9 ms·

Time since Opera Mini for iPhone was officially submitted to Apple

98 points by edd 17y ago

wrath 17y ago
Do I smell the start of an anti-trust suit brewing??? Assuming there's no slight of hands trickery in the demo, the performance is very impressive. I was under the assumption that the bulk of the performance issues on Safari were network and cpu related...
- fierarul 17y ago
  The difference is that Opera Mini uses Opera's servers as some caching and compressing proxy server, it doesn't actually connect to nytimes.com like Mobile Safari in the demo. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Mini http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Mini and especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Mini#Privacy_and_security http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Mini#Privacy_and_security
  - grimoire 17y ago
    The eye opener for me is the lack of end to end security. I generally avoid doing anything requiring https on my iPhone, but now I know to NEVER do anything that requires security on Opera Mini. Of course, this assumes that it actually gets approved...
    - nailer 17y ago
      Opera Mini is a great product, but they could (and should) make it perform direct connections when in https mode.
- EsquireCats 17y ago
  Problems with this line of thinking: 1. Anti-trust implies monopoly. No monopoly on phones here. Plus it's Apple's store, you can't have a "monopoly" on your own product. 2. Apple haven't exhibited a consistent pattern of app rejections to imply any particular competitive bias. (They host many applications from their traditional competitors.) 3. Point 2 is moot, as it's still not a monopoly to begin with. If you'd like to see what real monopolistic-competitor crunching behaviour is, then read up on the halloween documents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Halloween_documents_leak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Halloween_documents_l... Compare Apple to Microsoft and IBM... Apple don't have the slightest on these mammoths.
  - orangecat 17y ago
    Compare Apple to Microsoft and IBM... Apple don't have the slightest on these mammoths. Microsoft indirectly funded legal attacks on Linux; Apple is seeking to destroy Android entirely by abusing the patent system. Microsoft made it slightly more inconvenient to run competing browsers; Apple bans them altogether. Apple may not have the market share of that MS or IBM did, but they certainly have the attitude.
    - EsquireCats 17y ago
      This statement is remarkably light on fact and heavy on sensationalism. Apple have received numerous patent disputes for technologies included in the iPhone. They hardly "threw the first punch." I also wouldn't call this an abuse on the patent system - apple's current action is -precisely- what the patent system is useful for. Abuse would be similar behaviour to IBM in the 80s where they would racket money from start ups threatening them with the weight of their patent portfolio. Also numerous browsers are available for the iPhone. I'd really be more swayed into believing apple were this big evil company - if the other companies weren't as bad, if not worse. I'd say they are all a little rotten, however by far I recognise that Apple is reasonably clean for a company that has had more than 30 years to make big public mistakes.
  - mtarnovan 17y ago
    Potential monopolies must be handled with care. By the time a company becomes a monopoly, there's hardly any competition left. Seems like we didn't learn our lesson from when Microsoft crushed everyone else to swallow most of the x86 OS market, which it still dominates today, by a wide margin. "you can't have a "monopoly" on your own product." Of course, you can only have monopoly on a market.
    - EsquireCats 17y ago
      I honestly believe that you don't have a firm understanding of what a monopoly is, nor how they are expressed in the market. A large market share does not automatically make a monopoly. (However a large market share can be a key competitive advantage in establishing a monopoly.) For example, the iPod makes up a large market share of MP3 players sold to date - but this doesn't prevent a consumer from purchasing a music player, music or other services from another company. This is because the iPod(in terms of music) is not a console device. There is nothing apple can do to their iPod product that would prevent (for example) Amazon from being able to sell music. This is why Apple spend much money advertising - their lead is established by brand marketing. There are numerous other devices of various qualities/prices/capabilities which could replace the iPod. Like the Amazon example - there is nothing Apple can do to their app store to prevent a developer from developing software for the Android platform. Apple's strict "quality" policies actually force many developers onto the Android platform. In that example Apple's policies have sponsored increased competition which is the exact opposite of monopolistic behaviour. Just because the only way you get new software onto the iPhone is via the app store does not mean that Apple has a monopoly over their app store. This is simply a closed system - identical to any "console" market. The misconception mostly occurs because the iPhone is almost entirely unique in using this approach for smart phones, versus other manufacturers which allow software to be run in a fashion similar to modern PCs. Microsoft on the other hand forced manufacturers to not support/purchase a competitors operating system software or face grossly increased wholesale prices on their windows OS product. Additionally they were able to abuse their operating system monopoly by leveraging this against competitor's software from unrelated categories. The IE vs Netscape saga is a good example of this. (However MS was found guilty of enacting this behaviour on numerous other companies, including Apple.)
- tvon 17y ago
  anti-trust for what?
  - nailer 17y ago
    Android, WinMo, and other smart phone platforms allow the installation of arbitrary software, including browsers that compete with the vendors. iPhone OS does not. This hurts consumers by removing choice and the economy by removing competition.
    - glhaynes 17y ago
      Here's a just-as-oversimplified claim: "Mac OS X allows the installation of arbitrary software. This hurts consumers by allowing viruses, spyware, and other (including non-malicious) causes of degradation of enjoyment." Everything's a tradeoff. Tens of millions of people, including a large number of which are tech-savvy and completely aware of competing phones, are very happy with the iPhone as a complete product and specifically choose it, often in part because of what they perceive as a better overall experience because of the limitations.
    - GHFigs 17y ago
      Uh oh. If running a closed platform is grounds for anti-trust action, then Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo all had better watch out. Even One Laptop Per Child is in on this--Oh my! I thought they were good guys but it turns out they are evil monopolists!: If you don't have a developer key, and your laptop has firmware security enabled, it will not let you do anything except boot an OLPC-signed operating system, and use the OLPC-provided software. If you insert a USB flash drive or SD card, the boot firmware will only boot from it if the files are tested and cryptographically signed by OLPC. -- http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Activation_and_developer_keys http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Activation_and_developer_keys ...or maybe what you're saying has more to do with your opinion than the law.
      - nailer 17y ago
        I agree with you - I was just trying to answer the parents question. I also would have modded you up until I read the last sentence. Relax, there's no need to be so aggressive.
jacquesm 17y ago
It duplicates functionality the iPhone already has, does that mean they'll reject it to be consistent or will they approve a bunch of other apps that have been rejected for that reason ?
- ZeroGravitas 17y ago
  Well it can't be rejected for consistency because there's a bunch of browser apps already.
  - mbreese 17y ago
    All of the existing browsers ultimately use Safari's DOM/JS engine. What would be really interesting is if there were a Gecko or a full Opera engine based browser. Opera mini isn't really a browser, it's a proxy, so I'm not sure this would fall under the same category anyway.
- powrtoch 17y ago
  It should also be noted that Apple's approval team doesn't seem especially concerned with consistency. Case in point their inscrutable "explicit/adult" content critera.
valums 17y ago
When do you think Opera Mini will be approved by Apple? Never, and it's a pity. Opera looks really impressive, judging by their video.
jsm386 17y ago
Opera Mini requests web pages through the Opera Software company's servers, which process and compress them before relaying the pages back to the mobile phone. This compression process makes transfer time about two to three times faster, and the pre-processing smoothes compatibility with web pages not designed for mobile phones. How is this not a massive privacy/security issue? You are trusting Opera to not look at your content, and as mentioned later on: Opera Mini has received some criticism because it does not offer true, end-to-end security when visiting encrypted sites such as paypal.com.[49] When visiting an encrypted web page, the Opera Software company's servers decrypt the page, then re-encrypt it themselves, breaking end-to-end security
