been drinkin' the Apple kool-aid. They don't give a flyin' frack about "security problems" or slowdowns due to Java on the iPhone. Which, in fact, don't exist -- every other major smart phone supports Java, some (including Blackberry and Android) are based on Java, and suffer no performance problems.

Any time Apple is called to task on any mis-feature of the iPhone, they cry "stability", "security", and "performance". But the reality is, they want to control competition. They want all competition routed through their control, so they can bless or curse any iPhone application, and ensure they make money on any for-profit app. If they allow Java to run, it will offer an alternate means of running apps, one not controlled by Apple. So they don't allow it. Or Flash, for the very same reasons. Or multitasking, which would then allow any old company to do the things only Apple can do today... for example, build a music player than runs while you're browsing the web or playing a game. Today, only Apple can do that.

All of these things work just dandy on Apple's competition, proving beyond question that Apple's just making this stuff up, so average Joe's don't discover their real motivation.

Re:Forced to include in EU?

[hazydave]

"The rest of us"... well, aren't WE the monopoly today.

You're incorrect, and also, incorrect about "a crime is a crime". Anyone can be anti-competitive. It's only illegal for a monopoly to do so. Period. The monopoly itself is not illegal, only certain behaviors, and only once you've been recognized as a monopoly.

Sure, you may be a market leader at 17% of a market, but you don't have any special ability to influence that market, limit others' competing within that market, or to use your powers in that market to help conquer another... you have plenty of competition.

So let's look at Apple... are there competitors? A-plenty.. they have a healthy but limited portion of the US smart phone market (about 25%).. they're not even dominant here, RIM is at 42%, as of December 2009. Globally, they only have about a 12% share. So there is plenty of competition. Dozens of companies make cellphones and smart phones. Thus, there is no monopoly of any kind in this market. So anyone in it can be as anti-competitive as they like, it might affect their sales, but it doesn't substantially affect the market as a whole.

Other signs of monopoly powers... Apple using their pricing to drive competition out of business? Nope... in fact, they keep their prices relatively high. Are they preventing other companies from entering the smartphone market? Nope... several companies entered the smartphone market in the last year, including Dell and Acer.

Is Apple seeing price pressure from other companies? This is impossible if they're any sort of monopoly... a very good example is Microsoft. Microsoft still gets $100-$500 or more for an operating system, despite the fact that in much of the rest of the OS market, the price of an OS has been reduced to zero. Many competitors were either driven out of the OS market (Be, Inc. for example) or forced to offer their OS free (Sun), at least on the PC desktop level. But Apple is in fact starting to see very real price pressure. This caused them to introduce a $100 (with subsidy) iPhone model in the past year.

If you're not a monopoly, there's absolutely no reason why you shouldn't be able to participate in a free market to the best of your ability. The reason monopolies are illegal in most countries is simple: those societies value free markets, and create laws to help ensure markets stay free. There's no such thing as a perfectly free market, of course.. there's always some barrier to entry, always some product differentiation, which is fine. When a company gets powerful enough to change a formerly free market into one they substantially control, they get reigned in on those controls. Or they get broken up. Laws are intended to be expressions of the values of the greater society.

You should learn more about this stuff before going off about "all of us here" believing as you do. Some of us are actually educated on these points, and understand why Apple is obviously not a monopoly. And in fact, their behavior in the iTunes store, anti-competitive as it is relative their little fiefdom on the iPhone, is actually proving very good for their competition. Android, for example, is the fastest growing smartphone platform right now, and at least some of that's in response to Apple's behaviors. If they had a true monopoly, such behavior would not help their competition or hurt their sales. But it does.

The Wikipedia article is actually pretty good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

Opera's Motivation

[buruonbrails]

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).

Re:Opera's Motivation

[caffeinemessiah]

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).

My first thought on reading the summary was "where's the leverage?" Either Opera is talking right through their own asses, or they have some serious leverage -- certainly more than just bad PR (which Apple seems immune to anyway). They've invested time and manpower in this project, one can only hope that someone's cojones over at Apple are in a vice grip, and that we will all soon enjoy the big red O on our iPhones.

Re:Opera's Motivation

[FlyingBishop]

The thing is, this is a high-profile app that Apple can approve and point to, saying "Look, we're letting our competitors in!" even though it doesn't open the platform in any meaningful way. So I actually think there's a very good chance they will approve it.

Re:Opera's Motivation

[mac84]

Apple may surprise you. Apple only got into the Safari business when Microsoft stopped supporting IE for the Mac. There is no real profit in browsers per se, hence only OS developers and open source projects are doing anything with them. If they are smart Apple will see more popularity for Opera as another blow to IE and MS dominance, both of which are good for to Apple.

Re:Opera's Motivation

[Lunix Nutcase]

No real profit in browsers, wha?

