5 ms·

19 days later, Apple still hasn't approved the Opera Mini app

116 points by mcantelon 17y ago

petercooper 17y ago
Bear in mind that it took weeks for Spotify to be approved too, and they are a significant competitor to Apple's music store.
shadowz 17y ago
Is there an option to guess never?
makecheck 17y ago
A web browser is probably one of the more complicated apps you could write, though. If Apple insists on thoroughly examining what an app is doing, this ought to take awhile.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- ryanhuff 17y ago
  Unfortunately for Opera, some of what their "browser" does is within their own servers. So, Apple can never have complete visibility into what the application (service) does.
  - wvenable 17y ago
    Aren't a huge number of apps just like that. What does a twitter app do except communicate with a server outside their control? Even the Google maps application is just a viewer for some server-side data.
    - ryanhuff 17y ago
      The difference is that a huge portion of the smarts that goes into rendering the page happens off-device. Opera isn't a typical web browser. My understanding is that its more like webex or something that pushes most of the work to a server.
      - wvenable 17y ago
        That's absolutely true, I just wonder where Apple would draw the line. How much server-side processing is too much?
        elai 17y ago
        There are plenty of apps that are just a bunch of web views on tabs. Thats pretty much %100 server side processing ;)
- mbreese 17y ago
  And if what Opera submitted was a web browser the review might be done by now... as it is, Opera submitted a proxy viewer which displays a rendering of a webpage as processed by Opera's servers. Good luck examining that... it's a security nightmare.
nnash 17y ago
I thought they rejected apps that replicated core functionality of the native apps a la google voice.
- mbrubeck 17y ago
  And yet there are plenty of third-party browsers in the app store... (The major difference is that the browsers in the store today use the included WebKit, while Opera Mini has its own rendering engine that relies on Opera's server-side proxy.)
  - rimantas 17y ago
    Well, here on HN I often hear that open is better and wins ;)
- jsnell 17y ago
  No, no, you've completely misunderstood the situation. Apple haven't actually rejected Google Voice. They've just not approved it yet, but will make a decision any year now.
niravs 17y ago
I highly doubt this will be approved. There is no way Apple is letting a third party come and play on their turf in the mobile browser market. Not to mention this would mean Apple would not have full control of who the default search provider is.
- davidmurphy 17y ago
  I disagree this is "their turf."
  - ryanhuff 17y ago
    If you view this in the context of a shopping mall, then its certainly their property, and within their rights to choose who can have a presence within their property. That's how I think Apple views the Appstore.
    - numbchuckskills 17y ago
      Funny that is exactly how Microsoft viewed Windows/IE.
    - rmc 17y ago
      Apple's property? If I have an iPhone, I have to pay for it. That makes it my property. And that's why I don't have an iPhone.
      - silversmith 17y ago
        'I have an iPhone' is the same as 'I have a shopping cart' - in both cases you still don't own the shopping mall, just a way of interacting with it.
        oconnore 17y ago
        This comparison doesn't work. For starters, shopping carts are free, given to you for your own convenience. Furthermore, you don't need a shopping cart to use the mall.
JeffJenkins 17y ago
I wouldn't be terribly surprised if their plan was to get rejected and then sue Apple (in Europe, where they would stand some chance at winning).
- stricken 17y ago
  Sue them for what?
  - jrockway 17y ago
    Anticompetitive actions? Microsoft got in trouble for bundling IE. Why wouldn't Apple get in trouble for actively prohibiting competing browsers? This is Europe, after all, not the US. The average consumer actually has some rights over there. (In the US, we basically have "if it blows up and ruins your face, Apple has to buy you a band-aid" and "you have the right to not buy it".)
    - stricken 17y ago
      I'm probably wrong but I thought Microsoft got in trouble for that because of their market position? There's plenty of other phones for Opera to run it's browser on. That "50 million iPhones sold" from the event was a world wide number wasn't it?
      - jasonlotito 17y ago
        You are wrong. Market position isn't a bad thing. Monopolies aren't illegal in the US. However, the actions you perform can be, and this is what MS did. It wasn't it's position, but how it used that position to stop competitors.