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- glymor 17y ago
  The whole point of Opera Mini as an app is for them to rearrange your content; complaining that they can see the content seems schizophrenic.
  - KWD 17y ago
    However, Opera needs to be sure to disclose/advertise the app as a proxy and not just a browser. Personally, I will never want to use a "browser" app with a proxy in the middle, but as long as others are fully aware of what they are downloading then they at least knowingly get to assume whatever risk is involved.
    - TallGuyShort 17y ago
      The people who actually care (i.e. you and I) already know about it. The people who don't care, have much bigger security concerns, IMO. Most people don't check for SSL when entering credit card information, so I doubt they would care about this if they thought it good speed up their browsing as much as Opera says it can. edit: Though I do agree - I would trust them a little more if they were a little more outspoken about the security implications of what's going on.
barredo 17y ago
This is a very clever move, and I think Apple will either approve or reject the app asap. If they reject it I guess it will be under 'security' concerns, and not duplication of iphone functionality, followed by two months of blog posts and tweets about how Apple is evil and how Opera Mini is insecure and a CPU-hog in the other hand
- mbreese 17y ago
  Why should Apple treat them any differently than any other company? I assume they'll have to wait in line, just like everyone else. And when they deny it for security reasons, there will be a long laundry list of changes that would have to be made. I do think you are right though about how there will be the inevitable onslaught of Opera vs. Apple posts (similar to the Apple vs. Adobe posts). But, I think that this will be a little more cut and dry. Opera would have had a better argument if they had actually submitted a browser, as opposed to a proxy.
gcb 17y ago
soon in an european counrty near you: the iphone browser ballot! And in other news: opera should leave the iphone and fix the zillion bugs on the other platforms that lacks a decent native browser. Posted from a nokia with Opera mini.
- EsquireCats 17y ago
  I laughed - but there are already plenty of other web browsers on the iPhone platform.
  - ugh 17y ago
    Different chrome but all the same engine.
barredo 17y ago
Is there a way to bypass Opera servers in Opera mini (in settings) even if it makes your web browsing experience a bit slower?
- maggit 17y ago
  No. Opera Mini only understands what they call OBML, which is what the Opera Mini servers give the handsets. Opera also produces Opera Mobile for mobile devices, which is a full-fledged browser. This is a separate product.
natch 17y ago
I don't get this. Why submit an iPhone app that is (apparently) without iPad functionality, during the time window when Apple has started accepting "universal" iPhone/iPad apps? Why not get it right, do it as a universal app, and then submit it? Maybe it's because they hope to avoid the duplication of functionality trap. On iPhone, at least on the current OS for iPhones, you don't get multiple content panels on the same screen except as part of a horizontal scroll. On iPad, I believe you do, so in that case there would be duplication.
- maggit 17y ago
  That's pretty basic software development. There is always a new feature you can add, but if you keep pushing back the release due to new features you might never get to a release. Opera Mini for the iPhone is ready now. That is why they are submitting it now.
- fhars 17y ago
  The iPad has no cell connectivity, so the main selling point of opera mini, reduced cell bandwidth usage, is useless on the iPad.
  - mtarnovan 17y ago
    Some Ipads will be 3G enabled http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/ http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/
pg 17y ago
What a weird platform the iPhone is, when established companies like Opera have to resort to such things.
- ynniv 17y ago
