Opera Mini For iPhone Submitted To App Store Today

An anonymous reader writes "Opera Mini for iPhone was officially submitted to the Apple iPhone App store today. A select few first saw it at Mobile World Congress 2010 in February. Now, the 'fast like a rocket' browser is taking its first big step towards giving users a new way to browse on the iPhone."

Comments

Meh

[WrongSizeGlass]

I'd give it a try if Apple 'blessed' it (which I doubt they will considering how 'fair' they are) but I don't know if it will ever match the speed of Safari considering they don't have access to the private API's that Apple does (and forbids everyone else from using).

Re:Meh

[binarylarry]

Just wait until Chrome gets Apple's blessing to be placed on the iPhone!

Don't blame me, I voted for Gassée!

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

If Opera figures out how to get flash support into the damn thing, I expect that no amount of reality distortion will be able to protect Jobs from the wrath of the users should they reject the app.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

It uses server side rendering via Opera's farm, it's not Opera Mobile, but Opera Mini. It's designed for slow connections, so it should do well on our shit 3G networks.

Re:Meh

[smooth123]

Why Chrome. Opera has proved that it is faster n better than chrome at most stuff.

Re:Meh

[MikeFM]

They'd have to offer some reason to choose Opera over Safari. As Safari already does a good job of rendering pages it'd have to be features. Maybe better prediction of what I want in text fields.

Re:Meh

[rbb]

I don't know if it will ever match the speed of Safari considering they don't have access to the private API's that Apple does

Actually, there's a video showing it to be quite a bit faster than Safari in a side-by-side comparison.

Re:Meh

[CxDoo]

Opera Mini is not a browser; it serves images rendered by Opera's servers.
It is significantly faster on mobile platforms than proper browsers, not to mention bandwidth savings.

Re:Meh

[CxDoo]

Just to clarify my point, it is practically a browser but it contains no rendering engine.

Re:Meh

[dotgain]

How is the page rendered? Surely if it's some sort of a bitmap then exponentially more space will be taken. A slashdot discussion page is a particularly large HTML doc on its own, being rendered before passing over the network would surely make it huge. What am I missing here?

Re:Meh

[theaveng]

I don't know if it will ever match the speed of Safari

Apparently you didn't RTFA or watch the included youtube video. Opera Mini loaded 5 pages in the same time as it took Safari to load 1. Of course it does that using compression.

You can read more about the compression technology here. It's somewhat similar to Opera Turbo for dialup users, but much more efficient:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_mini#Functionality

Re:Meh

[Guspaz]

It more than matches the speed of Safari, it destroys it. Safari is a traditional browser; establish a connection to the web server (some round trips right there), request and download the requested HTML page (another round trip), download any first-tier needed assets (JS, CSS, images, etc) (likely not all done in parallel, more round trips), download any second-tier assets (example, images from CSS, anything dynamically written by the JS, etc), and so on. All in all, you're probably adding in dozens of round trips at the least. The latency on the 3G link alone (ignoring internet latency) is probably 100+ms for a round trip, so you're adding multiple seconds worth of latency just by being on 3G.

Opera, on the other hand, does absolutely everything server-side. Any requests are being made from a connection that isn't sitting on the other side of a 100+ms wireless link, and they probably do a lot of caching on top of that. The actual data is sent to the client browser in the minimum number of round trips; enough to establish the connection and make the request. All content comes back in one single compressed glob. A page that might have taken 10 seconds to load before can suddenly load in half a second.

There are downsides, of course, to having no client-side javascript. Most web apps require connections to the server to do what was before a local operation. You're effectively streaming any changes to the page from the server to the client (presumably keeping the connection open while looking at the page in case any changes need to be sent), and this is not ideal.

Unfortunately, it's mandatory; Apple won't allow javascript execution locally.

Re:Meh

[CxDoo]

What am I missing here?

Image compression? I got Slashdot pages at ~ 80k in Opera Mini. In the default browser (Nokia E71) they ran over 1M.

Re:Meh

[DragonWriter]

They'd have to offer some reason to choose Opera over Safari. As Safari already does a good job of rendering pages it'd have to be features. Maybe better prediction of what I want in text fields.

I don't know about Opera mini, and I know even less about Opera mini for the iPhone, but Opera has the best support of any browser that I know of(iPhone Safari is a close second) for HTML5's specialized input fields in forms, so I wouldn't be surprised.

Re:Meh

[bjartur]

Compression?

Re:Meh

[DMKrow]

Are you sure you want to compare Opera's privacy policy with Apple's? Opera has always been forthcoming about their goals and data usage. They promote Unite as privacy feature since "You own your data" not a social web-site host.

Re:Meh

[mike260]

I don't think they render the page to a bitmap, but rather preprocess the HTML+CSS to generate a fixed layout, which is much simpler (=faster) for the client to render.
But if that is indeed what they're doing, I dunno how they deal with animating elements (which would require the entire layout to be recalculated frame-by-frame).

Re:Meh

[0100010001010011]

How hard would it be to set up your own server? I've used ziproxy quite a bit when I was at my parents dial up.

Re:Meh

[shoehornjob]

Honestly I'm amazed that Apple even allowed them to put it in the app store. I'd trade a decent amount of browser speed for an inefficient browser loaded down with crapware any day.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if it will ever match the speed of Safari considering they don't have access to the private API's that Apple does (and forbids everyone else from using).

How is this any different from what Microsoft did? MS didn't even forbid developers from using them; it just didn't tell them about it.

Re:Meh

[dotgain]

Fair enough - I guess I vastly underestimated the amount of markup included if compressed bitmaps really are viable.

Re:Meh

[citizenr]

I'd give it a try if Apple 'blessed' it (which I doubt they will considering how 'fair' they are)

They better, or Apple will end up like MS with EU slapping penalties and making demands.

Re:Meh

[Draek]

Opera can't spy on *everything* you do, only on the stuff you see through their browser. Apple, on the other hand, can.

Keep that in mind next time you turn your iPhone on, 'kay?

Re:Meh

[Mike Buddha]

This is patently false. Opera pre-processes the web pages via their proxy farm to optimize the images and web pages for the various form factor devices that it runs on. It is a browser, and it contains a very fast rendering engine.

Re:Meh

[Darkness404]

I think it is time that Apple has realized that the more they try to censor, the more people are going to move in force to Android. With Android devices on all 4 of the main US networks, Apple is seeing that they will be overcome soon by the wealth of Android devices. While the unity of the iPhone platform will mean that there will be more commercial game development on the iPhone compared to Android, but with everything else Android is going to quickly take marketshare from the iPhone.

Rejecting what can possibly be a better browsing experience is going to be a blow for Apple. Back in 2007 when the iPhone was the only option if you wanted a smartphone, sure, they could afford to reject it. Today in 2010? Apple not only has to compete with BlackBerry but also the new Windows Mobile 7, Android, WebOS, and other smartphone OSes.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

The video is misleading. The Opera side begins browsing and clicking on links before the page is done loading, thus the entire page is not loaded, but they count the page twoards the total.

1:17 - page stops loading when screen is pressed.
1:26 - browsing begins before page is finished loading, appears to end when pressed.
1:33 - page stops loading when screen is pressed. (full page does appear to load however)
1:44 - page stops loading when screen is pressed.
1:53 - page loads completely

It looks fast, but still misleading.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like Eric Schmidt personally reads over everybody's Gmail inbox.

And your neighbors spy on your through your windows.

No thanks I'm living in a cave with a tinfoil so they can't brainwash me or find out any of my secrets.

Re:Meh

[Chris Burke]

Safari is a traditional browser; establish a connection to the web server (some round trips right there), request and download the requested HTML page (another round trip), download any first-tier needed assets (JS, CSS, images, etc) (likely not all done in parallel, more round trips), download any second-tier assets (example, images from CSS, anything dynamically written by the JS, etc), and so on. All in all, you're probably adding in dozens of round trips at the least.

Hasn't worked that way since HTTP v1.0, when each thing you wanted had to be requested individually, which sucked which is why they changed it. Now browsers can request many elements at once, and the server can send them all back in the same stream. There are multiple round trips needed for establishing the connection and making the initial http request, and any elements that the browser only knows it needs until after processing a script of course have to wait for the script to be received and processed. But there should not be seconds of latency merely due to mandatory round-trip times because there aren't that many.

Obviously the way Opera does it is still going to be way faster.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

1. most iPhone users don't give a shit about flash.
2. flash looks and behaviors poorly on a touch-based small screen device
3. This is opera mini. It's a proxy server which renders the html into a compressed image. no flash, very limited javascript.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an interesting idea. Does anyone know if there are any free software equivalents (i.e., so you could set up the proxy on a server you control and trust, rather than relying on Opera?)

Re:Meh

[CxDoo]

Instead of entering the discussion on what the meaning of "render" is I will just point out that Opera Mini is useless without access to "proxy farm".

Try to access a web site not available from outside you network (e.g. wifi router cfg page) - not possible.

Try to open saved html page - ditto.

Can't render shit on its own? Yup, that's your 'very fast rendering engine'.

Re:Meh

[Homburg]

Opera's website is not entirely clear about how Opera Mini works, but I think the parent is pretty much correct. The servers that support Opera Mini run the same rendering engine that is used in the desktop version of Opera, and the CSS features which Opera Mini supports are limited by the graphics system running on these servers. This suggests pretty strongly to me that the HTML+CSS is indeed rendered to an image server-side.

Re:Meh

[bhtooefr]

Technically, it's not rendered to an image - it's rendered to an Opera internal markup language, IIRC.

Re:Meh

[node 3]

I'd give it a try if Apple 'blessed' it (which I doubt they will considering how 'fair' they are) but I don't know if it will ever match the speed of Safari considering they don't have access to the private API's that Apple does (and forbids everyone else from using).

What API's would those be? Safari uses WebKit, just like any other app on the iPhone that wants to serve up web pages.

As far as WebKit goes, what do you suppose it can do that some other rendering engine won't be able to do? It can be written in C, can use OpenGL (as well as things like CoreAnimation)...

So, really, what super-secret APIs are you thinking of here?

Apple keeps APIs private for only two reasons:

1. They aren't finished yet.
2. Security/Privacy.

As for the "fairness" of Apple, and whether they'll approve Opera, they probably won't. It's not because (like so many people think) that they don't want the competition, it's because they believe Safari is the best browser out there, and want to keep the iPhone experience fairly consistent in terms of core functionality.

Re:Meh

[theaveng]

Here's what wikipedia says: "A page is compressed, then delivered to the phone in a markup language called OBML (Opera Binary Markup Language). This compression process makes transfer time about two to three times faster."

2-3x doesn't sound right though. My ISP's web compression squeezes text/html to about 3% its original size, and jpegs/gifs to 15%. So that would be about 7 times faster. - Also in the Opera Mini demo they showed 5 pages load in the same time Safari loaded 1 page, so that suggests 5x faster.

According to opera.com: "Save money on data charges. Opera Mini uses only a tenth of the bandwidth of other browsers, via compressing Web pages."

Re:Meh

[chihowa]

Apple's making their cash by selling you the phone. How's Opera affording this proxying service?

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

And the spying at&t does at the behest of the government is any better? Come on.

Re:Meh

[DarkXale]

The opera browser is used in a lot of other hardware, including the Wii (there called the "Internet Chanel", where it used to cost a few dollars to purchase.) Opera is heavily used in other mobile devices and PDAs, and many phones default internet browser is replaced by networks with Opera. Its not uncommon for these to have a price tag associated with them, though in many cases its invisible, as its sold together with the unit. Its basically one of the very few browsers which regularly needs to be purchased - thats where a lot of money comes from.

Re:Meh

[Kitkoan]

While it's no longer a private, unusable API function, the previous ban on using 'CGImageRef UIGetScreenImage();' in any App Store approved program makes me think that there are quite a few other private API's and API functions that while people have found, cannot use. Also seems that Apps cannot access information stored in the calendar, amongst other things. These might effect security/privacy in theory, but these function's and private API's usage is not limited to just those uses and options.

Re:Meh

[shutdown -p now]

I wouldn't call it a rendering engine in the usual sense, since all layout, style application etc is done server-side, and that is the meat of what an HTML rendering engine normally does.