For someone like Google, maybe. Opera is making a piddling amount of profit even in comparison to someone like Red Hat.

So how is Opera operating as a company and how did the Mozilla Foundation raise $78 million in revenue in 2008?

By getting paid by Google to make them the default search engine in the browsers. That's how they make the majority of their money.

Confused? I certainly am...

[Shrike82]

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?

Re:Confused? I certainly am...

[Anonymous Coward]

Opera is publicly announcing their intention to submit their browser to Apple before actually committing to the process, because they know they stand a good chance of summary rejection for trying to break into the Safari monopoly. Opera hopes to preempt Apple's choice in the matter by raising public support in advance of the submission and raising in conjunction with that support awareness of Apple's monopolistic methodologies, preparing the public to view Apple's coming rejection as the act of an Evil Fascist Corporate Overlord (whether it is or not is irrelevant; we're talking about Opera's intentions here, not Apple's). Their hopes are that, should Apple realize the public has been thus prepared, Opera might be more likely to pass the submission process to avoid the storm of negative publicity that would fall out of a realization and fulfillment of that media preparation. In other words, this is manufactured opinion, and Slashdot is the medium of manufacturing outrage on behalf of one corporation against another (regardless of your feelings towards either company) because Slashdot is a public forum where corporate media services can advertise against one another.

Opera suffers from a kind of hubris, though: they don't realize that the audience who will listen to them is smaller than they need to generate sufficient public outrage to press Apple on any decision and far smaller than needed to drown out the Apple supporters who will regurgitate or themselves even generate, given sufficient creativity, reasons why Apple Is Right And You Are Wrong. The Opera FanBois are fewer than the Apple FanBois and by a sufficient margin that Opera is not going to win this PR turf war. But Slashdot is a cheap place to advertise, so it doesn't hurt to try.

Re:Confused? I certainly am...

[Terrasque]

from a different source I read earlier (norwegian, interviewing a norwegian person from opera), it's not submitted yet, because it's still in beta.

Re:Confused? I certainly am...

[huckamania]

It is true that there are orders of magnitude more Apple FanBois then Opera FanBois.

However, almost everyone likes choice and virtually no one likes being denied choice. I can't imagine that the EU could be very happy about this lack of choice, product tie in, extreme control and customer lock in. I seem to remember the EU having some tough laws applying to this sort of thing but maybe they only come into effect if MS is involved. I suspect once the numbers reach a certain point, millions or billions, it will become more difficult not to sanction this behavior with a fine and some crazy restitution.

Re:Confused? I certainly am...

[hazydave]

Fanboys aren't the real issue here... Opera's being pretty clever here. They're announcing this, knowing full well that "Apple rejects App" will garner far more publicity than "Opera releases browser". There is a large segment of the electronic computer press, and perhaps even some print media still, that's just crazy obsessed with every little move Apple makes. Google too, for sure, and maybe all this only because Microsoft has been relatively boring lately.. they haven't eaten a baby or kicked a puppy in months.

It works for them either way, because they're making this all about Apple. If Apple rejects it, there will be press about it, just like Apple rejecting Google Voice... Opera's high profile enough, and as I pointed out, the computer industry press is just crazy hungry for Apple stories. If they accept it, then it's also big news, because it'll be the first major browser (Opera isn't big on the desktop, but Opera Mini is major in the cellphone world) accepted to the iTunes store. And presumably, the first that's not based on all the same components as Safari.

Well, Opera Mini isn't strictly a browser...

[sznupi]

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.

Re:Well, Opera Mini isn't strictly a browser...

[arethuza]

Indeed, and guess where the encrypted connection terminates when you access your bank website?

Re:Well, Opera Mini isn't strictly a browser...

[sznupi]

It doesn't terminate in the sense that you suggest - connection between Opera servers and mobile phone is always encrypted, on every webpage.

Yes, when accessing encrypted websites, the pages and data are in an unencrypted form on Opera servers (only there!)...which isn't that big of a problem. You need to only ask yourself whether you trust Opera Software ASA.

If not...you can still use the advantages of Opera Mini on most of webpages; unless you really limit yourself to visiting your bank website on a mobile device, for some reason.

Re:Well, Opera Mini isn't strictly a browser...

[sznupi]

But...I just said all of that.

Re:Well, Opera Mini isn't strictly a browser...

[darthflo]

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.

Re:Well, Opera Mini isn't strictly a browser...

[Zebedeu]

It's not like it's some big secret. From Opera Mini FAQ (http://www.opera.com/mini/help/faq/#security):

Is there any end-to-end security between my handset and — for example — paypal.com or my bank?
No. If you need full end-to-end encryption, you should use a full Web browser such as Opera Mobile.