  Hmm. My mouse was on its way to the downvote button when I noticed who made this comment (that I paused is also interesting). Apple has placed very few restrictions on the iPhone, almost exclusively so that they can control the majority of the user experience. To that end, they have said that applications which can run other applications are not allowed. Reflecting on other industries, this doesn't bother me. Do we expect Barnes and Noble to allow people to run a competing store in their store? Maybe a newspaper giving free ad space to someone who re-sells it at a profit? To me it's strange when people expect Apple to conduct their platform in a wholly different manner than a traditional business. To put the icing on this cake, it would be a non-issue if Opera-for-iPhone simply augmented the built in browser components instead of shipping something which unnecessarily violates the terms of the store. We could easily see a Firefox, Chrome, or Opera on the iPhone if they used WebKit for their JS and DOM parsing and rendering. Maybe that is too much to expect from a browser company, but I certainly don't expect companies to pout and stomp their feet when Apple doesn't give them what they want.
  - thwarted 17y ago
    The positions that Apple wants to be able to control the entire experience and that Apple would approve an augmented Safari experience provided by a third-party are at odds.
    - ynniv 17y ago
      They are, but those are the terms we have been given. Opera could have complied with them, but instead they have decided to make a scene.
      - thwarted 17y ago
        Apple allows, where "allows" means both "by the terms of service" and "exposes APIs to make that possible", apps that modify the way Safari works and the Safari web browser experience on the iPhone? (I'm asking, I honestly don't know).
protomyth 17y ago
It would tick some iPhone developers off if these guys got faster service because of a stunt.
gokhan 17y ago
Great move by opera. - (Try to) Force apple to act quickly (When do you think Opera Mini will be approved by Apple?). - Create something viral to promote it (669 tweets at the moment). - Involve customers, convert new users through voting (Upcoming guesses) Costs an iPhone and some developer time. Brilliant.
- alain94040 17y ago
  669 tweets Not to rain on your parade, but do you think Steve Jobs is scared by 669 tweets? He has taken much more heat (think FCC letters about monopoly behavior) and still didn't move.
  - there 17y ago
    669 tweets are 669 mentions of opera and have nothing to do with steve jobs. this is marketing, not trying to scare steve jobs or apple into anything.
- gizmo 17y ago
  "some developer time"? That may be the understatement of the year. Opera has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of developer time in the app, and they want it to be used. The PR circus is a nice benefit, not the goal. It doesn't come close to compensating for the financial investment and opportunity-cost of developing Opera for iPhone.
  - mortenjorck 17y ago
    I think the GP was referring to the countdown timer, not the entire Opera Mini for iPhone project.
- necrecious 17y ago
  This is totally a marketing move. There is no doubt it will be approved. My company's approved iPhone app is not only a Firefox browser but also has Flash and Java support.
yumraj 17y ago
Well, call me a pessimist but they should ask people to estimate when it would be rejected. Apple will use the standard response that it replicates functionality already present in the iPhone, i.e. Safari, and could/would confuse users. I'd be extremely happy if I'm provided wrong. A request to Apple fanboys: Kindly reply with why before you downvote me.
- pclark 17y ago
  downvoted because there are already browsers in the app store that "replicate functionality already present in the iPhone"
  - carussell 17y ago
    Call bullshit on the idea in those words, sure. But don't downvote the comment that describes it. That's the actual rationale developers have received for app rejections in the past.
    - pclark 17y ago
      when was the last account of this happening? i haven't read much about a rejection of that kind for ages.
  - ubernostrum 17y ago
    Do those browsers ship with and use their own rendering engines? Or do they simply delegate the rendering to webkit? I ask because every iPhone app I've ever seen which offers any form of web-browsing ability does the latter; offering the ability to browse is fine, shipping a complete stack including rendering engine violates the app store terms.
j23tom 17y ago
I wish one day without news about Apple.
27182818284 17y ago
What happens if Apple approves Opera Mini within 24 to 36 hours and then uses Opera Mini as an example to direct attention away from the app store's flaws?
drtse4 17y ago
Hmm, you can guess when the app will be approved. I'd like to see some stats on those guesses, i bet that the results will make clear that the average user has no idea of how long the approval process is (i expect that the majority of votes should fall in the 1-3 weeks range).