Re:Meh

[shutdown -p now]

But if that is indeed what they're doing, I dunno how they deal with animating elements (which would require the entire layout to be recalculated frame-by-frame).

They just send a server request to update the page. Because of that, they only support rather limited DOM manipulation, for example.

It's definitely not a full-featured browser. That said, it's still good enough to read Slashdot. I'm not sure what's its purpose on a phone with a proper browser, but on my Nokia 6300 (which only does J2ME), it's a godsend.

Re:Meh

[oji-sama]

Try to open saved html page - ditto.

Well. You can open a saved html page you've saved with Opera (without internet connection). At least on my measly phone.

And yes, it is very fast, especially when on a thin connection

Re:Meh

[SanityInAnarchy]

Citation needed.

Re:Meh

[Insightfill]

The video is misleading. The Opera side begins browsing and clicking on links before the page is done loading, thus the entire page is not loaded, but they count the page towards the total.

Although, to be fair, this is how many of us browse the web, especially on slower connections. Page starts to come up, you see a relevant link, you click it, page stops loading and new page comes up.

If I have to wait for the whole page to render (irrespective of iframes) before I can act upon it, then someone is wasting my time.

Re:Meh

[Lars T.]

If Opera figures out how to get flash support into the damn thing, I expect that no amount of reality distortion will be able to protect Jobs from the wrath of the users should they reject the app.

By "the damn thing", I guess you must mean Opera Mini, the browser we are talking about - for it never supported Flash.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

The video is misleading. The Opera side begins browsing and clicking on links before the page is done loading, thus the entire page is not loaded, but they count the page twoards the total.

Actually, if you look at the spinning circle in the red title bar area, you will see it is an indicator of progress. Once it stops spinning, the page has finished loading. You see an example where the circle is still spinning after he touches the screen to zoom in (1:23 - 1:24). The blue progress bar also doesn't seem to be affected by touching of the screen in in this example. I don't think touching the screen stops the page from loading honestly. I have Opera Mini and Opera Mobile on my Nokia, and you can pan around the page, and zoom in while the page is loading, especially if you're on a slow connection and images are still finishing downloading. I think they're just a little too close to the servers that dish up the compressed pages.
 

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

It more than matches the speed of Safari, it destroys it. Safari is a traditional browser; establish a connection to the web server (some round trips right there), request and download the requested HTML page (another round trip), download any first-tier needed assets (JS, CSS, images, etc) (likely not all done in parallel, more round trips), download any second-tier assets (example, images from CSS, anything dynamically written by the JS, etc), and so on. All in all, you're probably adding in dozens of round trips at the least. The latency on the 3G link alone (ignoring internet latency) is probably 100+ms for a round trip, so you're adding multiple seconds worth of latency just by being on 3G.

Opera, on the other hand, does absolutely everything server-side.

Which means you now get to deal with the roundtrip time of the wireless connection + the roundtrip time between the proxy and the client. Awesome!

Re:Meh

[Anarki2004]

I know this is offtopic and what have you, but isn't the Nokia E-71 just awesome? Seems like most of my fellow Americans don't know it even exists. I also use Opera Mini to browse /., so its nice to know I'm not alone.

Re:Meh

[Anarki2004]

Its purpose on a phone with a proper browser is to save people operating costs on 3G networks. My phone has a proper browser and my primary reason for using Opera is actually because its faster. And not just a little faster either. The default Nokia browser is superior for viewing web pages overall (its better for filling out forms and viewing flash/java), but I still find Opera to be better for general browsing.

Re:Meh

[mjwx]

1:17 - page stops loading when screen is pressed.
1:26 - browsing begins before page is finished loading, appears to end when pressed.
1:33 - page stops loading when screen is pressed. (full page does appear to load however)
1:44 - page stops loading when screen is pressed.
1:53 - page loads completely

It looks fast, but still misleading.

So...

It complies with Apple's code of advertising then.

Just to be pedantic, users don't wait until a page is fully loaded before trying to use it, so getting a page to the point where it is displayed and barely usable is more important then having the whole thing loaded.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

hahahahaha and you think Apple is going to stop there? LOL "OK, we made money on the phone, lets leave these users alone". Hell fucking no. They are making a killing off of your music habits, app store habits, and probably have a deal with AT&T to see what you are doing and when for marketing research. You come out towards Opera but talk about how Apple is this sweet innocent mom & pop smart phone maker? Go hang yourself in Cupertino.

Re:Meh

[exomondo]

I'd give it a try if Apple 'blessed' it (which I doubt they will considering how 'fair' they are)

They better, or Apple will end up like MS with EU slapping penalties and making demands.

No they won't, and personally i reckon that's rubbish, but it's because they don't have a monopoly in that market. Infact Microsoft could do the same in the console, smartphone or portable media player market, just not in the OS market. It's just crap that the same anti-competitive behavior is only illegal if the company has a monopoly.

Re:Meh

[Dare nMc]

http://www.opera.com/business/partners/#Contentpartner
google pays opera to be the default search engine, same as firefox.
I am sure Apple is paid by google to be the default search as well, and thus is the dilemma, will apple relinquish a tiny little bit of the profit for user experience? doubtful...
I am sure Opera also has a default home page that gives a preferred nod to yahoo/google content for money as well.

Re:Meh

[nazsco]

Ouch. that was something uninformed. _even_ for slashdot standards.

using opera mini and mobile since v3.something on my nokias.

It is a browser. it has a html+css rendering engine. and runs js on mobile version.

The only thing is, if you enable an option (AN OPTION!) in the app, it will fetch the images from some opera server instead of the real server, and that opera server will run `pngcrush --mother-fckr-aggressive` on the images. and probably the html/css/js (did i mention it interprets javascript on the mobile version?) will go trhu `gzip -9`.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you have a 3GS, but last time I tried to use safari on my iPhone 3G, browsing the web was like browsing it back when I was using a 56kbps modem with an AMD K6200 running windows 95. Because of the sluggish speed of safari on iPhone I only ever use it when there is no alternative. The key thing they are advertising is speed, which they are doing by preprocessing web pages on their servers to minimise data transfer. Personally, I don't give a damn how they are doing it, just as long as browsing the web with iPhone is no longer painfully slow and isn't burning up packets on data I don't need to see.

Re:Meh

[Mike Buddha]

Wrong, actually. The pages are sent to the device from the proxy server in the compressed OBML format. They must be rendered in order to be viewed. Rendering MUST TAKE PLACE if you want to see a web page in a format in anything other raw page markup, in this case, a binary format. The format that the information is sent to the device is irrelevant. What is sent from the proxy server is most definitely NOT 'images rendered by Opera's servers' as you stated previously.

Yup, that's the 'very fast rendering engine' all right.

Re:Meh

[Lars T.]

I don't know if it will ever match the speed of Safari considering they don't have access to the private API's that Apple does

Actually, there's a video showing it to be quite a bit faster than Safari in a side-by-side comparison.

When using 2G - isn't it odd they only test that?

Re:Meh

[Hamsterdan]

Wasn't Microsoft guilty of using private APIs and not disclosing them to Lotus and Wordperfect back in Win 3.x era?

But I wouldn't sweat it, Apple would never allow a better browser on the iPhone/touch/pad/tampon

Re:Meh

[CxDoo]

Can you remind me where exactly is that option in Opera Mini (5 Beta)?

Re:Meh

[CxDoo]

I concede that I worded it wrong - what is being sent are not plain images.
However I repeat my initial assertion that Opera Mini is not a browser in the usual meaning of the word and can not render full blown html/css on its own.

I'll give it to you that it 'renders' what Opera's servers send it.

Re:Meh

[CxDoo]

Nokia E71 is fucking awesome. I waited until it came out, bought it the moment it did, saw a million new phones came out after it and never wanted another. I guess that makes me a bit of a fanboi :)

Re:Meh

[rumkee]

note- the side by side speed comparisons are via an Edge data connection. I wonder what the results would be like over wifi ? or 3G ? I doubt the difference would still be that much

Re:Meh

[Anarki2004]

If the E-71 wasn't sexy enough, the E- 72 makes it look like crap. Everything that makes the 71 amazing + more powerful hardware = can't go wrong. I don't know about you, but I think myself and the rest of America needs to band together and demand that our telcos support these phones. This phone has features out the wazoo and guys like T-Mobile won't let you utilize the it to its fullest potential.

Re:Meh

[mdwh2]

I'm also curious how this runs at all - did Apple finally catch up with the 1990s by adding Java support? Or did Opera waste the time writing a custom version for the minority of Iphone users, because it can't support that basic standard?

Re:Meh

[Guspaz]

You're referring to pipelining. However, it doesn't help as much as you think. First of all, there are limits to how many files a browser will request in parallel; sites with a large number of resources still require multiple round trips. And second, you don't know what files you need until after you finish downloading the file that requests it (as you point out). So, you get some savings from pipelining, but you're still wasting a rather large amount of time with extra round trips.

Re:Meh

[Guspaz]

There's still only one round trip (plus possibly extra if they're using TCP). 100 + 100 < 100 * 10

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha. Nerd rage is the funniest.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

spoken like a true apple apologist. "It's the BeSt brwsar EVAR!!11!!1"

Re:Meh

[tokul]

There are downsides, of course, to having no client-side javascript.

Javascript works in opera mini. Some versions of opera mini (or proxy used by opera mini) reacted to javascript based controls. My problem was that it reacted by automatically clicking OK button and correct action was to hit Cancel.

Re:Meh

[hkmwbz]

No, because the compression is most useful when your connection isn't perfect. For example, outside of the big cities, when roaming, or on a crowded network. Opera isn't trying to replace Safari here, only complement Safari by speeding up surfing for all those who suffer from poor network performance.

Re:Meh

[hkmwbz]

They make money every time you use the search field. Also, they are using their vast user base to convince operators to use Opera Mini, which makes them even more money.

Re:Meh

[hkmwbz]

What browser "loaded down with crapware" are you referring to?

Re:Meh

[hkmwbz]

Video of Opera Mini on 2G destroying Safari on 3G.

Re:Meh

[GreyWolf3000]

Good web developers package their sites correctly and avoid too many separate assets.  They also put different assets on different domains.

I suppose Opera's caching technology really only significantly speeds up pages that are slow by design.

Re:Meh

[Guspaz]

Opera Mini on the iPhone will not have any local JavaScript support because it's forbidden by the App Store ToS. This is why Opera has to rely entirely on server-side JavaScript execution for the iPhone version.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

So for those very few internal sites, use Safari - then be amazed at how SLOW those site are compared to site on the Internet viewed via Opera mini

Please let me be the first to say ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck with that.

A few moments later...

[genghisjahn]

....Opera Mini rejected from app store. Oops, sorry, jumped the gun.

DOA

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Apple will say that it duplicates existing iPhone functions and will refuse to accept it.

But lets all keep saying Microsoft is evil.

Re:DOA

[ukyoCE]

Apple has made that rule clear, and it's their platform (and they don't have a monopoly) so it's not really evil.

The obvious question though is did anyone at Opera ask Apple before putting all the effort into creating the browser on the iPhone?

If Opera asked and Apple said "make it and find out the hard way", that would be evil.

If Opera asked and Apple said "We'll reject it. We don't want to support multiple browsers on our proprietary platform", then so be it. It's Opera's own fault if it gets rejected.

If they asked and Apple refused to answer, I'd file that under the first category of "make it and find out the hard way" evilness.

Re:DOA

[whisper_jeff]

You keep using this word evil but I don't think you know what it means.

Creating a "walled garden" for an app store is _NOT_ evil. Deal with it. In case you hadn't noticed, virtually every store on the planet practices that every day. They don't just stock products because they exist - they only stock products that match their store's motif if they think they can sell it. Sorry. Not evil. Totally, utterly, not evil.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it "evil".

Re:DOA

[LWATCDR]

Bah Microsoft is evil, as is Apple, and even Google sometimes. I will let the fact that Google is stopping there censoring of Chinese search results speak for it's self.
The difference is that Microsoft is Super BIG and Evil. Google and Apple are just big and evil.
The other difference is at least we are Microsoft and Apple's customers. We are Google's product.

Re:DOA

[v1]

Apple will say that it duplicates existing iPhone functions and will refuse to accept it.

yepyep. that's their favorite rejection reason. "it competes with us". Most businesses can't just tell someone else entering their market "nope, that would compete with us, you can't do that."