Opera Mini uses a transcoder server to translate HTML/CSS/JavaScript into a more compact format. It will also shrink any images to fit the screen of your handset. This translation step makes Opera Mini fast, small, and also very cheap to use. To be able to do this translation, the Opera Mini server needs to have access to the unencrypted version of the Web page. Therefore no end-to-end encryption between the client and the remote Web server is possible.

And

Can Opera Software see my passwords and credit card numbers in clear text? What is the encryption good for then?
The encryption is introduced to protect the communication from any third party between the client (the browser on your handset) and the Opera Mini transcoder server. If you do not trust Opera Software, make sure you do not use our application to enter any kind of sensitive information.

Re:Well, Opera Mini isn't strictly a browser...

[nedlohs]

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.

Re:Well, Opera Mini isn't strictly a browser...

[toleraen]

But it isn't just the Opera software you have to worry about, you have to worry about the host OS being secure as well. I know the security settings on my system at home, and I can be reasonably certain that there aren't any viruses, trojans, malware, etc on it. Plus from a targeting standpoint my little linux box at home is peanuts.
However, Opera's servers are sitting out in the open with thousands of devices connecting to it to get all sorts of information. That's a sweet target for hackers. How can I trust that their servers haven't been hacked to death and all my red data isn't being sniffed between encryption methods?

EU/FCC wont do a thing

[mjwx]

Not only that, but I wonder if the SEC/FCC would start breathing down their backs if Opera got denied. Especially after that whole Google Voice thing...

The EU ruled against Microsoft not because it was a monopoly (that is not illegal in the EU) but because it used its monopoly position against other companies, in other words the EU ruled against Microsoft because Microsoft was an abusive monopoly.

Apple is twice as abusive as Microsoft ever was but they are far from being a monopoly. Apple are permitted to lock down their platform as there are many other platforms to chose from, Apple is not in a position to control the market so the EU wont do a thing (unless Apple have broken another EU law, but if they did the EU would have already made a statement to that effect).

Re:EU/FCC wont do a thing

[AlizarinCrimson]

While I agree that the FCC/EU would do frak all to apple over a denial of another browser. I fairly sure the app store is a market, and that apple is an abusive monopoly there.

Re:EU/FCC wont do a thing

[sznupi]

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...

It does not violate SDK terms

[porneL]

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.

Re:It does not violate SDK terms

[garcia]

Big question for me is whether or not you can turn off image loading. If so it would become my favorite app ever. Nothing more frustrating than wanting to load a page full of mainly text and having it take 5 minutes because Apple doesn't want you to ruin your browsing experience...

Re:It does not violate SDK terms

[sznupi]

Yes, you can turn off image loading in the settings. As well as selecting quality level.

Re:It does not violate SDK terms

[zombie_monkey]

Not only can you turn off image loading altogether, you have two levels of image compression (with the corresponding reduction in image quality) that the proxy can do for you, or you could it set no compression.

Re:It does not violate SDK terms

[ClaraBow]

There are several browsers in the App Store that can turn off images! Perfect Browser for example turns off images, has Firefox style tabs, and full screen browsing. It even has a compressed pages option for slower networks!

Re:It does not violate SDK terms

[cerberusss]

Big question for me is whether or not you can turn off image loading.

My feeling is that the network speed is not the problem, but rather the iPhone rendering speed is. Safari on the iPhone, plus a heavy JavaScript page, means waiting for me. Graphics, not so much.

What about opera mobile?

[Rhaban]

Instead of porting opera mini on every existing platform, why not assign more resources to do the same for opera mobile, or at least make opera mini as good as opera mobile?

I paid to use opera mobile on my windows mobile phone (htc tytn II), and would gladly pay again to be able to use it on my android phone. I have opera mini on it, it is not usable at all.

Re:What about opera mobile?

[quadelirus]

I think the problem is that Opera Mobile violates the SDK agreements and Opera Mini does not. Opera Mobile requires a full fledged JavaScript engine and Apple will not allow scripting engines to be included with apps.

Re:What about opera mobile?

[sznupi]

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.

Re:Opera Mini?

[Dan East]

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.

Re:Opera Mini?

[quadelirus]

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.

Re:Opera Mini?

[Infiniti2000]

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!

Re:Opera is lousy from my experience, please go aw

[Rhaban]

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?

Re:Oh, really?

[delinear]

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).

Re:But if Apple does it, then it's okay

[Duradin]

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.

Re:But if Apple does it, then it's okay

[Moldiver]

The knowledge of what is a monopoly and what's not appears to be not clear for many people...

"not submitted"

[Eric Smith]

"We have not submitted Opera Mini to the Apple App store,"

Apple automatically rejects all applications that are NOT submitted. However, they don't notify the non-submitter when this happens.