98 points by edd 17y ago

wrath 17y ago

Do I smell the start of an anti-trust suit brewing??? Assuming there's no slight of hands trickery in the demo, the performance is very impressive. I was under the assumption that the bulk of the performance issues on Safari were network and cpu related...

fierarul 17y ago
The difference is that Opera Mini uses Opera's servers as some caching and compressing proxy server, it doesn't actually connect to nytimes.com like Mobile Safari in the demo. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Mini http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Mini and especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Mini#Privacy_and_security http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Mini#Privacy_and_security
- grimoire 17y ago
  The eye opener for me is the lack of end to end security. I generally avoid doing anything requiring https on my iPhone, but now I know to NEVER do anything that requires security on Opera Mini. Of course, this assumes that it actually gets approved...
  - nailer 17y ago
    Opera Mini is a great product, but they could (and should) make it perform direct connections when in https mode.
EsquireCats 17y ago
Problems with this line of thinking: 1. Anti-trust implies monopoly. No monopoly on phones here. Plus it's Apple's store, you can't have a "monopoly" on your own product. 2. Apple haven't exhibited a consistent pattern of app rejections to imply any particular competitive bias. (They host many applications from their traditional competitors.) 3. Point 2 is moot, as it's still not a monopoly to begin with. If you'd like to see what real monopolistic-competitor crunching behaviour is, then read up on the halloween documents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Halloween_documents_leak http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Halloween_documents_l... Compare Apple to Microsoft and IBM... Apple don't have the slightest on these mammoths.
- orangecat 17y ago
  Compare Apple to Microsoft and IBM... Apple don't have the slightest on these mammoths. Microsoft indirectly funded legal attacks on Linux; Apple is seeking to destroy Android entirely by abusing the patent system. Microsoft made it slightly more inconvenient to run competing browsers; Apple bans them altogether. Apple may not have the market share of that MS or IBM did, but they certainly have the attitude.
  - EsquireCats 17y ago
    This statement is remarkably light on fact and heavy on sensationalism. Apple have received numerous patent disputes for technologies included in the iPhone. They hardly "threw the first punch." I also wouldn't call this an abuse on the patent system - apple's current action is -precisely- what the patent system is useful for. Abuse would be similar behaviour to IBM in the 80s where they would racket money from start ups threatening them with the weight of their patent portfolio. Also numerous browsers are available for the iPhone. I'd really be more swayed into believing apple were this big evil company - if the other companies weren't as bad, if not worse. I'd say they are all a little rotten, however by far I recognise that Apple is reasonably clean for a company that has had more than 30 years to make big public mistakes.
- mtarnovan 17y ago
  Potential monopolies must be handled with care. By the time a company becomes a monopoly, there's hardly any competition left. Seems like we didn't learn our lesson from when Microsoft crushed everyone else to swallow most of the x86 OS market, which it still dominates today, by a wide margin. "you can't have a "monopoly" on your own product." Of course, you can only have monopoly on a market.
  - EsquireCats 17y ago
    I honestly believe that you don't have a firm understanding of what a monopoly is, nor how they are expressed in the market. A large market share does not automatically make a monopoly. (However a large market share can be a key competitive advantage in establishing a monopoly.) For example, the iPod makes up a large market share of MP3 players sold to date - but this doesn't prevent a consumer from purchasing a music player, music or other services from another company. This is because the iPod(in terms of music) is not a console device. There is nothing apple can do to their iPod product that would prevent (for example) Amazon from being able to sell music. This is why Apple spend much money advertising - their lead is established by brand marketing. There are numerous other devices of various qualities/prices/capabilities which could replace the iPod. Like the Amazon example - there is nothing Apple can do to their app store to prevent a developer from developing software for the Android platform. Apple's strict "quality" policies actually force many developers onto the Android platform. In that example Apple's policies have sponsored increased competition which is the exact opposite of monopolistic behaviour. Just because the only way you get new software onto the iPhone is via the app store does not mean that Apple has a monopoly over their app store. This is simply a closed system - identical to any "console" market. The misconception mostly occurs because the iPhone is almost entirely unique in using this approach for smart phones, versus other manufacturers which allow software to be run in a fashion similar to modern PCs. Microsoft on the other hand forced manufacturers to not support/purchase a competitors operating system software or face grossly increased wholesale prices on their windows OS product. Additionally they were able to abuse their operating system monopoly by leveraging this against competitor's software from unrelated categories. The IE vs Netscape saga is a good example of this. (However MS was found guilty of enacting this behaviour on numerous other companies, including Apple.)
tvon 17y ago
anti-trust for what?
- nailer 17y ago
  Android, WinMo, and other smart phone platforms allow the installation of arbitrary software, including browsers that compete with the vendors. iPhone OS does not. This hurts consumers by removing choice and the economy by removing competition.
  - glhaynes 17y ago
    Here's a just-as-oversimplified claim: "Mac OS X allows the installation of arbitrary software. This hurts consumers by allowing viruses, spyware, and other (including non-malicious) causes of degradation of enjoyment." Everything's a tradeoff. Tens of millions of people, including a large number of which are tech-savvy and completely aware of competing phones, are very happy with the iPhone as a complete product and specifically choose it, often in part because of what they perceive as a better overall experience because of the limitations.
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    Uh oh. If running a closed platform is grounds for anti-trust action, then Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo all had better watch out. Even One Laptop Per Child is in on this--Oh my! I thought they were good guys but it turns out they are evil monopolists!: If you don't have a developer key, and your laptop has firmware security enabled, it will not let you do anything except boot an OLPC-signed operating system, and use the OLPC-provided software. If you insert a USB flash drive or SD card, the boot firmware will only boot from it if the files are tested and cryptographically signed by OLPC. -- http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Activation_and_developer_keys http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Activation_and_developer_keys ...or maybe what you're saying has more to do with your opinion than the law.
    - nailer 17y ago
      I agree with you - I was just trying to answer the parents question. I also would have modded you up until I read the last sentence. Relax, there's no need to be so aggressive.

jacquesm 17y ago

It duplicates functionality the iPhone already has, does that mean they'll reject it to be consistent or will they approve a bunch of other apps that have been rejected for that reason ?

