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.
Opera Browser Not Allowed in iPhone App Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Typical Apple, I thought they learned their lesson from the early day's...I guess not. If Safari is so great, let it compete..
That's the problem these guys don't get, the majority of the consumers don't really give a damn, which is why Apple still makes their money despite these ways, the vocal supporters will shout but in the end people will still keep buying their products. These are the same guys who said Apple will fall because they didn't offer floppy drives but yet they are still here.
This really stinks. I knew about not having flash when I first bought the iPhone but bought it anyway, eagerly awaiting for third party developers to bring it. It looks like Apple will only allow us to watch youtube..........forever....................
boooooooooo................................
boooooooooo................................
exactly.
We are quick to judge and holler, but completely ignore apples success in the real world.
Your average consumer doesnt give a damn about Safari VS Opera VS any other browser, hell, most people i talk to dont even know what a browser is, its just "the internet".
Right and Microsoft had 95 % of the world's operating system, I'm sure the EU will throw a fit and fine Apple for their iphone and app store which has 2-3 % of the phone market.
haha yea
i bought my touch not for what it had but what it could do possibly later. i was pretty dissapointed until 2.0 was released
Can somebody please point out to me when apple said that safari is so superior that we cant have another browser?
You people make me laugh with all your assumptions and putting words in the mouths of others.
The YouTube App is as much a proof of concept as it is a standalone app.
Anyone using flash for video on the web could offer an app to delivery instead of flash.
Now that the NDA is lifted I'm amazed some enterprising developer hasn't built the app an shopped around the Video sites to see if it can't get paid.
Microsoft have never had anything like 95% of the world's operating system market, and the app store doesn't just apply to phones - it applies to the iPod Touch.
Now, Apple does make the *vast* majority of mobile digital audio players sold, which is why the EU have already made several investigations into iTunes.
Certainly, Apple possess way, way more than what the EU considers the minimum.
Heck, a monopoly isn't even required to demonstrate anti-competitive behaviour under European law. I dunno where this myth in this thread has come from, but maybe some of the people suggesting it should go and study law for a few years...
Phazer
Well... yes. Okay, given that this has been a pretty standard tactic for logical reasoning for thousands of years, that seems like quite a good idea actually.
Actually no I couldn't, as I've used the future tense and then they'd be gramatically incorrect.
Nope, but Apple have already had significant legal sanction levvied against them in the music market where they have a much smaller share...
Phazer
You realize that you just keep stating that apple is going to get sued for this as fact right? Thats where I dont like your posts, your entitled to your opinions, but seeing as they arent fact, when you tote them as taht, its gets very annoying.
So what does Microsoft have then, it's certainly over 90 percent, close to 95 percent therefore your point is mute.
Even if you include the ipod touch, it still makes the point irrelevant. Since the majority of the ipods being sold aren't ipod touches, Apple doesn't have a monoply or whatever on phones/ app stores/whatever. If they want to go after Apple then they should also go after Blackberry for tying their OS to their phones, Playstation for tying their OS to the PS3. If they had a case that was strong against Apple we would have seen a case already, Apple's behaviour in this sense is nothing new, why haven't Apple being fined hundreds of millions of dollars.
But Apple's itunes and ipod marketshare is larger than whatever share they have with iphone/ipod touch/app store, if they failed to hand out a huge fine with itunes/ipod what makes you think it will work now with a smaller marketshare?
I would think the bigger reason why they would not want this is because it would confuse the users and it would be just one more thing to have to configure.... like which browser should open when you click on a link in Mail? This would start down the road of needing a way to specify what app opens the same type of file. Maybe in the future this will be implemented in which case another browser would be allowed.
But didn't stop Dev's talking about unpublished applications or features they could have taken advantage of.
So they wouldn't be able to get the word out that they had a templet of an YouTube like app for other YouTube like services?
Now they could, it's not like the SDK is going to limit such an app other than to wifi.
Smaller share? Check your facts. Apple is the largest music retailer in the US.
Funny (not) to see the fan boys as usual panically running to defend Apple against something that actually stinks quite a bit.
