Opera Mini Not Rejected?

[MacRumors]

In a profile this past week of Opera Software, the New York Times had indicated that Opera's Mini Browser had been rejected from the App Store based on anti-competitive grounds. Apple has rejected other applications claiming the submitted application's feature set mirrors one of Apple's too closely; a practice which has drawn heavy criticism.

This particular case, however, may not be entirely accurate according to further research by John Gruber.

My understanding, based on information from informed sources who do not wish to be identified because they were not authorized by their employers, is that Opera has developed an iPhone version of Opera Mini — but they haven’t even submitted it to Apple, let alone had it be rejected.

Gruber had previously believed that the browser had been rejected due to a built-in JavaScript interpreter, however he clarifies that this was incorrect. In fact, Opera Mini does not contain such interpretive code. As explained by Gruber:

In a nut, it works like this: You request a URL in Opera Mini. Opera Mini makes the request to a proxy server run by Opera. Opera’s proxy server connects to the web server hosting the requested URL, and renders the page into an image. This image is then transmitted (in a proprietary format called OBML — Opera Binary Markup Language) to the Opera Mini client. Opera Mini displays the rendered image on screen. This may sound convoluted, but apparently the result is very effective — it’s faster to transmit, because only OBML (a compressed binary format) is transmitted to the mobile device over the phone network, and far faster to render on slow mobile processors.

However the current version of Opera's Mini browser for other platforms is coded using Java which is not supported on the iPhone and is against the terms of the SDK. In order for Opera Mini to be made officially available, the program would have to be ported to C/Objective-C.

Article Link: Opera Mini Not Rejected?

[840quadra]

I think this was commented on by a few in the first forum. Regardless, it is nice to see clarification posted up on the subject.

[rhett7660]

Very interesting if this is true....

[11800506]

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.

[rvk27]

well see how this all turns out soon hopefully

[plumbingandtech]

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.

[MHerstand]

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?

[mdntcallr]

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

[longofest]

Originally Posted by plumbingandtech

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.

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.

[Warbrain]

Originally Posted by mdntcallr

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

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

[Veri]

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?

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by MHerstand

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?

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

[Me1000]

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


go figure!

[manhattanboy]

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!

[NAG]

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

[manhattanboy]

Originally Posted by Me1000

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


go figure!

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

[kkat69]

Originally Posted by plumbingandtech

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.

+1 as well as the posters here.

[deannnnn]

Originally Posted by 11800506

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.

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

[plumbingandtech]

Originally Posted by longofest

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.

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.

[Small White Car]

Originally Posted by Veri

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...

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?

[Me1000]

Originally Posted by manhattanboy

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!

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?

[Small White Car]

Originally Posted by Me1000

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

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

[Me1000]

Originally Posted by Small White Car

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

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.

[Veri]

Originally Posted by Small White Car

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?

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.

[OliverBGD]

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