    - rscott 17y ago
      Riiiight. I guess that makes sense if one disregards the fact that the iPhone OS is by no means a standard in the cell phone arena. There is plenty of competition out there, unlike there was for x86, which would be a pillar for an antitrust suit.
jister 17y ago
There were complaints before that approval of apps seemed forever so that might be one of the reasons but considering they made revisions to their OS policy then they might not approve it at all.
hkuo 17y ago
Is this supposed to be a shocker? My submitted prediction is still 66 days out, even though I think an answer of never is still very likely. Though I'm just betting on Opera cutting features to get an approved app.
houseabsolute 17y ago
Interesting preview video on that site. I'm amazed that with Safari to copy from they still made the mistake of keeping a bar at the top with the current page to waste my precious screen real estate.
dannyr 17y ago
I have developer friends who have submitted their apps on the App Store and had it approved within a week. It may be just because this is a way more complicated app or Apple is set to reject it but just trying to figure out how to defend themselves against whatever outrage that will happen. I wonder how much resources (time and money) Opera spent on this. This is why I think the App Store is such a risky bet if your app takes months to make or it's something that has never been done before.
- jaaron 17y ago
  Our first app was approved within hours, but that was within the first two months of the App Store. Still, we've generally had very fast turn around on our apps.
- c1sc0 17y ago
  I've had an (iPad) app approved in hours & then an iPad update fixing critical bugs for the same app blocked for one week. It's still a crapshoot. If you go into 'extended review', I suggest retracting the binary & submitting again, hoping that you get a different reviewer. Joy!
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
metamemetics 17y ago
in related news, the newest version of opera desktop definitely took a note from chrome and is pretty minimal\awesome.
frou_dh 17y ago
Even if you installed this Opera app, you'd still be seeing Safari/Webkit a lot - since, unlike a standard computer, you won't be able to set a new default browser.
lukev 17y ago
I think this might be dead in the water to begin with. Apples new TOS state that their new OS is only allowed to run C/C++/Objective C and Javascript as interpreted by Safari. So it would seem that Opera won't be allowed to interpret Javascript, making it pretty useless as a general purpose browser.
- Naga 17y ago
  But then again, wouldn't that prevent PHP from being run as well, since it is server-side?
  - lukev 17y ago
    No... server side would be fine. But there's no way Opera could be running page Javascript on the server. Javascript is too tightly integrated with the browser. For example, you can't implement a page element "hover" event via server-side code.
    - JeremyBanks 17y ago
      This isn't related to the grandparent's post but on other platforms Opera Mini does only support a limited amount of Javascript and it runs on their servers. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Mini#JavaScript_support http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Mini#JavaScript_support: Opera Mini has limited support for JavaScript. Before the page is sent to the mobile device, its onLoad events are fired and all scripts are allowed a maximum of two seconds to execute. The setInterval and setTimeout functions are disabled, so scripts designed to wait a certain amount of time before executing will not execute at all. After the scripts have finished or the timeout is reached, all scripts are stopped and the page is compressed and sent to the mobile device. Once on the device, only a handful of events are allowed to trigger scripts: onUnload, onSubmit, onChange, onClick
      - lukev 17y ago
        Well! I wasn't aware of that. So it sounds like the TOS issue is not a problem for them. Unfortunately, it also means it's a completely crippled browser. Why anyone would WANT to use it instead of something fully functional (like Safari) is beyond me. The days of squinting at tiny mobile versions of websites on a 2x1 cell phone screen are behind us, and good riddance. It would appear that Opera Mini is already obsolete on the iPhone due to its very architecture.
Pistos2 17y ago
That very page has been updated, saying Opera Mini has been approved. "Status update: Opera Mini for iPhone was officially approved by Apple on April 12 at 20:56:00 UTC"