Re:DOA

[Omnifarious]

Yeah, I had the same thought. This has about as much chance of making it to the iPhone as Microsoft has of officially declaring that Linux doesn't infringe any of its patents tomorrow.

And Apple and Microsoft are both evil. Years ago, when I didn't consider Apple evil I knew they had the potential to become so, and they have fulfilled that potential, though not in quite the way I would've guessed they would years ago.

Re:DOA

[Enderandrew]

Aren't there like laws and stuff against intentionally limiting competition?

Re:DOA

[Em Emalb]

As an Apple shareholder, I'm absolutely fine with that. It's their phone, their applications. Let's force them to open it up to competition.

I'm all for that.... :-/

Sometimes I feel like people think they're forced to buy Apple's products or something.

Re:DOA

[DragonWriter]

Apple will say that it duplicates existing iPhone functions and will refuse to accept it.

But lets all keep saying Microsoft is evil.

Apple has made that rule clear [...]

They've stated it lots of times as a reason for rejecting things, sure, but often while allowing other things that are just as duplicative of the same core functionality as the the thing rejected with that stated reason.

So, either they are just extremely inconsistent in enforcing the rule, or the "rule" is just an excuse.

Re:DOA

[EvanED]

The app store not carrying things isn't evil. That's fine.

Apple making it so that the only way you can load programs onto your iPhone is, however, somewhat evil. (At least in combination with the above fact.)

Wal-Mart doesn't make you sign a contract saying you'll never shop at Target before they let you into the store.

Re:DOA

[twidarkling]

"It's not evil because they said upfront what the rules are!"

So, evil is only evil when it's a surprise. Do I have to explain what a moronic statement that is? Apple is all about trying to maintain a vertical monopoly, which is still a type of monopoly, and just as bad as a horizontal one, even if slightly less common.

Re:DOA

[ukyoCE]

I'm not familiar with the duplicate-functionality they've allowed on the App store, any good examples?

One of the biggest problems with the closed App store is that developers run a huge risk of having their app rejected and "losing" all the development time that went into it. I'd never do something like a web browser (even in the Opera Mini way) without getting approval from Apple before starting development.

If enough toes are stubbed by apple closing the door they may start having problems getting developers to make apps, especially complex ones, for the iPhone.

Re:DOA

[mjwalshe]

or Opera have prepped some Norweigien MEP's to ask some pointed Questions / Refer apple to the competition commission. Dont forget that Opera comes out of Telenor.

Re:DOA

[Monkeedude1212]

Well then you've justified why Microsoft wouldn't be evil.

Re:DOA

[ThrowAwaySociety]

Aren't there like laws and stuff against intentionally limiting competition?

Nope. Not unless you're the only game in town already, or you conspire with your "competitors" to freeze others out.

Apple is only one of many players in the smartphone market, so consumers have plenty of alternatives. No harm done.

Re:DOA

[Monkeedude1212]

Why not though? If the App costs money - wouldn't Apple take its cut, make money off of it? It's not like they make money selling Safari, a product that comes free on every Apple Product.

Re:DOA

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple will say that it duplicates existing iPhone functions and will refuse to accept it.

Actually, that's a popular misconception. There are plenty of browsers already in the Store. A more truthful reason as to why some browsers have been rejected is the long-standing rule against virtual machines and language interpreters (i.e. no Javascript), and that's understandable.

It's fine to jump on the bandwagon of the growing anti-Apple sentiment, but let's at least try to stick with actual truth.

Re:DOA

[cgenman]

Apple has made that rule clear, and it's their platform (and they don't have a monopoly) so it's not really evil.

Just because a rule is a rule, doesn't mean it can't be an evil rule. There has been repeated abuses of this rule in the past, including banning apps for duplicating functionality that Apple hadn't yet implemented or told anyone about, and banning apps for duplicating functionality that doesn't exist, etc.

Also, apple is notoriously unreachable about prior approval or feedback in any form. Build the app, submit it, and be approved or not.

In this case Opera already has Opera Mini running on multiple platforms, with the backend handling the heavy lifting. They mostly needed to create an interpreter for their markup language, which their existing back end engine creates. Being the first non-safari browser on the iPhone would be a significant coup. Even then, the publicity of a rejection might be worth significantly more than the cost of creating the interpreter.

Re:DOA

[Chris Burke]

Most businesses can't just tell someone else entering their market "nope, that would compete with us, you can't do that."

Uh yes most businesses can say "nope" to a competitor who wants to sell their product through the businesses' own store.

Lowes doesn't sell Home Depot's brand of power tools; Best Buy doesn't sell computers using Fry's brand of motherboards. The brick-and-mortar Apple store doesn't sell Windows-based PCs. All shocking instances of anti-competitive behavior, I know. :P

Re:DOA

[v1]

If they were doing it some other way it would probably be illegal. But since it's their product and their store, within those bounds, they can make their own rules.

At least that's how the law is set up atm. If you want a piece of their action, you have to play by their rules. If you don't like it, sell your own product and make your own store and you can do whatever you want, is what they will say.

Re:DOA

[fermion]

If this was a gecko based browser I might care. I still recall when Opera had no credible version for the Mac. Now everyone is saying how great they are because the have a browser that no one has seen for the iPhone. Opera does not even seem to have a built in flash blocker(not content blocking, I don't care about that), not useful for iPhone, but if I want a new browser I want it to do something different, not just be faster. My browser experience is just not that slow. /. opens in a few seconds.

I have nearly all 11 screens full of relatively useful apps on my iPhone. Pretty soon I am going to have pick and choose. I certainly would not sub a browser.

And there can be more than one evil company. One can have MS, Google, and Apple all be evil.

Re:DOA

[Draek]

I don't think *you* know what "evil" means. "Evil" is a moral qualifier, and morality being entirely subjective, you *cannot* state "this practice is not evil" without suffixing it with an "in my opinion".

Apple's control-obsessed tendencies may not be evil for *you*, but that does not mean they aren't for anybody else. Stop trying to push your own opinion onto everybody else.

Re:DOA

[cgenman]

My favorite is that it competes with something that is already purchased. That means it's not about manipulating purchasing decisions, but controlling the medium.

Re:DOA

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is evil because they're anti-competitive, not because they run an app store. It's only been a few years now that you could, say, connect to a Windows share properly or open an Excel spreadsheet on a non-Windows platform. And no thanks to Microsoft. When Apple locks down the desktop, and does it by subverting standards rather than contributing to them, then you can bitch.

Re:DOA

[Simply Curious]

It's their phone, their applications.

If I buy the phone, I expect to own it. Even if it is on a rent-to-buy plan like the phone company subsidized contracts, I should have more rights to the phone than Apple does. If I have a phone that I have bought, and someone else has a program that he has made for it, I do not see any moral reason by which a third party, Apple, can restrict my access to my own phone.

Re:DOA

[JohnG]

If you had a chicken wing restaurant, would you let another chicken wing restaurant serve its wings in your parking lot? Now, are you evil, or just a hypocrite?

Re:DOA

[ukyoCE]

So, evil is only evil when it's a surprise.

It's only evil if it's a lost investment. (in developing an app you expected to be able to release)

There's nothing evil about having a so-called "monopoly" on your proprietary platform. I'd like to see you start spamming Slashdot with posts about how EVIL Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft (on the Xbox), Amazon (on the Kindle), B&N (whatever theirs is called), and perhaps you could complain about your microwave and dishwasher manufacturers too.

No, closed platforms are not inherently evil whatsoever.

Re:DOA

[exomondo]

Yes there are, just as they apply to microsoft with regard to things like the bundling of internet explorer. These laws are called Anti-trust laws, however they ONLY apply to companies considered to have a monopoly on a market. So absolutely Apple would be demolished in the courts if it were to ever gain a monopolistic position in the smartphone market with the iphone, however unfortunately that same behavior is not considered illegal if the company does not have a monopoly in that market.

Re:DOA

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

Flip the scenario and imagine Microsoft or any flavor of Linux not allowing apps that "duplicated functionality" onto their hallowed grounds. How's that taste? Tastes like hypocrisy to me.

Re:DOA

[ukyoCE]

Just because a rule is a rule, doesn't mean it can't be an evil rule.

Totally agreed, rules can be evil. But having a closed platform isn't particularly evil, and no one thinks it's evil coming from the many other companies with closed platforms we deal with every day.

Perhaps Apple shot themselves in the foot by having a "half-open" platform where they try to pick and choose. If you look at the game consoles, the main way they avoid this is by pricing most companies (and individuals) out of making software for their consoles. If Apple had charged $10,000 per license to make iPhone software and rubber stamped every app, would there be less complaining?

Re:DOA

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not going to cost any money. They give it away for free

Re:DOA

[R3d M3rcury]

You bought the phone, so you do own it. You can smash it against a wall, use it's shiny face as a mirror, take it apart, use it as a coaster, or put it in a blender.

You don't own the software the causes the iPhone to be such a wonderful device. Apple owns that. They just let you use it.

If I may draw a non-car related analogy, suppose you bought a Nintendo Wii. Nintendo restricts what games are available for the Wii. As does Sony on their PS3 and Microsoft on their Xbox 360. While all three are being a bit looser in certain areas, you can't just write a program for the Wii and ship it without Nintendo's approval. Same with the PS3 and Xbox 360.

Does this mean you don't own your game console?

Re:DOA

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Most businesses can't just tell someone else entering their market "nope, that would compete with us, you can't do that."

Yeah, that's why Gateway stores sold Dell Computers. Oh wait...

Who mods these comments up?

Re:DOA

[prockcore]

Amazon sells books branded as "Barnes & Noble Classics" and B&N sells books branded with "amazon" all the time.

Re:DOA

[exomondo]

Apple will say that it duplicates existing iPhone functions and will refuse to accept it.

But lets all keep saying Microsoft is evil.

How do you know that? There are plenty of other web browsers available on the iphone, why reject Opera?

Re:DOA

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't like Lucky jeans, you can buy Gap, or Levis, or any of a hundred different options. There is no alternative to the Apple Store for iPhone apps (short of all out hacking) so you can't really make the "free market" argument on this. I agree it is not EVIL, but I think it is a closed system, and when they start blocking stuff for strictly competitive reasons (or what *appear* to be competitive reasons) then it certainly reeks.

Re:DOA

[iammani]

Because they are not the only store in town! If I am allowed to buy from only a single store and they dont stock certain products, I would be pretty pissed off. If they specifically reject products that compete with their own products, I would consider them pretty much EVIL.

Re:DOA

[Chris Burke]

And if they chose not to, like many businesses do, like the examples I gave, what exactly would be the big deal?

Re:DOA

[Lakitu]

Your analogy is dumb. The app store is the only store that exists in this case. Nobody cares all that much if Starbucks carries the NYT as its only newspaper, because you can go just about anywhere else you want to buy any other kind of newspaper. If Starbucks were the only place in the world you could buy newspapers, and they refused to carry certain ones -- especially with spurious reasoning as to why some are rejected and others are not -- it would be evil.

Apple is leveraging its position to extort money and control from users and developers at the expense of the best interests of people who have bought iphones and itouches. It's not very much different from Microsoft's IE maneuvers in the late 90s and early 2000s.

It's not genocide evil, but if you're going to judge evil in a boolean manner, it's totally, utterly, completely evil. The only way it is by being pedantic about what is or is not evil and defining it so as to only includes things you decide, which is pretty ironic, given the content of your post.

Re:DOA

[theaveng]

not evil

That's a morality call. I consider it evil to be anti-competitive (like when Microsoft blocked Netscape and Opera from accessing their msn.com site

And your argument for saying "It's Apple's platform" doesn't jive with your previous posts about how you think the PS3, X360, and Nintendo Wii platforms should be open and modifiable with the user's software or hardware. After all the user owns the unit - he should have the right to modify it or load different software (like any other computer). Same with the Apple phone.

Re:DOA

[beakerMeep]

Wow, dude chill with the Apple fanboyism. You need a break from slashdot or something.

Re:DOA

[EEPROMS]

They don't just stock products because they exist - they only stock products that match their store's motif if they think they can sell it. Sorry. Not evil. Totally, utterly, not evil.

