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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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?

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

[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

[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

[Monkeedude1212]

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

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

[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

[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.

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.

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

[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.

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

[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: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: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.

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.

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: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.