Opera Mini Not Rejected?

Very interesting if this is true....

Not to be cynical, but it still doesn't mean that it is likely that Apple would accept it if and when it is submitted. But we'll have to see what ends up happening.

well see how this all turns out soon hopefully

So where do those bloggers, posters and news outfits that posted kneejerk opinions based on no facts on the matter apologize?

I won't hold my breath for any retractions.

So every website shows up as an image? How would you click links/watch movies...? Or do they just use the term "image" to mean a watered down HTML (OBML) page?

umm, does anyone actually care about a third party browser if it can't do flash or java?

plumbingandtech said:

So where do those bloggers, posters and news outfits that posted kneejerk opinions based on no facts on the matter apologize?

I won't hold my breath for any retractions.

Click to expand...

Right now we have a case of he says she says (well, more like he says he says). I tend to think Gruber is on the right track, but I wouldn't be demanding retractions or clarifications yet from NYT.

mdntcallr said:

umm, does anyone actually care about a third party browser if it can't do flash or java?

Click to expand...

Does anyone care about a third-party browser in general? I wouldn't want one.

1. daringfireball.net is more often than not an apology site for Apple. Anonymous "sources" quoted there, assuming they exist, are likely to have their story spun...

2. ...for example, maybe it was a port of Opera Mobile, rather than a complete rewrite of Opera Mini?

MHerstand said:

So every website shows up as an image? How would you click links/watch movies...? Or do they just use the term "image" to mean a watered down HTML (OBML) page?

Click to expand...

It was attributed to being more like a PDF, so the text may be searchable and the content hyperlinked. (speculation)

You mean people made stuff up to make Apple look bad?


go figure!

I don't understand why Apple is being such a little b*tch about the web experience. Give us java, flash, streaming... so we can take down AT&T's crap ass network!

I wouldn't call it made stuff up but there was definitely over reaction. Hopefully Opera states what is actually going on.

Me1000 said:

You mean people made stuff up to make Apple look bad?


go figure!

Click to expand...

Not every Apple is a golden delicious, a few are always rotten

plumbingandtech said:

So where do those bloggers, posters and news outfits that posted kneejerk opinions based on no facts on the matter apologize?

I won't hold my breath for any retractions.

Click to expand...

+1 as well as the posters here.

11800506 said:

Not to be cynical, but it still doesn't mean that it is likely that Apple would accept it if and when it is submitted. But we'll have to see what ends up happening.

Click to expand...

Exactly what I was thinking.
As much as I would love to see some competition, Apple will never allow Opera into the AppStore.

longofest said:

Right now we have a case of he says she says (well, more like he says he says). I tend to think Gruber is on the right track, but I wouldn't be demanding retractions or clarifications yet from NYT.

Click to expand...

The point being, sites like the Register (who always mock the phone by calling it the "jesus phone") Engadget, Gizmodo and a raft of others was all to happy to print "apple rejects opera mini", without all the facts, heck, not even a scintilla of facts.

I'd don't even care about the old media like the NYTs. I expect their tech stories to be wrong at some level as they have people like Pogue taking lead on technology.

Veri said:

1. daringfireball.net is more often than not an apology site for Apple. Anonymous "sources" quoted there, assuming they exist, are likely to have their story spun...

Click to expand...

So anonymous sources on the Opera team are spinning their story to apologize for or protect Apple?

I can't wait to see the explanation for that convoluted train of thought. Care to expand?

manhattanboy said:

I don't understand why Apple is being such a little b*tch about the web experience. Give us java, flash, streaming... so we can take down AT&T's crap ass network!

Click to expand...

Well, you develop Java and Flash for the iPhone, you submit it to Apple and then you will have a right to bitch about it if and when they reject it!

You cannot expect Apple to develop these things on behalf of Sun Microsystems and Adobe!

--

besides what does this have to do with this article?

Me1000 said:

You cannot expect Apple to develop these things on behalf of Sun Microsystems and Adobe!

Click to expand...

Where have you been? Apple won't allow these things no matter who makes them, which is what the post was complaining about.

Small White Car said:

Where have you been? Apple won't allow these things no matter who makes them, which is what the post was complaining about.

Click to expand...

Java is a virtual environment used in creating crappy applications, Apple is preserving the user experience with rejecting it. (note the fact that they rejected it before there was ever an SDK for developers) If they didn't developers would turn to java for their applications instead of Cocoa, for the sake of an easy port.

Flash on the other hand hasn't been submitted to Apple and as far as I know hasn't even been finished by Adobe yet.

Small White Car said:

So anonymous sources on the Opera team are spinning their story to apologize for or protect Apple?

I can't wait to see the explanation for that convoluted train of thought. Care to expand?

Click to expand...

I believe you have mis-parsed my sentence. I am suggesting that a spin was put on the source, whence use of passive voice. The context should suggest that Gruber would be applying the spin. I'm hoping it is clear from its past articles that daringfireball.net is a chronic apologist for Apple.

I gave one example of the way in which he applied spin: rather than considering from the start that the error may have been with the NYT reporter mentioning Opera Mini rather than Opera Mobile, he corrects one stab-in-the-dark assumption (it was rejected because it implements Javascript) with another set of stab-in-the-dark assumptions.

Another possibility is that Mobile was submitted, but the employee didn't know. Yet another is that it was proposed to someone with great authority in Apple beyond normal submission channels (Opera are obviously significant enough to be able to do this) who indicated that trying to publish an alternative browser would be a lost cause.

Microsoft's tactics and so called monopoly seems like it will be nothing in comparison with what Apple is doing and going for.