Accept when I buy lets say a T-Shirt from a GAP store that only stocks GAP branded clothing they don't then turn around and tell me I can wear a "I LOVE BUTT SEX" button on it because it doesn't go with GAP's family friendly policies. Apple is literally telling it's consumers how it can use goods purchased from them, now that is evil.

Re:DOA

[theaveng]

P.S.

I forgot to mention that Opera didn't really put a lot of effort into the iPhone ap. They already had the Opera Mini browser for other cellphones, so all they needed to do was copy it over.

Re:DOA

[Anonymous Coward]

While I agree completely, I think you are stilling missing the point. The issue is not that apple is the only store available, it is that there is only one possible legal way to load third party applications onto your phone and that is through the apple store. This is enforced by DRM and protected by the DMCA. Yeah, wonderful company you have there.

Fortunately, Droid sales look promising and, although I was skeptical a year ago, it looks like android is poised to take control of the smart phone operating system market. Good riddance, apple!

Re:DOA

[NekSnappa]

Why not?

By your logic, every one else on here who says that the pratice is evil is also forcing thier value on others.

Re:DOA

[exomondo]

You might as well say - for example - it's ok for a car manufacturer to mandate that your car can ONLY be serviced at the dealership and you can ONLY fill up with fuel from selected petrol stations.

Re:DOA

[Anonymous Coward]

IE matches the Windows motif perfectly too, yet MS have to offer other browsers on their OS.

Re:DOA

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

"Apple has made that rule clear, and it's their platform (and they don't have a monopoly) so it's not really evil."

Ok... So Microsoft can do the same right? Windows is their platform. They can dicate which browsers can be on it. For example. Microsoft has decided no more browsers are allowed because they duplicate Internet Explorer's functionality?

Sounds fair right?

Re:DOA

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Apple people will defend the very same behaviors they endlessly trash Microsoft for...

And you linux zealots are all guilty as well :)

I'm just pointing out where its unfair for Apple to do many things that Microsoft would get RAPED IN COURTS FOR DOING.... and EVERYONE of you would complain to no end if MS did the same thing...

and you have been complaining for years.

Rightfully so I might add... but what makes Apple immune to your criticism?

Oh thats right... No one picks on the pretty chick because you all hope that you'll fuck her.

Re:DOA

[nine-times]

You're right, it's not evil. It's merely troubling and problematic. On the plus side, requiring distribution to go through Apple's store creates a central known-good repository of apps, allows Apple to provide a consistent and controlled user experience, and helps Apple maintain their relationship with AT&T.

On the other hand, it prevents developers from distributing applications that they want to distribute, and prevents users from getting applications that they might want. I have an iPhone. I'd like to try out this Opera browser. I'd like to try out Google's "Google Voice" application too. They developed it but Apple wouldn't distribute it. There are a number of perfectly valid applications that have been developed, but that I can't get because Apple decided they didn't want me to have it. It's power that Apple doesn't need to have and which is bound to be abused.

What I find much more chilling, though, is the idea of the applications that are not even being developed because of the approval process. Apple has created an environment where a developer might pour a lot of time and money into creating an application only to find that Apple rejected it. If I were a developer, that would give me pause.

Since I'm an Apple fan, I'd like to think that Apple is forced into this sort of thing because their agreement with AT&T prevents them from allowing people to install certain types of apps (e.g. tethering). After all, even the Nexus One, a Linux phone which isn't locked to any carrier, doesn't allow you to simply install any application you want. Either way, this setup is bad for users, bad for developers, and ultimately it's even bad for Apple.

Re:DOA

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

I'm just repeating what Apple has said in the past when developers released products that duplicate Apple's own software.

And besides.. I dont hate apple. I love my iPhone, AND iTunes... but when iTunes stealthy installs Safari behind my back when I never installed it myself... Yeah I start to see the evils that Apple is.

I just want to see Apple being treated as bad as Microsoft is... because Its what keeps Microsoft from innovating and it would be nice to see Apple play in that world.

Re:DOA

[Anonymous Coward]

Wtf! Walled Garden?!? LOL

Grass is always greener mate, where?

Re:DOA

[whisper_jeff]

http://www.google.com/mobile/voice/

If you want to check out Google Voice, there you go.

People say that Apple is the only source for getting apps on the iPhone. They are wrong. As the above link points out, developers can develop web apps that work with the iPhone and do not require Apple's approval. (I'll note, as another example, Bejewelled 2 was first released as a web app that was absolutely fantastic.)

If you want to try out Google Voice, feel free to do so. It's available for the iPhone. As a web app.

Apple may have created a walled garden but there's still a world out there and flowers do grow (to stick with the lame walled-garden analogy...). Outside the walled garden, it may be wild and untamed and hard to find some flowers that appeal to you, but that doesn't mean they can't grow out there.

Ok, enough with the garden analogy... You get my point though. It is untrue that the only way to develop for the iPhone is through Apple. Develop a web app. Publish url. Done.

Re:DOA

[Anonymous Coward]

it is flagrantly evil. perhaps we should create a "walled garden" around east germany... ahh dammitt - prior art.

Re:DOA

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a fan of Apple's practices, but it's not mandatory to buy an Apple iPod Touch/iPhone and therefore not mandatory to deal with the restrictions that Apple uses on being the only store in town. To their credit Apple has done enough right obviously to make it seem like they're the only option in town.

Don't let others influence your decision to concede on a stand against a product. If you do not like something enough don't buy it, but more importantly don't take it as in insult. I got a refund on Assassins Creed 2 collectors edition after I found out about the internet connection DRM, and I'll be damned if I put up with it even if everyone on that planet purchases it; it bothers me that much. I have also done this with Square's "The Last Remnant" which requires steam to play a single player game.

Re:DOA

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, Google Analytics is blocked, google ads are blocked, google text ads are removed, my UID is randomized, I don't use google checkout, any number of other things that I can't think of are also blocked, so no, I am no product. I've merely traded the cycles that would have been spent rendering all of this useless content for a blocking infrastructure that cleans up the internet nicely. Plus it saves me bandwidth. Suck it Google. Suck it long, and suck it hard.

Re:DOA

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is leveraging its position to extort money and control from users and developers at the expense of the best interests of people who have bought iphones and itouches.
If you already bought an iphone or itouch, you already handed over control - you decided at that time that your "best interest" was to dispense with some control. I don't care a fig about Apple, but they're not EXTORTING anything. You don't want to be in a closed garden, then don't buy a fucking iphone. You don't want to pay for apps, then don't pay for them, you stupid consumer. You're not forced to buy anything, you stupid fucking twat, so there's no coercion or force being exerted by anyone.
 
It's streets from what Microsoft did, since MS actually DID coerce and extort other companies to make sure IE was the only browser shipped with company X PCs, or more recently, they "coerced" other manufacturers to make sure Windows was the only O/S shipped on the "netbooks". So far, Apple is far in the dim distance when you look at the "evil" race that MS has been fucking CONVICTed for leading.

By the way, in a "boolean" world, either something is, or isn't, at least that's what boolean meant when I went to school. Maybe universities these days teach that boolean now encompasses: "totally, utterly, completely false", "really false", "sort of false", "a little false", "a little true", "kind of true", "true-ish", "pepsi true", and now "totally, utterly completely Apple true".
 
You talk like a fag and your' shit's all fucked up....

Re:DOA

[IAN]

I forgot to mention that Opera didn't really put a lot of effort into the iPhone ap. They already had the Opera Mini browser for other cellphones, so all they needed to do was copy it over.

Opera Mini for other phones is a Java (J2ME) application. The one for the iPhone is Obj-C. There is no way to go from one to the other without a lot of effort.

Re:DOA

[Anonymous Coward]

...Then why did you get the iphone if this is such a big deal to you? Did you not do your research before purchasing such an investment?

Re:DOA

[ukyoCE]

You quoted it yourself:

(and they don't have a monopoly)

There's nothing wrong with having a closed system, and nothing illegal about it either.

The reason Microsoft was "evil" and illegal to bundle Internet Explorer (and integrate it in its OS, etc.) is that they had a monopoly on desktop OSes and were using it to take over additional markets and stifle competition.

Other than the evil+illegal parts, it was a very smart business move. It would save costs on their end by not having to support multiple browsers, increase "creative freedom" (they could use the browser anywhere in the OS in any way they want, eg. in Windows Explorer, active desktop, etc.), and of course increase market share of their browser.

These are the reasons Apple is doing the same thing with the iPhone. The only problem with Microsoft doing it was being ruled a monopoly.

Re:DOA

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft has a problem until/unless they're declared to no longer be a monopoly.

OTOH I'd love to see a Linux OS (or phone) that has a fully supported app experience, instead of a hodgepodge of half-working and poorly-integrated apps. This is what I thought AOL would do back when they bought up Nullsoft (Winamp), but no such luck - AOL is just not that competent of a company to create a complete OS experience.

Linux is the opposite extreme from Apple right now. Apple has a good core apps, but little to no choice. Linux has a ton of bad apps - if it doesn't do half of what you want, you can always find another app that does the other half.

Re:DOA

[ukyoCE]

As long as we're making poor analogies -

This is like Wal-mart ONLY selling Wal-mart brand toilet paper. If you want Charmin you have to go to Target.

Apple in this case is Wal-mart, and Target is an Android phone. Feel free to pick the store you want.

Re:DOA

[elrous0]

Since Apple makes the hardware, they don't HAVE to extort other companies to only ship with their software. Steve Jobs is just doing what Bill Gates *should* have been allowed to do from the beginning. MS got a raw deal in the 90's. If Dell or any hardware manufacturer had wanted, they could have went to someone else for an OS (IBM's OS/2 Warp was as good, if not better, than anything up through Win 98, and after that there was Linux/BeOs/etc.). They weren't being "extorted." MS was not only perfectly within their right to ship with their own default browser (something *every* OS does today), but they would have been perfectly within their right to ban competing browsers from their OS as well, like Apple does today with the iPhone and iPad.

When I make a piece of hardware or software, I am under absolutely no obligation to make it play well with my competition (quite the contrary). I answer to my shareholders only. And if Netscape, or Opera, or whoever has a problem with that; then let them go build their own goddamn OS or phone.

Re:DOA

[nine-times]

Web apps really aren't good enough. Operation often isn't quite as smooth, there isn't the possibility of offline operation, and AFAIK you can't have push notifications from a web app. All that stuff is fairly important when talking about something like Google Voice.

Of course, this also raises another problem with Apple's model-- not allowing 3rd party apps to run in the background means that Google voice can't do things like, "check for updates every [x] minutes (or by push) and then download any new voicemail messages for offline listening seamlessly without user interaction."

Anyway, even if particular problems can be overcome, it's just not a great solution. I'm an Apple fan too, but let's not make excuses.

Re:DOA

[hkmwbz]

Um.

You seem to be confusing mobile browsers and desktop browsers.

Who cares what Opera did or didn't have? Today is what matters.

Re:DOA

[hkmwbz]

Opera has got nothing to do with Telenor these days. Apple didn't break the law anyway, so there are no "pointed questions" to ask.

Re:DOA

[hkmwbz]

They already had a native client in addition to the Java version.

Re:DOA

[Lakitu]

If you already bought an iphone or itouch, you already handed over control - you decided at that time that your "best interest" was to dispense with some control. I don't care a fig about Apple, but they're not EXTORTING anything.

People buy them under certain premises only for Apple to renege on (some of) them later. While most of us here may know that Apple's one rule is "we can do whatever we want", that's not exactly what they advertise.

You don't want to be in a closed garden, then don't buy a fucking iphone. You don't want to pay for apps, then don't pay for them, you stupid consumer. You're not forced to buy anything, you stupid fucking twat, so there's no coercion or force being exerted by anyone.

It's streets from what Microsoft did, since MS actually DID coerce and extort other companies to make sure IE was the only browser shipped with company X PCs, or more recently, they "coerced" other manufacturers to make sure Windows was the only O/S shipped on the "netbooks".

You don't want to use MSIE, don't buy fucking Windows, you fucking twat consumer.

By the way, in a "boolean" world, either something is, or isn't, at least that's what boolean meant when I went to school. Maybe universities these days teach that boolean now encompasses: "totally, utterly, completely false", "really false", "sort of false", "a little false", "a little true", "kind of true", "true-ish", "pepsi true", and now "totally, utterly completely Apple true".

