Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Opera Browser Not Allowed in iPhone App Store

I honestly think Apple has good reason for not having alternatives to the launch bar 4 (phone, mail, web, ipod). They're the defining parts of the iphone so if a third party app replaces it and does a horrible job it probably will make them look bad (which doesn't make sense but then again when do customers make sense 24/7?).

That said, I would like it if there were alternatives. I just don't see it happening without the iphone turning into a cobbled together mess. I'm sorry I'd rather have a phone that just works even if it means I can't make it into a fusion reactor.
 
Maybe....

NT1440 said:
im not sure why anyone would think its allowed...
Click to expand...

Maybe because we would hope Apple would be able to learn from Microsoft's past mistakes. :rolleyes:
(Especially with their ever increasing market share in the mobile-phone market.)

Or is that too much to ask of a company that maintains a nazi-hold on their OS & hardware? :apple:

I for one would REALLY like to see a version of FireFox (with FoxMarks) made available, and then the ability to remove Certain Apps from the phone (Safari).
 
Just as the iPhone is sold without a carrier restriction in some jurisdictions, they may be forced to allow browsers such as Opera to live on it. BUT they cannot be forced to distribute it so that might raise several dilemas.

I wonder what laws would have to change to allow efforts such as Apple's "greenfield" product and niche development to prevail despite all the competition that existed in their niches for years before their arrival?

It is really anti-competitive, or it is just "stupidly closed" so "that ought to kill it", but, oops, that failed to happen . . . . :D ?

Rocketman
 
NT1440 said:
Flash also heavily taxes the cpu. (go ahead and take a look)
Click to expand...

Haha, understatement of the year. Flash positively RAPES the CPU.

Right, not to mention that Flash takes up like, 250 megs of RAM for a simple game (I'm looking at my activity monitor right now, and that's even before the bitmap cached backgrounds!). Does the iPhone have that kind of RAM? :p

Hulu should be broadcasting in h.264 streaming through quicktime, Flash is not for streaming video.
 
djdole said:
Maybe because we would hope Apple would be able to learn from Microsoft's past mistakes. :rolleyes:
(Especially with their ever increasing market share in the mobile-phone market.)

Or is that too much to ask of a company that maintains a nazi-hold on their OS & hardware? :apple:
Click to expand...
So you want Apple to not be like M$, by implementing their methods of accepting and supporting anything that comes its way??????
 
The whole "controversy" comes down to the fact that Apple is denying apps that "replicate the core functionality of the iPhone" (i.e. - replacement browsers, email etc.) and that they didn't write that down anywhere.

So what?

Is it a reasonable proscription? Of course. Should they have written it in stone? Sure.

They didn't, so ... so what?

Gruber and his cronies and friends are making mountains out of molehills as is their wont.
 
br0adband said:
Actually, that is incorrect as having a monopoly is perfectly legal in every way. It's when the company holding the monopoly uses tactics that prevent competition from entering the market they're in that crosses the line and becomes an illegal act.

Sorta like Apple designing software for its iPhones and iPod touches and then dropping hammers on coders that might have created a piece of software that might perform a similar function to something that Apple already has done.

That's where the trouble comes from. Creating a browser for the iPhone/iPod touch and then never letting anyone else write the same type of application would technically be crossing that line - and they really think a silly subsection in the SDK requirements is going to make that stick.

Fat chance of that, Steve.
Click to expand...
Right but you knew from the jump Apple can pick and choose which apps to let in, those guys at Opera knew there is a chance their app can get rejected, just like the podcaster dude.
 
Doesn't this sound familiar with Microsoft pre-loading their IE browser in their windows OS? As Apple's share in the smartphone market grows, surely they will be hit with an anti-competitiveness law suit in the near future?
 
ZiggyPastorius said:
Ahahahahahahahahahahaha. Right. Did you know my refrigerator is also cheese when put next to a glass of orange juice?
Click to expand...

Wow, nice troll!:D
But in all seriousness, his comparison of the two desktop browsers was entirely valid and poignant.
 
kbmb said:
How is that different than Apple?

If Verizon says that the only browser they allow on a phone they offer is Opera Mini, then why aren't browser companies complaining in the same way they are here?

Just curious?

-Kevin
Click to expand...
Going on what about when Verizon states you can only use their GPS, is that also anticompetitive?
 
Guys, don't be so naive. This is not about functionality competiton, it's all about the revenue share on Google searches. Apple doesn't care if another browser will offer additional functionalities. They care about losing revenue made from the browser search box -- which, BTW, is becoming more prominent on FW 2.2.

Did you ever wonder why you can't change the search engine on Safari?
 
NT1440 said:
:confused:

I thought opera was beloved and used by a sizeable chunk of people.
Click to expand...

It is. It's also a far superior browser that have this strange tendency to innovate, and implement features before anyone else, and do it better (Tabbed browsing and mouse gestures, anyone?). Some people just don't know what they're talking about.