What are the favorite arguments now?
- "Opera is crap anyway"
- "If the SDK says so..."
- "The majority of the consumers don't give a damn anyway..."
So whatever Apple is doing, they must be doing it right because they are successful? The logic going on in this thread is so IQ 40 and brainwashed.
What are the favorite arguments now?
- "Opera is crap anyway"
- "If the SDK says so..."
- "The majority of the consumers don't give a damn anyway..."
So whatever Apple is doing, they must be doing it right because they are successful? The logic going on in this thread is so IQ 40 and brainwashed.
Yes they are the largest music retailer in the US but the person you responded to is over the pond in the UK so he wouldn't know how it is i the US.
Apple is a US company, so don't compare Apple music share's with the UK.
Honestly, these stories are starting to piss me off. I'm not saying that Apple is right or wrong, but is anyone really surprised by this rejection (or the other highly-publicized rejections for that matter)?
Podcaster, Opera, and MailWrangler are providing direct alternatives to Apple applications and services. One of the most appealing reasons to use Apple products is that the company handles the hardware and the software. As soon as 3rd parties start building core software, we start our voyage down the Windows Mobile path. IMHO, it is completely reasonable to think that "competing directly with Apple" was in their blanket "other unforeseen issues" restriction on the App Store. They are the publisher after all, not just the gatekeeper.
I don't see anything wrong with customers who do not purchase an iPhone, the platform is relatively closed. Android looks like an excellent alternative. I also consider Linux an excellent alternative to the Mac.
I don't think Apple is doing the same thing that brought criticism to Microsoft in recent years. Tying IE into the OS had an effect on the web as a whole. IE ignores many web standards and in effect makes HTML/CSS proprietary MS languages.
I am a big fan of many things Apple does, and they could be more clear about their approval processes, but I don't think that will stop any of the critics. The company has made many mistakes in recent years, but I think criticism is getting out of hand in the case of the App Store.
PS: Opera is a great browser. I would take it over IE any day (and some days over Firefox). It's great to see someone other than the WebKit team paying attention to emerging web standards and things like the Acid3 test.
Podcaster, Opera, and MailWrangler are providing direct alternatives to Apple applications and services. One of the most appealing reasons to use Apple products is that the company handles the hardware and the software. As soon as 3rd parties start building core software, we start our voyage down the Windows Mobile path. IMHO, it is completely reasonable to think that "competing directly with Apple" was in their blanket "other unforeseen issues" restriction on the App Store. They are the publisher after all, not just the gatekeeper.
I don't see anything wrong with customers who do not purchase an iPhone, the platform is relatively closed. Android looks like an excellent alternative. I also consider Linux an excellent alternative to the Mac.
I don't think Apple is doing the same thing that brought criticism to Microsoft in recent years. Tying IE into the OS had an effect on the web as a whole. IE ignores many web standards and in effect makes HTML/CSS proprietary MS languages.
I am a big fan of many things Apple does, and they could be more clear about their approval processes, but I don't think that will stop any of the critics. The company has made many mistakes in recent years, but I think criticism is getting out of hand in the case of the App Store.
PS: Opera is a great browser. I would take it over IE any day (and some days over Firefox). It's great to see someone other than the WebKit team paying attention to emerging web standards and things like the Acid3 test.
We should have the right to download and use any alternative to Apple software we want.
I paid $400 for my iphone, and I want to have a choice in a web browser, a notes app, a podcast app etc etc... if it's not better then I'll go back to the Apple option.... just like on desktop OSX.. if someone else makes something better hopefully it will light a fire under apple's a$$ to improve their offering.
Open the iphone. Restrict only malicious apps and let the people decide on the rest.
I paid $400 for my iphone, and I want to have a choice in a web browser, a notes app, a podcast app etc etc... if it's not better then I'll go back to the Apple option.... just like on desktop OSX.. if someone else makes something better hopefully it will light a fire under apple's a$$ to improve their offering.
Open the iphone. Restrict only malicious apps and let the people decide on the rest.