I'm not the one who tried to portray it as being black-and-white, the post I replied to did. I responded by showing him that if you choose to pigeonhole it into binary values, then Apple most certainly is "totally, utterly, completely" evil, because that's the only kind of evil you can be in that system of judgment. Those are his words, not mine. Apple's behavior is most definitely somewhat evil, ergo, it's completely evil. That's why you don't try to do stupid things like you and he are doing -- and doing wrong -- by pigeonholing Apple into a certain type of behavior and then whitewashing it as if it's perfectly fine when it is patently obvious that it is not perfectly fine.

I expect your reply in a few years when you've worked on your reading comprehension a little bit and have a better system of values. Thanks for the nice talk!

Re:DOA

[mjwalshe]

ah but dont forget the Opera was one of the antitrust complainants so obvisly has the EU's ear.

And I supect given the way things work there will be union members in Opera Software and I suspect that they will be lobying also as well as from the Management side.

Re:DOA

[petermgreen]

Apple seems to be really into the two product lockin model. First with the ipod and itunes music store that one got broken by the music industry dropping DRM). Now they are doing it even harder with the appstore (this one doesn't look like it will get broken any time soon.

It's like a car vendor not only voiding your warranty for installing third party performance parts but also going out of thier way to make it virtually impossible to do so.

Re:DOA

[hkmwbz]

ah but dont forget the Opera was one of the antitrust complainants so obvisly has the EU's ear.

They obviously don't. Anyone can report crimes to the authorities. Opera did. And that was the extent of their involvement. You don't need the ear of government to report a crime. In fact, Microsoft and Google have been filing antitrust complaints against each other in the EU.

And I supect given the way things work there will be union members in Opera Software and I suspect that they will be lobying also as well as from the Management side.

Lobbying who? Why would union members care? And why would the management report someone for a crime if they didn't commit a crime? Apple hasn't broken any laws, and Opera just laughs at suggestions of going after Apple. Opera doesn't have a history of doing anything like this either. Microsoft was an exception after years of blatantly breaking the law. If Opera was quick on the trigger regarding these things, they would have acted years ago. But they didn't, and were pushed to the limit and tried everything else before they finally realized that it was the only way to make Microsoft stop destorying the web.

Also, Norway isn't even part of the EU.

Re:DOA

[mjwalshe]

um you dont think that Unions or companies lobby polaticians at both the national and EU level.

it's not unknown for union branches to seek to change union policy and lobby for a particular outcome.

BTW a computer where the producer says what software is allowed and refuses competeing software - Makes MS seem like a bunch of boy scouts

Re:DOA

[hkmwbz]

Why on earth would Unions lobby the EU over this?

Opera is not lobbying the EU anyway.

Also, Microsoft broke the law. Apple didn't. It doesn't matter if you think Apple is worse.

Re:DOA

[mjwalshe]

Lol if I am the branch secratery of a M&P union damm right i'am going to lobby for things that are good for my members.

I have a lead motion on the ordinace survay free data issue coming up at prospects AGM - quite how we got to be teh lead branch.

And the CWA will have been lobying over the broadband plan for the USA as have the CWU and Connect in the UK.

There are the wider political issues that effect employees where unions do get involved.

Re:DOA

[hkmwbz]

What does this antitrust thing have to do with "good for union members"?

Also, Opera is based in Norway, which isn't even part of the EU.

You are just talking nonsense.

Re:DOA

[mjwalshe]

um what lobying for employers/industry against external non union competition which means more jobs investment and also building brownie points with Polticains and with employers.

Why do you think the CWU and Connect where posative on the UK BB Initiative and the CWA for the health bill and the US BB initaitive.

and Norway is a member of the European Economic Area and Telenor does operate in EU countries.

And it could been seen as suporting Nokia a local company against Apple.

Re:DOA

[hkmwbz]

Again, you failed to explain exactly how any of this would be relevant to union members at Opera. Why would union members at Opera lobby for action against Apple?

And Nokia, a local company? Excuse me, but are you fucking retarded?

Re:DOA

[mjwalshe]

Members or more likly the activists could have any number of reasons from protecting there employer and hence jobs, paying in aid in negoctations, anti americanisiam (popular in france) and there is an argument that makers of devices having a veto of what you can do is inherently wrong.

You dont relise that the nodic contries do work as a blok and dont forget the opera has a browser for smartphones as well and Norwiegin and Finish telecoms unions coperating is a given.

Re:DOA

[hkmwbz]

Are you fucking retarded? France? Opera is Norwegian. Nokia is Finnish. Where on earth did France enter the picture? The only anti-something here is obviously you. Your blind hatred of Europe, and France in particular, turns you into a drooling moron. You are nothing but an ignorant bigot.

And again, you did not explain why union members at Opera would lobby for legal action against Apple!

Re:DOA

[mjwalshe]

Um am I am european unfortunetly european anti americanisam is quite common, I was using france as one example the elements in the tory party that blame the USA for the loss of the empire is another.

FFS you seem to have no idea why a union would suport the employer in lobying "self bloody interest" and as part of an organisations political stratergy

Re:DOA

[hkmwbz]

No, I don't understand why the hell a union would lobby for anything like this. And you have failed to explain why.

Duplicate Functionality?

[Xanavi]

The problem here is this should not have to be a story. Apple could have just competed on their own platform rather than hold it by its neck.

Re:Duplicate Functionality?

[MikeFM]

I think it's less about competing than about the customer experience. Not as if they make money from their built-in apps whereas they do if a 'competitor' sells an app. Studies have shown that most consumers prefer fewer choices.

  If anything I think they should block more from the App Store as it's got to much crap making it hard to find the good content. Not nearly as bad as Android but still a lot of noise in the system. At least they should have a feature to only show apps with a good rating by a considerable number of users.

Re:Duplicate Functionality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you run Firefox on your Nintendo Wii? No, only Opera.

This is a non-story because it's a closed platform and there's nothing surprising about it. Not because "OMG THERES A PLATFORM THAT ISNT OPEN TO EVERYTHING Q.Q"

Re:Duplicate Functionality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bloated Firefox could run on hardware spec'd like the Wii, yeah, way back when it was Mozilla Suite in 2002.

Re:Duplicate Functionality?

[dfghjk]

Lame fanboy excuse. No one said that consumers preferred fewer choices until Apple said it. Curious that Apple brags on the size of their app store.

Apple does make money on their built-in apps. It's included in the sales price. In the case of a competitor's web browser, Apple fears losing control over downloadable apps that run through the browser. That's the real reason for the exclusion of flash.

Re:Duplicate Functionality?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why yes, yes you can.

Re:Duplicate Functionality?

[ukyoCE]

Pretty cool!

Although this is comparable to jailbreaking your iPhone, since Nintendo does not support or allow running alternate OSes except through hacks. Jailbreaking your iPhone probably lets you run Firefox on there too.

Re:Duplicate Functionality?

[hkmwbz]

Opera Software did not make the Wii. Nintendo did. Nintendo licensed Opera for the Wii.

This is a story because it is not unlikely that Opera Mini will be approved.

Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it.

[elrous0]

Yeah, and Apple is going to remove it "fast as a rocket" too.

Steve doesn't compete. He tells you what you can have, and you either accept it or you don't. If you don't like it, go buy a Droid.

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it.

[GlassHeart]

Steve doesn't compete. [...] If you don't like it, go buy a Droid.

...and how exactly is that not "competition"?

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it.

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't properly test drive my iphone and stupidly made too many assumptions about what it could do, or I'd never have bought it, so yes, I'm going to buy a Droid when my contract's up. The whole closed thing is just too annoying, and although the physical design and parts of the UI of the iphone are nice it's just a shiny toy with ridiculously limited functionality if you want to use it for business purposes. For one example: Calendar alarms that you can't snooze? Pathetic! I never thought I'd miss a Microsoft product but the Windows Mobile phone I had before the iphone did simple and obvious things that the iphone simply cannot.

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Steve is selling a device, not a browser. If opera wants to compete, they can do it by making their own phone, or by trying to sell Opera on any open devices out there. Nothing new here.

It's like saying "Whirlpool doesn't compete" because I can't load my own software onto my dishwasher. Yeah, no duh dumbass.

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it.

[Beelzebud]

Oh go cry a river you conservative cry-baby.

I don't remember conservatives giving two shits about transparency during the Bush years. Hell the VP back then had Enron in on private energy meetings that just so happened to coincide with California's manufactured 'energy crisis'.

In fact, if you gave one ounce of care about transparency you'd know that the entire health bill is online, and has been for months. Look up H.R. 3590 on thomas.loc.gov

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it.

[Ossifer]

Nah, this is more like "Whirlpool doesn't allow competition" because it prevent unapproved detergents from being used whereas people are expecting that they should have this choice, as they do with other brands' dishwashers.

My apologies to Whirlpool/Electrolux for this hypothetical discussion.

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it.

[grumpyman]

I'll be a bit surprised if the Opera guys didn't communicate with Apple about their plan. I can't imagine they just code away the whole way and now just hold their breath and cross their fingers...

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it.

[Beelzebud]

Fucktard? I expect nothing less from conservatives, these days. I stopped reading at "fucktard".

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it.

[dunkelfalke]

He does not. Other do.

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it.

[shird]

Most likely their backup plan is to sue. They had their lawyers go over the EULA with a fine tooth comb (Opera mentions this) and they seem to think there is no problem. Opera mini renders on the server side, not client side, thus not competing with the current browser, apparently.

If Apple rejects it, Opera lawyers up (see Microsoft and the EU with regards to Opera). They may even require Apple to give iPhone users a 'browser ballot' - Opera may even be hoping they reject it.

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it.

[barzok]

uh, fucktard, obama claimed that there will be full documentation of anyone he met with, anyone congress met with and any meetings that happened.

IIRC, the President can't dictate rules of proceedings to Congress.

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it.

[exomondo]

Steve is selling a device, not a browser. If opera wants to compete, they can do it by making their own phone, or by trying to sell Opera on any open devices out there. Nothing new here.

It's like saying "Whirlpool doesn't compete" because I can't load my own software onto my dishwasher. Yeah, no duh dumbass.

MS is selling an operating system, not a browser. If Opera wants to compete they can do it by making their own operating system or by trying to sell opera on any open source operating systems out there. Nothing new here.

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it.

[bill_mcgonigle]

Steve doesn't compete. He tells you what you can have, and you either accept it or you don't. If you don't like it, go buy a Droid.

The trick is you don't have all of the information up front. They sometimes decide down the road that they don't like an app, or they chose to enter a new app space and kick out the old player. After they have your money.

Granted, by now all the geeks know this. Most of their customers don't, though.

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it.

[moonbender]

They may even require Apple to give iPhone users a 'browser ballot'

Hahaha. I doubt it, but man would THAT be fun to watch.

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and Apple is going to remove it "fast as a rocket" too.

Steve doesn't compete. He tells you what you can have, and you either accept it or you don't. If you don't like it, go buy a Droid.

I bought a Droid.

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it.

[Anonymous Coward]

He tells you what you can have, and you either accept it or you don't.

(© Chuck Norris Facts)

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it.

[ogdenk]

Just because I'm conservative doesn't make me a republicant. I believe in being conservative AND free from govt tyranny or the shackles of religion. So I call myself a libertarian.

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it.

[exomondo]

Yeah, and Apple is going to remove it "fast as a rocket" too.

So sure about that? What about all the other web browsers on the iPhone?

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it.

[AnotherShep]

I doubt they'd want to introduce browser ballots in a market that they are doing well in...

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it.

[cerberusss]

If you don't like it, go buy a Droid.

[robotic voice]
D-R-O-O-O-O-I-I-D
[/robotic voice]

I love this shit.

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it.

[ukyoCE]

I think this is a great point, and a great question too.

You expect to put any detergent in your dishwasher, so you would complain if you couldn't. You don't expect to be able to boot Linux on your gaming console (without weird hacks), so you don't complain.

Do people expect to be able to run anything they want on their phones?

I don't, but then I've never owned a "smart phone". Others from the Android or Windows Mobile camp expect to be able to run anything, just like on their desktop. I think this is the philosophical divide causing all the complaints. The iPhone put itself in a strange position straddling that divide with their "half-open" app store.

