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.
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).
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!
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
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).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Difference is, apple does not have the same market-share on smartphone OSes as microsoft has on desktop OSes.
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
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 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
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.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Apple automatically rejects all applications that are NOT submitted. However, they don't notify the non-submitter when this happens.
"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.
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]
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.
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.