Opera Mini Browser for iPhone Being Demoed at Mobile World Congress

[Rodimus Prime]

Yup, REJECTION is already in the cards for this mediocre app...

Well I would not write off rejection right off the bat. I could see the carriers and namely AT&T pushing apple to allow this app.

Data compression needs to start happening. Right now phones download a 120% the size of the web page when they get one because of all the extra crap that they have to pull and send back and forth with the servers and all the tags on the data packets to tell the data were to go. If you compress that data stream you can be down to 40%. That is a reduction factor of 3 is pretty nice to the carriers. It unloads the bulk of the page to hard lines locations and then when it hits the bottle neck it is smaller.

Cell companies across the board are struggling with the demand for wireless data and the demand is sky rocketing. No one is able to keep pace with it much less get ahead. LTE just buys a little time but even that is not going to do much. Data compression would basically double what the networks can handle.

 

[Nitrocide]

blatant skyfire rip? http://www.skyfire.com/

Well the technique anyway, wonder if it was patented.

 

[HiRez]

Isn't there a condition that no app that duplicates the function of an Apple app is allowed?

Yes, and I think it will be denied on those grounds, not for the scripting or anything else. While I like Safari, I don't appreciate Apple's browser monopoly on the iPhone but I expect it to continue.

I'm not sure how they keep getting away with the "duplicates existing functionality" argument because they have allowed third party stock and weather, and texting apps.

 

[jo0]

Dear Opera,

Your app has been denied.

Sincerely,

Your friendly app review team.



opera fail

 

[Shintocam]

To me, dynamic functionality means NOT having to go back to the server.

Regardless, repeated requests to the server are very quickly going to eat into that 6x speed-up.

In my experience no. I'm using Opera Mini on my Blackberry 9700. It really is quite fast - I'd say in many cases faster than Safari on my iTouch. I've only run into a couple pages in my time using it that gave a problem or that seemed to lag even with dynamic sites.

Interestingly last night I just ran the Acid3 test on it. I was prompted to do so because Blackberry was demoing their new browser and they showed 100% Acid3 compliance (as with Safari on the iPhone).

The results were:

Safari (iTouch): 100/100
Blackberry Browser: 92/100
Opera Mini: 98/100
Bolt Browser: 100/100

So far, I've liked Opera, but I'm moving slowly toward Bolt as my full time mobile browser on my BB. On my iTouch of course its Safari but I'd be willing to check out Opera for sure.

 

[tbrinkma]

Data compression needs to start happening. Right now phones download a 120% the size of the web page when they get one because of all the extra crap that they have to pull and send back and forth with the servers and all the tags on the data packets to tell the data were to go. If you compress that data stream you can be down to 40%. That is a reduction factor of 3 is pretty nice to the carriers. It unloads the bulk of the page to hard lines locations and then when it hits the bottle neck it is smaller.

Cell companies across the board are struggling with the demand for wireless data and the demand is sky rocketing. No one is able to keep pace with it much less get ahead. LTE just buys a little time but even that is not going to do much. Data compression would basically double what the networks can handle.

Every major browser (since at least IE6, possibly 5.5 or even 5.0) has supported GZIP compression of content when sent from the server. While it's not the best compression algorithm out there, it does quite a significant job on text (such as HTML), and manages to give a pretty good balance between compression and CPU time required to compress/decompress. Roungly 90% of the bandwidth for your typical web site is consumed by images and the like, which are, on average, as large or larger than the page they in which they are found, and already in a compressed format so further compression doesn't help overly much.

Good website design without all the cruft you see on far too many sites would go a longer way toward solving the bandwidth concerns than including a new compression algorithm that will require more CPU time on already processor-limited devices like phones.

For example, you want rounded corners on some page elements? Just use the CSS 3 styles and let it degrade gracefully to square corners in browsers that don't support it yet. Don't add another 12K to the page's total size by including rounded corner images and matching border images. And if you're going to insist on always having rounded corners, don't bulk it up even more by using table-based layout to do the job.

---End Rant---

In my experience no. I'm using Opera Mini on my Blackberry 9700. It really is quite fast - I'd say in many cases faster than Safari on my iTouch. I've only run into a couple pages in my time using it that gave a problem or that seemed to lag even with dynamic sites.

Out of sheer curiosity, were you using the cell signal, or were you on WiFi? Ping times over the cell signal are significantly longer enough to be noticeable compared to a WiFi connection, and will be a proportionately larger portion of the time needed for compressed data. I'm just wondering whether that would have a noticeable effect when trying to use a site with lots of dynamic data which would require extra round-trips with Opera mini.

 

[Andronicus]

I am guessing REJECTED!