Edit:
Wow, nice troll!
But in all seriousness, his comparison of the two desktop browsers was entirely valid and poignant.
Click to expand...

How is "This browser is better than this browser because I said so," a valid argument? I wouldn't expect people to start using Opera based on my own baseless statements, I'd want them to inquire about Opera via its webpage, or asking me, or what-have-you. Firefox is not an innovative web browser, it's just the result of the same copy-Opera game Mozilla has been playing for years, and yet they still haven't gotten it right.
 
ChrisA said:
This kind of stuff will continue until Google's Andriod becomes wide spread. Apple has changed policy in the past due to direct competition. One example is the 30 day free download evaluation of Aperture. What other Apple pro apps can you download and try for free? Which other Apple pro apps have a direct competitor that offers a free 30 day trial? In a few years Apple will have to compete with Google's app store and then Apple will change the policy.
Click to expand...
What a joke, the Android market which is supposed to be the open source heaven is even getting complaints, I mean firefox said they won't release a browser for it because it's too restrictive just like the iphone.
 
dudup said:
Guys, don't be so naive. This is not about functionality competiton, it's all about the revenue share on Google searches. Apple doesn't care with another browser will offer additional functionalities. They care about losing revenue made from the browser search box -- which, BTW, is becoming more prominent on FW 2.2.

Did you ever wonder why you can't change the search engine on Safari?
Click to expand...
Settings>Safari>Search Engine begs to differ.

Why can I choose Yahoo?
 
Yeah, it is anticompetitive but hey, its stated in the SDK and those Opera people don't want to read it, its their fault. Geez, each time someone app got rejected they blame on Apple, read the SDK T&C first.

Anyway, its been a very long time since I used Opera, to me Opera is like IE just better but no where as good as Safari or Firefox. :p
 
some12b said:
Doesn't this sound familiar with Microsoft pre-loading their IE browser in their windows OS? As Apple's share in the smartphone market grows, surely they will be hit with an anti-competitiveness law suit in the near future?
Click to expand...
Not anytime soon, Apple's worldwide marketshare is 2.3 %, there are numerous alternatives including "open source heaven" Android.
 
NT1440 said:
Well i (personally) see it like this. Apple created the iphone, therefor they should be able to do anything they wish with it. People who buy one are never promised access to other browsers, they know exactly what they are buying into.
Click to expand...

If it wasn't for the App Store i would be agreeing with you 100%. If the only Apps put on the iPhone/Touch were from Apple (either at original install or added through updates pushed from Apple) then we would have no ability to argue against their decisions, once they added the App Store and then decided to selectively allow publishers to offer their applications it becomes a mess.
 
benpatient said:
ha. lame.

"Microsoft doesn't like iTunes, and will therefore not allow it to operate under Windows."

"Microsoft doesn't like Safari, since it duplicates the functionality of IE."

Microsoft has been dealing with the legal ramifications of their actions (which were mild in comparison to this Apple policy) for over a decade now.

Apple's about to get sued out of the EU. Good thing they have all those cash reserves, because I hear those anticompetitive penalties in Europe can be a real bear...
Click to expand...

Big difference -- iPhone and iPod touch are Apple's device. OS X Mobile is Apple's mobile operating system. The entire widget is Apple's to manage for the benefit of their customer.

That's significantly different than Windows installed on 3rd-party hardware.
 
plumbingandtech said:
and Opera's PR stunts continues....

How's that desktop version coming along?

Oh that's right, no one uses it, and web devs sure as heck don't even think about it.

No wonder.
Click to expand...

Opera mobile browser is actually very good, way better than their desktop browser. Opera Mobile has been around for more than 7 years.

kbmb said:
1. Right, and I can equally go to another provider that does offer the browser I want?
2. But will that fully functional phone work on their network? And is it supported? Isn't that similar to jailbreaking an iPhone?

-Kevin
Click to expand...

1. You could install the browser of your choice ( in reality, very few cell phone providers stop you from installing 3rd party software on smartphone).

* with the iPhone, you can't - its offered exclusively. Correct me, but the hack isn't available for iPhone 3G to switch SIM cards to another network.

2. Of course, no cell phone provider stops its customers from using non-branded phones

Similar, but different enough for there to be a distinction.



coolfactor said:
Big difference -- iPhone and iPod touch are Apple's device. OS X Mobile is Apple's mobile operating system. The entire widget is Apple's to manage for the benefit of their customer.

That's significantly different than Windows installed on 3rd-party hardware.
Click to expand...

You are correct... until you start comparing to another smartphones... where other platforms allow largely unrestrictive access to 3rd party developers. This comparison highlights just how protective Apple are of their platform.
 
I want an alternative simply because Mobile Safari is the most crash-prone browser ever. I read a lot of forums and blogs and something about the large page sizes causes lots of problems. If someone else can put something out that's more stable, more power to 'em.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back