No, and you couldn't do Firefox either. Because all of those application use WebKit web view (Safari) that is provided by the iPhone.
None of these are NEW browsers, just re-purposing of functionality provided for developers by Apple.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Allows 3rd Party Web Browsers in App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, and you couldn't do Firefox either. Because all of those application use WebKit web view (Safari) that is provided by the iPhone.
None of these are NEW browsers, just re-purposing of functionality provided for developers by Apple.
Thats cool. Hopefully someone will make a browser with a optimized flash version already built in.
Or, even better, Apple decides to finally allow flash into the app store.
Or, even better, Apple decides to finally allow flash into the app store.
EDGE browser not on German store...
The EDGE browser is not available on the German iTunes Store
Is there anyone else with experience for other countries? All the other browsers are already available
The EDGE browser is not available on the German iTunes Store
Is there anyone else with experience for other countries? All the other browsers are already available
I don't know
extra features perhaps.For example if Opera released a version for the iPhone then you could have opera speed dial (basically a set of tiles on the new tab page displaying thumbnails of your favourites), opera link (over the air synchronising with your bookmarks etc. with all of your devices) etc.
Compromise apple's release timetables? I am not sure what you mean, I would imagine this was just like the countless flashlight / fart applications, they don't really have an effect on the coding team as it will be handled by a separate department.
UK here and Edge Browser is not showing up either
IE, Opera, etc. still has a long way to go.
All that these apps are doing, is showing the iPhone UIKits built-in web component in a slightly different way that Safari itself does. In other words, you are still using Safari's browser-"engine".
I develop iPhone-applications myself (see http://plaza.no/iphone/ ), so I know how this is done. Apps like these can easily be created in just a couple of hours.
All that these apps are doing, is showing the iPhone UIKits built-in web component in a slightly different way that Safari itself does. In other words, you are still using Safari's browser-"engine".
I develop iPhone-applications myself (see http://plaza.no/iphone/ ), so I know how this is done. Apps like these can easily be created in just a couple of hours.
Flash is not good for the web and I'm glad that Apple is shunning it. But I do hope that Firefox and Opera are eventually released. Sans Flash plug-in, of course.
Not until Adobe blows it up, redesigns its so it doesn't muck with everything in your system because it's still in the middle of downloading some pointless navigational menu with fancy overlays.
It's crap.
Another vote for Firefox, although I'm not hopeful that Apple will approve a version for the iPhone anytime soon. I'd love to be able to have my Firefox web browser bookmarks sync from both my Mac laptops to my iPhone.
I'd love to be able to have my Firefox web browser bookmarks sync from both my Mac laptops to my iPhone.
Good point. Apple always is coming up with innovative ways for us to part with our money.
Its great that Apple are relaxing their policies. I still don't know why Apple would want to stop 3rd party applications competing with their own... pretty damned weird. Safari is a good browser... but not the greatest.
Apple should now relax other policies such as restrictions on background applications etc.
When it comes to other web components, Apple should allow Flash, and other media players, so users can enjoy the full internet experience. If you don't like these, then don't install them, and life will go on as before!
These people complaining about Flash, I'm betting that these people don't know how widely it is used, some websites use it for navigation menus, or say, a photo gallery - which don't appear as being Flash driven at all.
Apple should now relax other policies such as restrictions on background applications etc.
When it comes to other web components, Apple should allow Flash, and other media players, so users can enjoy the full internet experience. If you don't like these, then don't install them, and life will go on as before!
These people complaining about Flash, I'm betting that these people don't know how widely it is used, some websites use it for navigation menus, or say, a photo gallery - which don't appear as being Flash driven at all.
Gets my vote as "most misleading headline" of the month. As we can see from so many replies, it just raises false hopes of actual other browsers being allowed.
Should've been more like:
Apple Allows Simple Custom Browser UIs in App Store
Too bad they didn't go much further, and allow them to store pages locally as apps. Then they could claim a third of what the Palm Pre uses. (They'd still be missing access to system services and multitasking.)
Should've been more like:
Apple Allows Simple Custom Browser UIs in App Store
Too bad they didn't go much further, and allow them to store pages locally as apps. Then they could claim a third of what the Palm Pre uses. (They'd still be missing access to system services and multitasking.)
As a parent with teens, I am most interested in the browser replacement that Safe Eyes will be releasing soon. Their browser would adhere to the parental control standards that we have set for use with the desktop version of Safe Eyes. Like a few other people in this post, I don;t really see a huge value in replacing Safari just for the sake of it. The Safe Eyes implementation appears to be a good reason - at least for my family.
http://www.internetsafety.com/safe-eyes-mobile-iphone.php
http://www.internetsafety.com/safe-eyes-mobile-iphone.php
This is good news..
My only problem Is if i got a replacement for Safari I wouldn't want it on my screen. Just like I hate having Weatherbug & the Apple Weather App. 1 is sufficent. I wish I could take off Apples.
My only problem Is if i got a replacement for Safari I wouldn't want it on my screen. Just like I hate having Weatherbug & the Apple Weather App. 1 is sufficent. I wish I could take off Apples.
Totally agreed. I was mildly excited ... which is odd but I was. Then ... disappointment yet again.
Awesome job. You read the title, posted a comment, bypassed all other information and now you're off looking for that new browser to download and possibility sitting there confused.
It pays to read at least the first post.Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5G77 Safari/525.20)
This us great. I like safari but there are many features that I'm sure will be added to other browsers. Different ways of thinking.
This us great. I like safari but there are many features that I'm sure will be added to other browsers. Different ways of thinking.
All Apple needs to do now is release an updated version of the SDK that allows apps to show up on an external screen.
Yes. That would be a more than welcome advancement.
Bravo Gizmodo for getting it right
Amazing how news gets copied and warped around the blogosphere over something as simple as this.
There are even websites claiming that the "new" browsers can't possibly be as good as Safari's webkit. Idiots. It *is* Safari inside.
At least Gizmodo got it right:
Apple approves Safari apps
I guarantee a flood gate has opened, too. These kind of apps are fairly quick and simple to write.
Amazing how news gets copied and warped around the blogosphere over something as simple as this.
There are even websites claiming that the "new" browsers can't possibly be as good as Safari's webkit. Idiots. It *is* Safari inside.
At least Gizmodo got it right:
Apple approves Safari apps
I guarantee a flood gate has opened, too. These kind of apps are fairly quick and simple to write.
Why does everyone blame Apple for the DRM? As I understand it Apple was against DRM from the onset but the record labels demanded it. That's like users giving negative reviews in iTunes because of the quality of video encoding, or problems with the audio. Don't the copyright owners handle the encoding of their products and Apple just supplies the space?