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it.

[splatter]

Just because I'm conservative doesn't make me a republicant. I believe in being conservative AND free from govt tyranny or the shackles of religion. So I call myself a libertarian.

Please don't. We are not you.

I don't want to be associated with republicans any more then you want to be called a socialist.

Stop now you give us real libertarians a bad name.

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it.

[jpcarter]

Hey! Fucktard is a wonderfully rich and expressive word that never hurt anyone.

Don't go around disparaging fucktard just because you don't like the fucktards that use it!

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it.

[hkmwbz]

Opera didn't introduce any browser ballot anywhere. The browser ballot was Microsoft's own idea, and was an attempt to avoid fines after breaking the law.

However, Opera would surely love browser ballots on all mobile phones. Why wouldn't they? Most phones don't have Opera built in, after all. Most of their users are from downloads from their own sites.

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it.

[hkmwbz]

Except the browser ballot was Microsoft's own idea to avoid fines after breaking the law, of course. Opera doesn't have the authority to require anyone else to do anything.

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it.

[hkmwbz]

Why would Opera sue? Opera doesn't have a history of lawsuits.

Opera didn't lawyer up in the EU case. All they did was to ask the EC to look into Microsoft's anti-competitive practices.

The browser ballot was Microsoft's own idea too. Opera had nothing to do with it.

Opera had no power or authority what so ever in the EU antitrust case. And it was certainly not a lawsuit.

And Apple never broke the law, unlike Microsoft, so obviously there's no point in getting the authorities involved.

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it.

[AnotherShep]

If you read the parent, it suggests that Opera might want to do that. Did you just pick a post at random and read it with no context?

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it.

[hkmwbz]

You wrote:

I doubt they'd want to introduce browser ballots in a market that they are doing well in

That is the mobile market, right? If not, which market where you referring to?

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it.

[AnotherShep]

Sorry, typed that in a rush. Here's a response that actually makes sense (maybe).

In mobile, Opera is already a Big Thing. There is somewhere to go *other* than up. Would they really want their hypothetical future competition advertised alongside them? Firefox, various and sundry WebKit browsers, etc.? Opera isn't on there by default, no, but it's not exactly unheard of either.

I guess it's a tough choice - stay a decent size with little real competition or gamble that in an attempt to get big...

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it.

[hkmwbz]

In mobile, Opera is already a Big Thing. There is somewhere to go *other* than up. Would they really want their hypothetical future competition advertised alongside them?

Yes. Yes, they would. In fact, Opera's CEO has stated several times that he doesn't want any single browser to be too dominant, and that includes his own.

Force Their Hand

[eldavojohn]

from the thats-not-gonna-work dept.

Publicize it like they (and you) are doing and actually it just might work. Dare Apple look any more evil than their dictatorship at the app store has made them out to be?

Re:Force Their Hand

[idontgno]

Dare Apple look any more evil than their dictatorship at the app store has made them out to be?

Oh, they dare. They dare.

They already have their core addicts ^w market, fashionistas and fanbois. The point of their iron control is not to enhance market share; the point of their market share is to enhance their iron control.

To paraphrase Ernestine as an Appstore administrator: "We don't care. We're Apple. We don't have to."

Re:Force Their Hand

[Anonymous Coward]

from the thats-not-gonna-work dept.

Publicize it like they (and you) are doing and actually it just might work. Dare Apple look any more evil than their dictatorship at the app store has made them out to be?

You give most Apple users too much credit. Outside of the techies who are Apple fanbois and know what Apple is doing, the rest of them, don't care. I'll paraphrase the line that will come from Apple, "The Opera application doesn't follow Apple's experience and usability guidelines and therefore doesn't offer the experience that people expect form Apple."

The non-tech fonbois will accept it and forget about it.

Re:Force Their Hand

[MBCook]

This whole this is pretty passive-agressive. The count-up clock of how long they've been waiting for approval is really passive-agressive.

I don't really care about Opera myself, but this is going to be so much fun to watch. Opera has been doing a good job setting up their case that they are being unfairly denied when it happens.

So does Apple deny, look bad, and get hit with a lawsuit, or cave in? I can't see Steve caving.

FIGHT!

Re:Force Their Hand

[ukyoCE]

The point of their "iron control" is to make a good device, instead of making a sloppy device where they have to support other devs' software as part of the core experience. It's a very different approach from open devices, but it has its advantages.

Their browser is tightly integrated into the phone experience. Allowing other browsers would mean creating an API, limiting functionality of their browser to published functionality any browser can interoperate with, and so on. It's a lot of effort to dilute their own device. Clearly not a good idea from their perspective.

It's the exact same thing Microsoft did on Windows. The only problem then was that Microsoft had a monopoly on desktop OSes. Controlling the browser market on Windows would have effectively extinguished the internet as an open platform. I don't think there's any risk of that happening from the iPhone having a tightly integrated 1st-party browser on their phone.

Re:Force Their Hand

[amicusNYCL]

I was going to post the exact same thing, this is one of the most passive-aggressive things I've seen a company do. I love the competition to guess when Apple is going to approve it (and win a free iPhone!). Bonus points for anyone who can find the URL of the page which probably already exists which explains that it was denied.

Re:Force Their Hand

[EvanED]

It's the exact same thing Microsoft did on Windows.

No it's not... it's not even close, really. You give one of the reasons yourself -- the monopoly thing. But beyond that, MS never prevented 3rd party browsers from running on the system. Even at the height of IE dominance (both in terms of market share and even, IMO for a short time, quality), it was never hard to run other browsers on Windows.

This is entirely different from the iPhone situation, where Apple doesn't just get to decide what you see by default, but can entirely prevent you (without jailbreaking) from running a particular program for no technical reason whatsoever.

Re:Force Their Hand

[Low Ranked Craig]

Apple doesn't care what a tiny minority of geeks thinks. If they did the iPad would have 2 cameras, 4 media card slots, 5 usb ports, 2 removable batteries, a combo OLED / eInk screen and would run Linux. And it would cost under $300.

Re:Force Their Hand

[Anonymous Coward]

Dare Apple look any more evil than their dictatorship at the app store has made them out to be?

Every iPhone article and nearly every Apple article we get dozens of posters who attempt to paint Apple as the spawn of Satan. I'm perfectly willing to assume it's true, but what those clueless posters haven't yet grasped is Apple doesn't care, and neither do their millions of customers.

Apple doesn't care because slashdot posters are theoretically more technical and do not represent the vast majority of Apple's target market. And it's not like they're hurting for developers to support their platforms.

Their typical customer doesn't care because they probably don't know and certainly don't care about pretty much everything Apple rejects from their Store. They just want a phone that looks nice and works. If you try to tell them how evil Apple is, they'll return blank stares. They'll have no idea what you mean. They're not even going to know anything about Opera because it certainly isn't going to be "publicized" in anything they're going to view or read. That tangent isn't worth following anyway since it will probably be accepted into the Store.

I don't have an iPhone, and I don't even have a Mac anymore, but I'm willing to bet that quite a few slashdotters who are the most vocal about the terrible evils of Apple don't even have one. It's fine for them (and you) to express your opinion of the "evil dictator" Apple, but try to keep in mind how little that particular opinion matters.

Re:Force Their Hand

[ukyoCE]

Yeah, you're right - I should have said "same thing Microsoft tried to do on Windows". I was referring to the integration of the browser with the OS (remember "active desktop", etc.). Those features did exist in Windows98, and they did not even remotely support alternate browsers. (likewise if you type a url into Windows Explorer). This is the same "technical reason" Apple doesn't want to support alternate browsers in the iPhone.

The explicit blocking of competing browsers is definitely unique to the iPhone (and Wii, etc.).

Re:Force Their Hand

[cgenman]

The iPhone did really well at the beginning because it was a phone that wasn't incredibly painful to use. The app store added features and functionality that nobody else had. The phone became pretty close to a full platform.

These days, multi-touch phone interfaces are pretty well understood. The fashionistas have Droids now. The iPhone is good enough for most people... Everyone has one, and it is easy enough to give to someone's mother. But I doubt it deserves the title "fashion toy."

Re:Force Their Hand

[gmhowell]

And they'd sell about a dozen of them before the rest were remaindered through woot.com.

Re:Force Their Hand

[iron-kurton]

So what's so bad about that?

Re:Force Their Hand

[hkmwbz]

I don't see how the count-up is passive-aggressive. It's more like all those other fun publicity stunts Opera has been doing through the years. It's not being done to make a point. It's just there to make the most out of the PR with a fun "game".

Opera doesn't have a history of suing anyone, so if it's rejected I'm pretty sure they will try to change the application to comply with whatever rules they broke and re-submit. That, or be thrilled about PR no money could have bought them. So any resources spent on an iPhone version would not have been wasted due to the massive PR they are getting.

Re:Force Their Hand

[hkmwbz]

I don't see how it's passive-aggressive. Opera is just making the most out of the PR, and pulling a fun stunt (the counter). They have done quite a few of these through the years.

Also, I don't think Opera expects it to be denied, but they have surely prepared themselves for that scenario.

Re:Force Their Hand

[Anonymous Coward]

... and it would run Android.

Aside from Flash....

[787style]

What major deficiency is there in the Safari browser? It works quite well, performance is good, tight integration with all internal and third party apps. And scores 100 on Acid 3. Unless you have a 2G iPhone or live in an area with really bad service, I fail to see what this offers.

And I'm quite happy without Flash, TYVM.

Re:Aside from Flash....

[beanball75]

And I'm quite happy without Flash, TYVM.

I'm not.

Re:Aside from Flash....

[PitneFor]

seriously?

Re:Aside from Flash....

[Anonymous Coward]

Things like "Find" maybe?

Re:Aside from Flash....

[Arty2]

"It works quite well, performance is good, tight integration with all internal and third party apps" Isn't that IE6 all over again?

Re:Aside from Flash....

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that Safari the only app that has ever caused my phone to hard lock to the point of needing a hard reset, and as far as I understand all non-Apple apps aren't allowed to dive deep enough into the OS to even hope to cause anything other than the app itself to crash, a browser that doesn't kill my phone constantly is good enough reason for me.

Not to mention that while roaming in the US I get billed at the wonderful rate of 3 cents per 1KB (Yes you read that right, $30.72 per 1MB) Opera stands to save me a LOT of money if I have to use my data in a pinch.

Re:Aside from Flash....

[Locke2005]

And I'm quite happy without Flash, TYVM. You've obviously never tried to view porn on your iPhone... That's why I use an Android phone; it let's me view porn, even while driving! For living in a Disneyfied world of illusion, there's iPhone. For everything else, there's Android.

Re:Aside from Flash....

[Culture20]

What major deficiency is there in the Safari browser?

Try viewing large animated gifs like the weather radar on http://radar.weather.gov/Conus/index_loop.php I can grab the image on a server, split it into parts, and have javascript show me each image, but somehow, an animated gif larger than 2MB is blocked by safari.

Re:Aside from Flash....

[iron-kurton]

For living in a Disneyfied world of illusion, there's porn . For everything else, there's real women.

FTFY

Don't discount this so quickly.

[pavon]

It's not over till the fat lady sings.

Re:Don't discount this so quickly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Listen, Gladys over in the Rejections & Excuses Department may have a bit of a glandular problem and a habit of singing to herself while her lunch is microwaving, but she's really getting tired of everyone bringing that up all the time.

Re:Don't discount this so quickly.

[Anonymous Coward]

How appropriate, given the phrase's origin.

Re:Don't discount this so quickly.

[The Fat Lady]

Oooooooh, Ave Steve Joooobs, oh Steve Jooooobs, oh Steve Joooobs,

I siiing to you right now, don't blooock the neeeew, submiiiiision to the Apple stooooore,

I teeeeel you thiiiiis beeecaaaauuuse, I haaaave to reaaaally make suuuuuuure that you wiiill
dooooo so

becaaaauuuuse I'm The Fat Laaaaaaadyyyyyyyy.

Done.

Re:Don't discount this so quickly.

[ryantmer]

I applaud the amount of effort that went into parent's post.

Well done, Ms. Lady.

Opera Marketing Win

[VoxMagis]

Whether accepted or not, Opera has gained a lot of basically free publicity with this. That's what it is about, and good for them.