116 points by mcantelon 17y ago

Bear in mind that it took weeks for Spotify to be approved too, and they are a significant competitor to Apple's music store.

shadowz 17y ago

Is there an option to guess never?

makecheck 17y ago

A web browser is probably one of the more complicated apps you could write, though. If Apple insists on thoroughly examining what an app is doing, this ought to take awhile.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
ryanhuff 17y ago
Unfortunately for Opera, some of what their "browser" does is within their own servers. So, Apple can never have complete visibility into what the application (service) does.
- wvenable 17y ago
  Aren't a huge number of apps just like that. What does a twitter app do except communicate with a server outside their control? Even the Google maps application is just a viewer for some server-side data.
  - ryanhuff 17y ago
    The difference is that a huge portion of the smarts that goes into rendering the page happens off-device. Opera isn't a typical web browser. My understanding is that its more like webex or something that pushes most of the work to a server.
    - wvenable 17y ago
      That's absolutely true, I just wonder where Apple would draw the line. How much server-side processing is too much?
      - elai 17y ago
        There are plenty of apps that are just a bunch of web views on tabs. Thats pretty much %100 server side processing ;)
mbreese 17y ago
And if what Opera submitted was a web browser the review might be done by now... as it is, Opera submitted a proxy viewer which displays a rendering of a webpage as processed by Opera's servers. Good luck examining that... it's a security nightmare.

nnash 17y ago

I thought they rejected apps that replicated core functionality of the native apps a la google voice.

mbrubeck 17y ago
And yet there are plenty of third-party browsers in the app store... (The major difference is that the browsers in the store today use the included WebKit, while Opera Mini has its own rendering engine that relies on Opera's server-side proxy.)
- rimantas 17y ago
  Well, here on HN I often hear that open is better and wins ;)
jsnell 17y ago
No, no, you've completely misunderstood the situation. Apple haven't actually rejected Google Voice. They've just not approved it yet, but will make a decision any year now.

niravs 17y ago

I highly doubt this will be approved. There is no way Apple is letting a third party come and play on their turf in the mobile browser market. Not to mention this would mean Apple would not have full control of who the default search provider is.

davidmurphy 17y ago
I disagree this is "their turf."
- ryanhuff 17y ago
  If you view this in the context of a shopping mall, then its certainly their property, and within their rights to choose who can have a presence within their property. That's how I think Apple views the Appstore.
  - numbchuckskills 17y ago
    Funny that is exactly how Microsoft viewed Windows/IE.
  - rmc 17y ago
    Apple's property? If I have an iPhone, I have to pay for it. That makes it my property. And that's why I don't have an iPhone.
    - silversmith 17y ago
      'I have an iPhone' is the same as 'I have a shopping cart' - in both cases you still don't own the shopping mall, just a way of interacting with it.
      - oconnore 17y ago
        This comparison doesn't work. For starters, shopping carts are free, given to you for your own convenience. Furthermore, you don't need a shopping cart to use the mall.

JeffJenkins 17y ago

I wouldn't be terribly surprised if their plan was to get rejected and then sue Apple (in Europe, where they would stand some chance at winning).

stricken 17y ago
Sue them for what?
- jrockway 17y ago
  Anticompetitive actions? Microsoft got in trouble for bundling IE. Why wouldn't Apple get in trouble for actively prohibiting competing browsers? This is Europe, after all, not the US. The average consumer actually has some rights over there. (In the US, we basically have "if it blows up and ruins your face, Apple has to buy you a band-aid" and "you have the right to not buy it".)
  - stricken 17y ago
    I'm probably wrong but I thought Microsoft got in trouble for that because of their market position? There's plenty of other phones for Opera to run it's browser on. That "50 million iPhones sold" from the event was a world wide number wasn't it?
    - jasonlotito 17y ago
      You are wrong. Market position isn't a bad thing. Monopolies aren't illegal in the US. However, the actions you perform can be, and this is what MS did. It wasn't it's position, but how it used that position to stop competitors.
  - rscott 17y ago
    Riiiight. I guess that makes sense if one disregards the fact that the iPhone OS is by no means a standard in the cell phone arena. There is plenty of competition out there, unlike there was for x86, which would be a pillar for an antitrust suit.