ZeroGravitas 17y ago
Well it can't be rejected for consistency because there's a bunch of browser apps already.
- mbreese 17y ago
  All of the existing browsers ultimately use Safari's DOM/JS engine. What would be really interesting is if there were a Gecko or a full Opera engine based browser. Opera mini isn't really a browser, it's a proxy, so I'm not sure this would fall under the same category anyway.
powrtoch 17y ago
It should also be noted that Apple's approval team doesn't seem especially concerned with consistency. Case in point their inscrutable "explicit/adult" content critera.

valums 17y ago

When do you think Opera Mini will be approved by Apple? Never, and it's a pity. Opera looks really impressive, judging by their video.

jsm386 17y ago

Opera Mini requests web pages through the Opera Software company's servers, which process and compress them before relaying the pages back to the mobile phone. This compression process makes transfer time about two to three times faster, and the pre-processing smoothes compatibility with web pages not designed for mobile phones. How is this not a massive privacy/security issue? You are trusting Opera to not look at your content, and as mentioned later on: Opera Mini has received some criticism because it does not offer true, end-to-end security when visiting encrypted sites such as paypal.com.[49] When visiting an encrypted web page, the Opera Software company's servers decrypt the page, then re-encrypt it themselves, breaking end-to-end security

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
glymor 17y ago
The whole point of Opera Mini as an app is for them to rearrange your content; complaining that they can see the content seems schizophrenic.
- KWD 17y ago
  However, Opera needs to be sure to disclose/advertise the app as a proxy and not just a browser. Personally, I will never want to use a "browser" app with a proxy in the middle, but as long as others are fully aware of what they are downloading then they at least knowingly get to assume whatever risk is involved.
  - TallGuyShort 17y ago
    The people who actually care (i.e. you and I) already know about it. The people who don't care, have much bigger security concerns, IMO. Most people don't check for SSL when entering credit card information, so I doubt they would care about this if they thought it good speed up their browsing as much as Opera says it can. edit: Though I do agree - I would trust them a little more if they were a little more outspoken about the security implications of what's going on.

barredo 17y ago

This is a very clever move, and I think Apple will either approve or reject the app asap. If they reject it I guess it will be under 'security' concerns, and not duplication of iphone functionality, followed by two months of blog posts and tweets about how Apple is evil and how Opera Mini is insecure and a CPU-hog in the other hand

mbreese 17y ago
Why should Apple treat them any differently than any other company? I assume they'll have to wait in line, just like everyone else. And when they deny it for security reasons, there will be a long laundry list of changes that would have to be made. I do think you are right though about how there will be the inevitable onslaught of Opera vs. Apple posts (similar to the Apple vs. Adobe posts). But, I think that this will be a little more cut and dry. Opera would have had a better argument if they had actually submitted a browser, as opposed to a proxy.

gcb 17y ago

soon in an european counrty near you: the iphone browser ballot! And in other news: opera should leave the iphone and fix the zillion bugs on the other platforms that lacks a decent native browser. Posted from a nokia with Opera mini.

EsquireCats 17y ago
I laughed - but there are already plenty of other web browsers on the iPhone platform.
- ugh 17y ago
  Different chrome but all the same engine.

barredo 17y ago

Is there a way to bypass Opera servers in Opera mini (in settings) even if it makes your web browsing experience a bit slower?

maggit 17y ago
No. Opera Mini only understands what they call OBML, which is what the Opera Mini servers give the handsets. Opera also produces Opera Mobile for mobile devices, which is a full-fledged browser. This is a separate product.

natch 17y ago

I don't get this. Why submit an iPhone app that is (apparently) without iPad functionality, during the time window when Apple has started accepting "universal" iPhone/iPad apps? Why not get it right, do it as a universal app, and then submit it? Maybe it's because they hope to avoid the duplication of functionality trap. On iPhone, at least on the current OS for iPhones, you don't get multiple content panels on the same screen except as part of a horizontal scroll. On iPad, I believe you do, so in that case there would be duplication.

maggit 17y ago
That's pretty basic software development. There is always a new feature you can add, but if you keep pushing back the release due to new features you might never get to a release. Opera Mini for the iPhone is ready now. That is why they are submitting it now.
fhars 17y ago
The iPad has no cell connectivity, so the main selling point of opera mini, reduced cell bandwidth usage, is useless on the iPad.
- mtarnovan 17y ago
  Some Ipads will be 3G enabled http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/ http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/

pg 17y ago

What a weird platform the iPhone is, when established companies like Opera have to resort to such things.