I am not absolutely sure that Apple will reject it. If I was Apple though, I would make them change the name to, for example, 'Opera Web Viewer', and not allow it to access https pages at all. Then they get to claim user-security and still let this thing in.

I love Opera and all, but I'm not sure I would use it myself. I'll look at it when it's available, no reason to worry until then.

Re:Opera Marketing Win

[michael1221988]

For those who don't know Opera mini makes everything blazing fast by acting as a proxy and compresses all of your html pages. However, it should probably not be used for logging into sites, because they can intercept everything.

Re:Opera Marketing Win

[Anonymous Coward]

Next up: all the users start noticing their data comes via a proxy... wow... there goes my bankaccount... :)

or is https:// excluded?

Re:Opera Marketing Win

[FrostDust]

wow... there goes my bankaccount...

It's encrypted between Opera's proxy server and the target website, but not between your phone and Opera's server.

From their Opera Mini FAQ:

If you do not trust Opera Software, make sure you do not use our application to enter any kind of sensitive information.

Re:Opera Marketing Win

[bigNuns]

So, writing an application for the iPhone is free now? I mean, it probably only took them an hour or so right? Seems like a pretty simple solution they have come up with couldn't have taken them more than two.

Re:Opera Marketing Win

[shutdown -p now]

Actually, it is also encrypted between your phone and Opera server. The encryption is not end-to-end, though, and that's the problem - Opera becomes the "man in the middle". So if you trust them, you're fine - no-one else can peak at your connection. If you don't, then don't use it.

Re:Opera Marketing Win

[hkmwbz]

They can, but so can your ISP. Their FAQ tells you that you should only use OM for sensitive stuff if you trust Opera Software. I see no reason not to. They have a great privacy track record, and have been around for nearly 20 years or something like that.

Re:Opera Marketing Win

[hkmwbz]

Opera made some new easy to port user interface toolkit for mobile phones, so it was probably a relatively quick port.

Droid does...

[michael1221988]

Opera mini is blazing on android. Too bad this will fail just like google failed. Apple is a rotten company.

Re:Droid does...

[konohitowa]

So trade in your iPhone for something else then. I mean, given how upset you seem to be about this, you obviously are an iPhone user, right?

Re:Droid does...

[fredrik70]

indeed, this version is the dogs bollocks. The old Opera was quite crap and I mostly used the built in browser on my G1, now, Opera is *the* browser, so fast... only niggle I found is that it doesn't seem to direct youtube videos to the youtube app, just showing the youtube page itself with an non working video on it Oh well, I can live with that! :-)

Re:Droid does...

[idontgno]

Maybe he's just a concerned slashdotter, worried about his fellow geeks.

Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free.

-- John F. Kennedy

Re:Droid does...

[amicusNYCL]

Maybe you're just projecting, but I don't see an indication that the OP is upset. He's saying that Opera mini runs fast on Android (so, apparently, he's an Android owner), that he expects Opera to get denied by Apple, and that he doesn't like Apple. I don't like Apple either, in fact I dislike Apple more than any other company at this point, but I'm not "upset" about anything they do. Surprised maybe, possibly a little confused, maybe empathetic towards people who choose to develop for the Apple platform, but not upset.

Re:Droid does...

[Smurf]

Opera mini is blazing on android.

Cool. Too bad it doesn't support Flash, which makes it completely useless as a web browser according to most here (not me!).

Re:Droid does...

[konohitowa]

Maybe you're just projecting, but I don't see an indication that the OP is upset.

Maybe you're just projecting, but I did see an indication that the OP was upset.

Re:Droid does...

[amicusNYCL]

Which one of these statements is an indication of emotional state:

Opera mini is blazing on android. Too bad this will fail just like google failed. Apple is a rotten company.

From what I can tell, that's 3 opinions.

Re:Droid does...

[Rockoon]

Translation:

Stop talking about Apple! I don't care that Opera Mini is faster than anything from Apple! Apple rules! I loves Apple! STFU!!!

Re:Droid does...

[konohitowa]

From the Google dictionary:

5. You use rotten to emphasize your dislike for something or your anger or annoyance about it.

Who knows. Maybe Google is just projecting on that particular definition.

Re:Droid does...

[amicusNYCL]

No, that's a good definition. Dislike is a good term. I dislike Apple. Dislike doesn't mean upset. If you think it does, then you also think that anyone who dislikes anything walks around in a perpetual state of being emotionally upset.

This is a fun discussion.

Re:Droid does...

[mjwx]

Too bad this will fail just like google failed.

Care to elaborate where Google failed, shipping 60,000 Android units a day is hardly what I'd call an unmitigated disaster.

Re:Droid does...

[MemoryDragon]

Heck Google does almost no advertising just sells the phone in three countries and then everyone expects that the phone sells like hotcakes. The entire EU except Britain for instance cannot get it the same goes for Asia and the rest of the world is left out as well.

Re:Droid does...

[mjwx]

Heck Google does almost no advertising just sells the phone in three countries and then everyone expects that the phone sells like hotcakes. The entire EU except Britain for instance cannot get it the same goes for Asia and the rest of the world is left out as well.

Are you referring to the Nexus One or Android in general.

In either case you are wrong, if the UK can get the N1 under EU trade laws anyone in Europe can get The N1. In fact if it's being sold in the UK and it is, anyone in the world apart from a few special nations like Iran and North Korea can buy it if they have the money.

The Nexus One in Hong Kong.
The Nexus One in The United Kingdom.
The Nexus One in Australia.

If I can buy it from HK, I can get it anywhere in Asia, if I can buy it from the UK I can get it anywhere in Europe. The whole idea behind the N1 is that we can finally become separated from this damned telco control over handsets and software (yet Vodafone are in negotiations with Google to release worldwide).

BTW, there are more Android handset then the N1, take a look around the Expansys and MobiCity web sites, also try clove but they aren't offering the N1 just yet. I bought my Motorola Milestone from Expansys UK (non EU residents don't pay VAT, about 70 Pounds less for me) so they do deliver internationally.

Re:Droid does...

[mdwh2]

Unless most of your sites include Flash, you can simply have both Opera Mini, and a full browser (e.g., Opera Mobile, or your phone's built in one) installed too. Not to mention that this story is Opera Mini for the Iphone, and the Iphone still can't even support Flash at all :)

Re:Droid does...

[konohitowa]

I suppose the next link I'll have to provide is one for the word "or." Unfortunately, I suspect you're a bit too obtuse to understand what it means.

Re:Droid does...

[amicusNYCL]

Well, let's see if I understand what "or" means. If I'm wrong, I know you'll (attempt to) correct me.

You use rotten to emphasize your dislike for something or your anger or annoyance about it.

So let's see.. that definition means that any of these could be true:

You are emphasizing your dislike for something

You are emphasizing your anger about something

You are emphasizing your annoyance about something

So, any one of those statements could be true, and it would still satisfy the definition. Since this is an or condition, and not an and condition, that means that only one needs to be true in order for the definition to be satisfied. So, assuming this is true:

You are emphasizing your dislike for something

Then that would satisfy the definition, and it would still not imply any emotional instability or being "upset". Therefore, one can think that something is rotten, i.e. dislike something, and still not be upset about it. There is no definition I see on Google for "upset" which is simply synonymous with "dislike".

So clearly you're trying to assume that you know the mental state of the OP, but he gave no evidence for what his mental state might be. At this point it certainly seems like you're a bit too obtuse to understand this.

Free iPhone for Release Date!

[Ksevio]

Looks like they're giving out a free iPhone if you guess closest to the release time on the link in the summary. Looks like "Never" isn't an option so they're optimistic.

Re:Free iPhone for Release Date!

[amicusNYCL]

That's not optimism, that's a challenge to Apple. I'll give you 10 to 1 odds that they've already got a "submission rejected" page on their server ready to go.

Re:Free iPhone for Release Date!

[hkmwbz]

I doubt it. They sound pretty convinced that they aren't violating any terms for the App Store.

They put Apple between a rock and a hard place

[Anonymous Coward]

If Apple rejects there will be an uproar from everyone, if they accept everyone well say it was because of all the publicity Opera did before they submitted the app.

Engadget'sideo comparison

[jigamo]

Engadget has an interesting write-up on this with a video comparing page-load times on an Edge connection between Safari and Opera Mini. The article also links to a page Opera has up with a timer showing how long it's been since the app was submitted. If the video is legitimate, I could see this getting a lot of people to move to Opera Mini (if Apple accepts this app).

Think they will allow it

[SuperKendall]

Opera mini is a curious thing that does no parsing on the device, it does it all on the Opera server...

Apple will not disallow it, as it does not do anything like add an alternate Javascript parser on the phone - nor does it really duplicate Safari much, as the rendering is not really the same.

You don't understand what Opera Mini is

[SuperKendall]

I don't know if it will ever match the speed of Safari considering they don't have access to the private API's that Apple does (and forbids everyone else from using).

Private API's are mostly irrelevant - Opera Mini works by rendering your request on a server and returning the results to you. Browsing speed is all about caching on the server plus it being able to get the complete page data faster than you can.

On Edge Opera mini would probably be faster, but on 3G I'm not sure it would really be that much better - I'd prefer having the browser all local in that case.

Ok

[Anonymous Coward]

AAAAAAA OOOOOO UUUUUU

Blah blah blah
Bleh bleh bleh bleh
blah blah blaaaaaaaah


fidgity fidgity fidgity blaaaaaaah
brooom breeeeeaaaadulaaaaam
mooooo heeeee hahaaaaa huuuuuuuu


Thank you

Won't this get rejected?

[billsayswow]

Doesn't Apple reject apps that do what the iPhone itself can already do, for better or for worse?

Another anti-competitive suit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Was it not Opera who kick started Microsoft into offering users a choice when it comes to browsers? Perhaps a similar suit is in Apple's future...

Re:Another anti-competitive suit?

[hkmwbz]

No, the ballot screen was Microsoft's own idea.

Apple, please reject this quickly

[Anonymous Coward]

I really hope Apple rejects it quickly so Opera tosses it up on the jailbroken software distribution channels (Cydia/Rock). All the more stuff to show my friends to get them interested in breaking Apple's chokehold on their hardware.

It's not like I'd refuse to use it if it was on the Apple Store, I'd actually be rather happy if it was for all the people who choose not to jailbreak, but I imagine that Opera is waiting to see if they get Apple's blessing before rolling it out by other means. And I bet that Apple will likely delay their "decision" as long as possible (indefinitely?) until people/media forget about it, then quietly deny it if pushed to a decision.

Re:Apple, please reject this quickly

[JohnG]

Yeah, because it would be impossible for Opera to put out a press release saying "Opera mini rejected by app store" and bring the media right back down upon the issue. Good thing Steve Jobs is the 'evil' genius, and not you. Your plan for platform domination sucks.

Re:Apple, please reject this quickly

[Anonymous Coward]

The second Opera puts out anything saying that, Apple would counter with "we didn't deny it, it's still under review" at which point the whole circus ride starts over again. That's why I said Apple will drag this out as long as possible; they never have to approve it and they never have to deny it.

Of course I would never take credit for something as brilliantly evil as the App Store, that's something only Apple could dream up and Microsoft could copy.

Re:Apple, please reject this quickly

[shutdown -p now]

I really hope Apple rejects it quickly so Opera tosses it up on the jailbroken software distribution channels (Cydia/Rock).

Do you seriously expect Opera to do that?

I would rather expect them to come up with a press release that basically says, "fuck Apple, everyone buy Android".

This is probably legal manoeuvering

[obarthelemy]

My guess is Opera have no hope of getting it approved, buyt are starting to build a case to force the iGarden open the same way they forced the Wintel one. Will take a while, though.

Re:This is probably legal manoeuvering

[recoiledsnake]

What Wintel garden? It's been quite open, ever since the first version of Windows. Opera has now forced MS to advertize other browsers which I don't like. (Typing this from a Opera browser, user since 10 years).

Re:This is probably legal manoeuvering

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh boy! So now people's PHONES can be spambots! Yay!

Re:This is probably legal manoeuvering

[Anonymous Coward]

build a case to force the iGarden open

Apple doesn't have anywhere near the smart phone marketshare to be declared a monopoly and have competition regulations forced on them. At least not in the US -- but then the US barely slapped Microsoft on the wrist when they had >90% market share and started taking over every PC software market. How do you expect Apple to get "forced open"?