jister 17y ago

There were complaints before that approval of apps seemed forever so that might be one of the reasons but considering they made revisions to their OS policy then they might not approve it at all.

hkuo 17y ago

Is this supposed to be a shocker? My submitted prediction is still 66 days out, even though I think an answer of never is still very likely. Though I'm just betting on Opera cutting features to get an approved app.

houseabsolute 17y ago

Interesting preview video on that site. I'm amazed that with Safari to copy from they still made the mistake of keeping a bar at the top with the current page to waste my precious screen real estate.

dannyr 17y ago

I have developer friends who have submitted their apps on the App Store and had it approved within a week. It may be just because this is a way more complicated app or Apple is set to reject it but just trying to figure out how to defend themselves against whatever outrage that will happen. I wonder how much resources (time and money) Opera spent on this. This is why I think the App Store is such a risky bet if your app takes months to make or it's something that has never been done before.

jaaron 17y ago
Our first app was approved within hours, but that was within the first two months of the App Store. Still, we've generally had very fast turn around on our apps.
c1sc0 17y ago
I've had an (iPad) app approved in hours & then an iPad update fixing critical bugs for the same app blocked for one week. It's still a crapshoot. If you go into 'extended review', I suggest retracting the binary & submitting again, hoping that you get a different reviewer. Joy!

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

metamemetics 17y ago

in related news, the newest version of opera desktop definitely took a note from chrome and is pretty minimal\awesome.

frou_dh 17y ago

Even if you installed this Opera app, you'd still be seeing Safari/Webkit a lot - since, unlike a standard computer, you won't be able to set a new default browser.

lukev 17y ago

I think this might be dead in the water to begin with. Apples new TOS state that their new OS is only allowed to run C/C++/Objective C and Javascript as interpreted by Safari. So it would seem that Opera won't be allowed to interpret Javascript, making it pretty useless as a general purpose browser.

Naga 17y ago
But then again, wouldn't that prevent PHP from being run as well, since it is server-side?
- lukev 17y ago
  No... server side would be fine. But there's no way Opera could be running page Javascript on the server. Javascript is too tightly integrated with the browser. For example, you can't implement a page element "hover" event via server-side code.
  - JeremyBanks 17y ago
    This isn't related to the grandparent's post but on other platforms Opera Mini does only support a limited amount of Javascript and it runs on their servers. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Mini#JavaScript_support http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Mini#JavaScript_support: Opera Mini has limited support for JavaScript. Before the page is sent to the mobile device, its onLoad events are fired and all scripts are allowed a maximum of two seconds to execute. The setInterval and setTimeout functions are disabled, so scripts designed to wait a certain amount of time before executing will not execute at all. After the scripts have finished or the timeout is reached, all scripts are stopped and the page is compressed and sent to the mobile device. Once on the device, only a handful of events are allowed to trigger scripts: onUnload, onSubmit, onChange, onClick
    - lukev 17y ago
      Well! I wasn't aware of that. So it sounds like the TOS issue is not a problem for them. Unfortunately, it also means it's a completely crippled browser. Why anyone would WANT to use it instead of something fully functional (like Safari) is beyond me. The days of squinting at tiny mobile versions of websites on a 2x1 cell phone screen are behind us, and good riddance. It would appear that Opera Mini is already obsolete on the iPhone due to its very architecture.

Pistos2 17y ago

That very page has been updated, saying Opera Mini has been approved. "Status update: Opera Mini for iPhone was officially approved by Apple on April 12 at 20:56:00 UTC"