ynniv 17y ago
Hmm. My mouse was on its way to the downvote button when I noticed who made this comment (that I paused is also interesting). Apple has placed very few restrictions on the iPhone, almost exclusively so that they can control the majority of the user experience. To that end, they have said that applications which can run other applications are not allowed. Reflecting on other industries, this doesn't bother me. Do we expect Barnes and Noble to allow people to run a competing store in their store? Maybe a newspaper giving free ad space to someone who re-sells it at a profit? To me it's strange when people expect Apple to conduct their platform in a wholly different manner than a traditional business. To put the icing on this cake, it would be a non-issue if Opera-for-iPhone simply augmented the built in browser components instead of shipping something which unnecessarily violates the terms of the store. We could easily see a Firefox, Chrome, or Opera on the iPhone if they used WebKit for their JS and DOM parsing and rendering. Maybe that is too much to expect from a browser company, but I certainly don't expect companies to pout and stomp their feet when Apple doesn't give them what they want.
- thwarted 17y ago
  The positions that Apple wants to be able to control the entire experience and that Apple would approve an augmented Safari experience provided by a third-party are at odds.
  - ynniv 17y ago
    They are, but those are the terms we have been given. Opera could have complied with them, but instead they have decided to make a scene.
    - thwarted 17y ago
      Apple allows, where "allows" means both "by the terms of service" and "exposes APIs to make that possible", apps that modify the way Safari works and the Safari web browser experience on the iPhone? (I'm asking, I honestly don't know).

protomyth 17y ago

It would tick some iPhone developers off if these guys got faster service because of a stunt.

gokhan 17y ago

Great move by opera. - (Try to) Force apple to act quickly (When do you think Opera Mini will be approved by Apple?). - Create something viral to promote it (669 tweets at the moment). - Involve customers, convert new users through voting (Upcoming guesses) Costs an iPhone and some developer time. Brilliant.

alain94040 17y ago
669 tweets Not to rain on your parade, but do you think Steve Jobs is scared by 669 tweets? He has taken much more heat (think FCC letters about monopoly behavior) and still didn't move.
- there 17y ago
  669 tweets are 669 mentions of opera and have nothing to do with steve jobs. this is marketing, not trying to scare steve jobs or apple into anything.
gizmo 17y ago
"some developer time"? That may be the understatement of the year. Opera has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of developer time in the app, and they want it to be used. The PR circus is a nice benefit, not the goal. It doesn't come close to compensating for the financial investment and opportunity-cost of developing Opera for iPhone.
- mortenjorck 17y ago
  I think the GP was referring to the countdown timer, not the entire Opera Mini for iPhone project.
necrecious 17y ago
This is totally a marketing move. There is no doubt it will be approved. My company's approved iPhone app is not only a Firefox browser but also has Flash and Java support.

yumraj 17y ago

Well, call me a pessimist but they should ask people to estimate when it would be rejected. Apple will use the standard response that it replicates functionality already present in the iPhone, i.e. Safari, and could/would confuse users. I'd be extremely happy if I'm provided wrong. A request to Apple fanboys: Kindly reply with why before you downvote me.

pclark 17y ago
downvoted because there are already browsers in the app store that "replicate functionality already present in the iPhone"
- carussell 17y ago
  Call bullshit on the idea in those words, sure. But don't downvote the comment that describes it. That's the actual rationale developers have received for app rejections in the past.
  - pclark 17y ago
    when was the last account of this happening? i haven't read much about a rejection of that kind for ages.
- ubernostrum 17y ago
  Do those browsers ship with and use their own rendering engines? Or do they simply delegate the rendering to webkit? I ask because every iPhone app I've ever seen which offers any form of web-browsing ability does the latter; offering the ability to browse is fine, shipping a complete stack including rendering engine violates the app store terms.

j23tom 17y ago

I wish one day without news about Apple.

27182818284 17y ago

What happens if Apple approves Opera Mini within 24 to 36 hours and then uses Opera Mini as an example to direct attention away from the app store's flaws?

drtse4 17y ago

Hmm, you can guess when the app will be approved. I'd like to see some stats on those guesses, i bet that the results will make clear that the average user has no idea of how long the approval process is (i expect that the majority of votes should fall in the 1-3 weeks range).