Re:This is probably legal manoeuvering

[mdwh2]

Although note that the particular issue was Wintel was it being a monopoly (and an illegally acting one, at that). The Iphone isn't anywhere remotely near that, not anywhere close - we can be thankful that the market leaders such as Nokia aren't locked down like this.

Re:This is probably legal manoeuvering

[hkmwbz]

Opera hasn't force Microsoft at all. They don't have the power to do anything of the sorts.

Microsoft suggested the ballot screen, not Opera.

So if you don't like the ballot screen, blame Microsoft for breaking the law, and then proposing the ballot screen in order to avoid fines from the EU.

Re:This is probably legal manoeuvering

[hkmwbz]

Opera didn't force Microsoft to do anything, nor do they have the power to. The ballot screen was Microsoft's own idea.

And there's no case to build. Apple didn't break any laws, unlike Microsoft.

But...

[Locke2005]

Does it support Flash?

Re:But...

[petegas]

Nope. No Java or Flash support. http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/02/opera-mini-for-iphone-is-fast-like-a-rocket/ [wired.com]

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course not. The only mobile OS I know of where one can run a full browser with flash is Windows Mobile - and I would assume that cool Nokia phone that runs linux would give you the ability too.

Why not?

[Locke2005]

Because it allows app developers to do an end run around Apple control, and release apps that render entirely in the browser, and therefore are not subject to Apple approval?

Re:Why not?

[Monkeedude1212]

Ah. Didn't even think of that.

But wait, why can't people write apps that run off Safari in the same way?

should get accepted, but no flash or Java . . .

[petegas]

Opera gets around the 'interpretive code' restriction for standard browsing by actually running the browser server side, and serving the webpage as marked up images back to the iphone. This unfortunately means no Java or Flash support. http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/02/opera-mini-for-iphone-is-fast-like-a-rocket/

Opera uses a proxy

[YesIAmAScript]

As you can tell by their "compression technology" comments, Opera Mini uses a proxy server to front its requests. Much like a Danger Hiptop. This means they can shrink pages down before sending them, downrezzing images and such.

However, much like on a HipTop, this means that JavaScript is problematic. Since the rendering isn't happening on the device and JS isn't running as you navigate, many pages will just foul up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Mini#JavaScript_support

Some of Opera Mini's UI is quite sexy.

B&N

[Chris Burke]

I just went to Barnes & Nobles' website, and I can't find the Kindle anywhere!

I don't know why you are talking about Microsoft or Apple, when B&N is so evil as to not sell a competitor's product in their own store!

Why is the government not stopping them?!

P.S. Hope Opera doesn't get rejected, but seriously, if it does... "Store doesn't sell product that competes with store owner" is hardly news and hardly evil.

Re:B&N

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

http://www.betanews.com/article/One-more-iPhone-app-rejected-for-duplicate-functionality/1222125984

It might be just me

[christurkel]

And my old(er) eyes, but web surfing on the iPhone is not really something i find a compelling feature of the device.

Re:It might be just me

[Tran]

But at lest I can comfortably browse on the iphone/ipod touch. I can't say that about the browsing on Android.

Yes, I own both platforms.

This is fishy

[postmortem]

Did they went will all development without checking with apple first if they will allow this app?

Re:This is fishy

[hkmwbz]

They obviously looked at the terms first, and now think they are in compliance, which is why it was submitted.

Praying for rejection, ohpleaseohpleaseohplease

[Xyde]

I'm hoping Apple will deny it simply because I'm excited to see the huge quantity of whine that it will result in - flooding the tubes for weeks with it's open letters, Op-Ed pieces and my favourite of all, the endless indignant blog posts. Oh look, here's some now! Way better than a soap.

Re:Praying for rejection, ohpleaseohpleaseohplease

[hkmwbz]

It's great. The amount of PR from this must have exceeded Opera's wildest dreams. If it's rejected, I suspect the Opera people will wet themselves with excitement over even more massive PR.

Money couldn't buy this kind of PR. A rejection would more than pay for the development of an iPhone version with the amount of PR alone.

It's a win-win situation for Opera.

Wait, what?

[Yvan256]

My ISP's web compression squeezes text/html to about 3% its original size, and jpegs/gifs to 15%.

Your ISP is modifying the web pages you're viewing?

Re:Wait, what?

[theaveng]

???.

It compresses the HTML and JPEGs on one end.
Sends it through the narrowband (4 kilohertz) phone line.
My computer decompresses it on the other end.

That in essence is what Opera Mini does but across the narrowband G2 or G3 connection

Re:Wait, what?

[Anonymous Coward]

O2 in the UK compress all images that get transmitted via their network. If it is in Safari, a twitter app or new app.

will it support some client side caching?

[cpotoso]

One of the things I find TRULY ANNOYING about the iphone is that there is virtually no caching of information (incredible if you think that sometimes your network connection isn't that great). You load one page in safari and back to the previous page requires a complete reload from the server. This is STUPID. Hopefully Opera will bring this to us, then again ievil iapple will probably never allow Opera... And then... hopefully Opera will migrate to the cydia store, showing again why the jailbroken community rules!

Re:will it support some client side caching?

[hkmwbz]

Yes, Opera Mini caches pages. That means instant navigation in history, and no reloading of pages.0,

Re:will it support some client side caching?

[cpotoso]

Thank you for the good news. I will buy Opera when it appears on the Cydia store!

It may be approved

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw today in the iPhone app store several other third-party browsers. They were no-name browsers thought, not like IE. However If Apple already approved other browsers,I don't see why they won't approve Opera.

iPhone Browser Ballot?

[rschuetzler]

I smell another browser-ballot lawsuit from Opera if this app doesn't get approved. And if Apple's App store policies are consistent (a stretch, I know), it won't be.

Re:iPhone Browser Ballot?

[hkmwbz]

What ballot lawsuit?

Opera never sued anyone. All they did was, with support from several other companies (including Google and Mozilla), to report to the authorities that Microsoft was breaking the law. That was the extent of their involvement.

The ballot screen was Microsoft's own idea.

So to assume that Opera will sue anyone is just madness. They never sued anyone. All they did was to ask the government to look into Microsoft's anti-competitive practices. And Google, Mozilla and several other companies supported the case.

Mouse gestures

[^_^x]

Hopefully it supports some kind of gesture system - maybe touch a corner and then draw the shape? After getting used to mouse gestures, I can't go to any other browser; it just feels clunky, like browsing without a scroll wheel.

Looks faster

[Anonymous Coward]

The video is misleading. The Opera side begins browsing and clicking on links before the page is done loading, thus the entire page is not loaded, but they count the page twoards the total.

You sure?

It looks to me like while they start moving around the page before it finishes loading, in each case there is a perceptible time between when the "progress spinner" stops before they click to the next page. The user on the opera side isn't actually leaving the current page before it says it's loaded.

iCab best alternative browser

[iliketrash]

I haven't seen Opera Mini but notwithstanding that the best alternative browser for iPhone and iPod Touch is iCab. This is from a longtime developer of an excellent OS X browser, and I'm sure it uses Webkit.

How long until

[Hamsterdan]

It's available on Cydia after being rejected?

No privacy or security in Opera Mini; reject it

[gig]

This is not "Opera" the Web browser. This is "Opera Mini," which is a feature phone pseudo-browser that makes up for the lack of resources on a feature phone by essentially running the Web browser on a server at Opera, rendering the pages there and sending photos of them back to the user. The problem is, that means you have absolutely no privacy, and absolutely no security. Opera not only knows your history, they know your passwords, they sit in-between you and authenticated servers. Maybe on a feature phone where you have no other choice, it's worth it to give that up. But on a smartphone where you already have an HTML5 browser, it's not a good idea.

Well, let the user choose, you say. If you are technically advanced enough to install Opera Mini on your feature phone, then maybe you also understand what privacy and security you're giving up. Somewhere in the arduous process of installing the app you read a terms of service and were warned about the implications of using the browser. But on iPhone, you only have to know how to click "INSTALL" and users who are accustomed to a private, secure browsing experience will assume that is what they're getting in Opera, not realizing it is "Opera Mini." When users install native apps, they're putting your trust in Apple. iPhone users expect the apps they get at the App Store to be 100% malware free and to be 100% respectful of their privacy and security. The example that is used is the app should not upload your address book. How much worse is it that the app uploads every password you give it, that the app sits between you and your bank, that the app uploads every single URL you give it, sees every single email? Knows your Facebook login, your Gmail login, and so on?

The reason Opera is doing this big "they won't approve it" PR campaign is that Opera knows full well Apple won't approve it because of the privacy and security issues, and they want to make PR hay with the implication that Apple can't compete with Opera. But if they really wanted to put a browser on iPhone, where is "Opera," the desktop-class Web browser? That is what they should be offering users who have OS X in their phone if they offer anything at all. There are dozens of alternative browsers on iPhone. Why isn't one of them "Opera" by now? Why didn't they ship that years ago already? Why would you possibly offer users of a smartphone that has had a desktop-class browser for 3+ years the pseudo-browser from a feature phone? Unless you were being disingenuous from the start.

What's more, Opera says that Opera Mini is the most used mobile Web browser, when that is clearly not true. Apple Safari for iPhone is responsible for the vast majority of mobile Web browsing in every study. Opera says that Opera Mini is the most popular mobile Web browser, on 50 million handsets. But there are more than 50 million iPhones, and Safari for iPhone is also on another 50 million iPods, and now a million iPads have been sold already as well. So their disingenuous behavior extends to every aspect of this PR stunt.

The most foolish part about this is people here saying "evil Apple" when Opera Mini violates the core principles of the Web, and Apple WebKit has brought desktop-class HTML5 browsing to phones, including Nokia, Android, Palm, and soon Blackberry. Get a grip. You ought to be ashamed of your hypocrisy.

Re:No privacy or security in Opera Mini; reject it

[chrb]

The problem is, that means you have absolutely no privacy, and absolutely no security.

This is the same as every non-SSL web site - your ISP can intercept everything. Most people are quite happy to browse regular sites like Facebook or the New York Times over non-encrypted sessions. They may think twice before doing online banking in Opera Mini (or for that matter, a closed source device at all...), but for regular daily use, the vast majority of people won't be bothered.

Re:No privacy or security in Opera Mini; reject it

[hkmwbz]

Yes, this is indeed the Opera web browser.

You are assuming that Opera is logging everything you do, but they would be in violation with their own principles then, and of course the extremely harsh privacy laws in Norway.

Of course Opera doesn't know that Apple won't approve it. They have explained very clearly why they don't think it violates any guidelines for the App Store. Again you are making completely nonsensical assumptions.

And yes, Opera is indeed the most used web browser on mobile phones. Those 50 million users are just the ones who installed it directly from Opera. Opera is also bundled on hundreds of mobile phone every year.

Apple may have sold 50 million handsets, but all those phones are not still in use. Millions of them have simply bought a newer iPhone. And you can't assume that all of them browse the web. On the other han, 50 million is the actual number of active Opera Mini users.

How are PR stunts like these "disingenuous"? Where were you when Apple lied in their ads?

Opera Mini violates the core principles of the web? That's just a laughable claim, considering Opera's track record.

Opera brought desktop-class browsing to phones before WebKit even existed.

If anyone is a hypocrite here, it is you. An ignorant hypocrite. Apple fanboy much?

Apple approved my browser in about 24 hrs

[ConfusedVorlon]

It is similar to opera in many ways;

It has a turbo mode that loads pages faster (reroutes the urls via google's compression service)

displays tabs graphically (though I use a coverflow-style interface)

and the key part: the actual pages are rendered by apple's UIWebView

it went live this morning...

http://hobbyistsoftware.com/eyebrowse

Reorganizes text on slashdot.org to fit screen.

[tigueraje]

I enjoy the fact that Opera mobile reorganizes the text to fit the screen of my Windows mobile phone when I zoom in to read Slashdot. Zoomin in using Safari on my iPod Touch causes me to have to scroll to the sides (text doesn't get reorganized to fit and I have to scroll to read every single line), which is why I haven't used it in about 4 months. If Opera mobile (which supports flash) or Opera mini existed for this platform I might start using it again, otherwise, I'll keep using my WinMo device.