6 ms·

They have a count-up timer of how long it's taking to be approved: http://my.opera.com/community/countup/ http://my.opera.com/community/countup/ It's not clear

They have a count-up timer of how long it's taking to be approved: http://my.opera.com/community/countup/ http://my.opera.com/community/countup/ It's not clear what statement they're trying to make with this but it's not pretty.

ErrantX 17y ago
Yes I agree; the counter is a bit of an idiotic move... it's like sticking a finger up at Apple and saying "deny us if you dare" Which is fine; but I think they lose some of the validity to be disgruntled if declined.
- ZeroGravitas 17y ago
  Yes, because you should always show all due deference to the owner of your plantation, sorry platform. No backtalk or you'll lose your disgruntlement privileges.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    Well for a start it hands Apple an excuse to not approve them (i.e. by saying Opera was rude and uncooperative in it's submission or something). Also if your later disgruntlement is going to be based around the fact Apple are being nasty (a fair complaint if they are refused for a random reason) then being a bit narky yourself doesn't help. But most of all it makes this whole application process look a lot like them trying to force a confrontation...
    - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
      If Apple is banning apps because the developers are rude to them then that right there is a problem worth highlighting. I would suggest it is already a confrontation, the fact that almost all other developers have cowed before Apple (because they have no leverage and will therefore lose, possibly for utterly random reasons) and Opera has chosen not to, doesn't change the fundamental nature of things.
      - ErrantX 17y ago
        > If Apple is banning apps because the developers are rude to them then that right there is a problem worth highlighting. All else equal if someone submitted a program to a platform I ran then created a "how long since we submitted the app...." counter I would probably click the "go away, jerk" button, to be perfectly honest ;) There's no need to fawn, certainly. But being grown up is advisable IMO. > I would suggest it is already a confrontation, the fact that almost all other developers have cowed before Apple (because they have no leverage and will therefore lose, possibly for utterly random reasons) and Opera has chosen not to, doesn't change the fundamental nature of things. Entirely irrelevant. Opera are just blowing smoke in a sense; Apple are approving apps much faster now, Apple are approving browser apps. There is no prior art that would suggest they are likely to not approve Opera mini. I dont see how a counter is leverage in this - if Apple want to drop them then they'll drop them. As already pointed out whatever they do there will be whinging - so it doesn't matter too much to them either way. I dont think the outcome of this will fundamentally alter anything about the app store or Apple's process. And I expect Opera mini will be approved...... This is a PR stunt to Opera. Nothing more.
        bruceboughton 17y ago
        My guess is that it won't be approved. AFAIK, the only browsers approved so far are ones that wrap the built in WebKit engine. Although Opera Mini probably isn't violating the no interpreter rule, I doubt Apple will want to have an alternative rendering technology on the iPhone. Let's see...
  - jsz0 17y ago
    I have no sympathy for this argument when you can simply pack up and go elsewhere. It's a cheap PR stunt. They know the terms of the App Store. Why not focus efforts on Android or other platforms? No good PR value there I guess.
  - tvon 17y ago
    You can't possibly be even half-serious with that analogy, can you? My knowledge of History is spotty, but I don't recall slaves and indentured servants being able to pick what plantation they serve, or having the option to pack up shop and move on to greener pastures when they felt like it.
    - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
      I was actually echoing Tim Bray's use of the term "sharecropper" (http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/07/12/WebsThePlace http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/07/12/WebsThePla...), and the historical sharecroppers could choose their location and move onto other areas and indeed were often forced out when better use for the land was found. I accept the use of plantation is confusing, given its association with slavery, though I believe tenant plantation was an actual historical term. I mostly used it because of plantation/platform similarity of sound.
EsquireCats 17y ago
Maybe they can post a timer showing how long it took them to release it - since in the time that they started talking about Opera for iPhone, there have been numerous other releases from less hype-heavy developers. (e.g. iCab)

ErrantX 17y ago

Yes I agree; the counter is a bit of an idiotic move... it's like sticking a finger up at Apple and saying "deny us if you dare" Which is fine; but I think they lose some of the validity to be disgruntled if declined.

ZeroGravitas 17y ago
Yes, because you should always show all due deference to the owner of your plantation, sorry platform. No backtalk or you'll lose your disgruntlement privileges.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Well for a start it hands Apple an excuse to not approve them (i.e. by saying Opera was rude and uncooperative in it's submission or something). Also if your later disgruntlement is going to be based around the fact Apple are being nasty (a fair complaint if they are refused for a random reason) then being a bit narky yourself doesn't help. But most of all it makes this whole application process look a lot like them trying to force a confrontation...
  - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
    If Apple is banning apps because the developers are rude to them then that right there is a problem worth highlighting. I would suggest it is already a confrontation, the fact that almost all other developers have cowed before Apple (because they have no leverage and will therefore lose, possibly for utterly random reasons) and Opera has chosen not to, doesn't change the fundamental nature of things.
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      > If Apple is banning apps because the developers are rude to them then that right there is a problem worth highlighting. All else equal if someone submitted a program to a platform I ran then created a "how long since we submitted the app...." counter I would probably click the "go away, jerk" button, to be perfectly honest ;) There's no need to fawn, certainly. But being grown up is advisable IMO. > I would suggest it is already a confrontation, the fact that almost all other developers have cowed before Apple (because they have no leverage and will therefore lose, possibly for utterly random reasons) and Opera has chosen not to, doesn't change the fundamental nature of things. Entirely irrelevant. Opera are just blowing smoke in a sense; Apple are approving apps much faster now, Apple are approving browser apps. There is no prior art that would suggest they are likely to not approve Opera mini. I dont see how a counter is leverage in this - if Apple want to drop them then they'll drop them. As already pointed out whatever they do there will be whinging - so it doesn't matter too much to them either way. I dont think the outcome of this will fundamentally alter anything about the app store or Apple's process. And I expect Opera mini will be approved...... This is a PR stunt to Opera. Nothing more.
      - bruceboughton 17y ago
        My guess is that it won't be approved. AFAIK, the only browsers approved so far are ones that wrap the built in WebKit engine. Although Opera Mini probably isn't violating the no interpreter rule, I doubt Apple will want to have an alternative rendering technology on the iPhone. Let's see...
- jsz0 17y ago
  I have no sympathy for this argument when you can simply pack up and go elsewhere. It's a cheap PR stunt. They know the terms of the App Store. Why not focus efforts on Android or other platforms? No good PR value there I guess.
- tvon 17y ago
  You can't possibly be even half-serious with that analogy, can you? My knowledge of History is spotty, but I don't recall slaves and indentured servants being able to pick what plantation they serve, or having the option to pack up shop and move on to greener pastures when they felt like it.
  - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
    I was actually echoing Tim Bray's use of the term "sharecropper" (http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/07/12/WebsThePlace http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/07/12/WebsThePla...), and the historical sharecroppers could choose their location and move onto other areas and indeed were often forced out when better use for the land was found. I accept the use of plantation is confusing, given its association with slavery, though I believe tenant plantation was an actual historical term. I mostly used it because of plantation/platform similarity of sound.

EsquireCats 17y ago

Maybe they can post a timer showing how long it took them to release it - since in the time that they started talking about Opera for iPhone, there have been numerous other releases from less hype-heavy developers. (e.g. iCab)