Could someone pleas explain to me why it would be rejected? I mean I understand the clause "…duplicates functionality of built-I'm app…" or whatever it is, but there are already browser apps out (perfect browser, full browser, bolt browser, etc…). So why would some browsers be allowed and others not??

Thanks!

Could someone pleas explain to me why it would be rejected? I mean I understand the clause "…duplicates functionality of built-I'm app…" or whatever it is, but there are already browser apps out (perfect browser, full browser, bolt browser, etc…). So why would some browsers be allowed and others not??

Thanks!

Nvm. Question has already been answered!

 

[Terminal.app]

I don't like Opera at all.

The desktop version has always failed to impress (its speed is average at best) and the mobile versions have always sucked. Combine that with the fact that Opera decided to blame their very small market share on a so-called Microsoft monopoly with IE, and decided to gripe and complain to the EU leading to that ridiculous browser ballot ordeal. They could have just make a better browser that could actually compete (like Mozilla did with Firefox) but instead they had to play dirty and whine that they were being oppressed by MS in the browser market. No actually Opera, it's because your browser sucks.

 

[fishmoose]

I wouldn't dare using a browser that works like that, I don't trust Opera with my browsing.

 

[kdarling]

blatant skyfire rip? http://www.skyfire.com/

Opera Mini predates Skyfire. I believe it's the most popular mini-browser in the world, or at least on the most phones by far.

I think this has merits for internal corporate applications, but do you want the Opera servers tracking every news story you read?

By activating an iPhone, you already agreed that Google can track your search requests (anonymously) in realtime by location.

I wouldn't dare using a browser that works like that, I don't trust Opera with my browsing.

That's fine. Millions of others do.

 

[macUser2007]

... I am NOT defending Apple's supposed quality control, nor am I saying that Opera Mini is malicious software, BUT open platforms lead to vulnerabilities....

And so does using a computer. Any computer....

I am so happy Opera is coming to the iPhone, and so hope it brings Flash (I was thinking of actually dumping my 3GSs and going Android when Flash 10.1 comes in).

This constant whining is just silly. If you don't want Opera, or if you don't want Flash, then don't download it.

Let the rest of us, who actually want an unmutilated web experience, enjoy it.

 

[pondie84]

I am so happy Opera is coming to the iPhone, and so hope it brings Flash (I was thinking of actually dumping my 3GSs and going Android when Flash 10.1 comes in).

I think the chances of Apple allowing something that brings Flash are not very good.

 

[-Ryan-]

blatant skyfire rip? http://www.skyfire.com/

Bloody hell, Opera is one of the original web browsers. It's been around since before most people even had Internet access..

 

[cumanzor]

Yup, REJECTION is already in the cards for this mediocre app...

Ha, ok Opera is anything but mediocre. Seriously, the people complaining in here probably haven't used it in a while. 10.50 beta is coming up as fast (or even faster) than current WebKit based browsers.

Opera Mini 5 is just blazing fast but you trade some functionality in SOME sites. Most of them work perfectly fine.

 

[iPrep]

Opera foundation are the kings of bitching. Just look at the EU Internet Explorer case they started.

How are they "bitching" here? They are showing off a demo, and using the press to drum up publicity. Wow, great "bitching"!

They didn't start a case in the EU. All they did was to report Microsoft's crimes to the authorities. The authorities decided to start a case because they noticed that MS was indeed breaking the law.

They complained more than once, actually, about increasingly petty things.

They did no such thing. They filed a complaint once. Then they basically answered questions from the press after that. Mozilla was much more vocal in their official blogs about problems with Microsoft's proposals. Opera merely answered questions from the press.

And "petty things" to you are things that may be extremely important in order to do things the right way.

It culminating in the complaint that the Windows browser selection screen had Opera right at the end, kind of like it's market share and web standards compatibility.

Opera's standards compliance is way ahead of anyone else in many areas. The new Presto 2.5 engine is faster and more standards compliant than just about anything else.

 

[marksman]

All this essentially is, is a specialized proxy cache server.

It seems like an interesting idea, but it is not exactly new technology. I give them credit on the compression stuff, but the actual server proxy is pretty old stuff.

AOL used proxy servers for all their customers for internet access from when they started having open internet access.

 

[iPrep]

Yep, and their market share is still square root of diddly squit.

Opera's desktop market share is about 3-5% in the US, and 5-10% in Europe. Probably about 5% globally. Opera's mobile market share is 25-30% globally.

Based on my own experiences with web browsing on phones "before we even knew what an iPhone was", I'd say Opera would suddenly find itself handling 3-4 times the load on its servers. Minimum. (If Opera mini on iPhone becomes popular, which I honestly doubt.)

Opera Mini has more than 50 million active users. I doubt that any new iPhone users would put much of a dent in their massive server parks around the world.

blatant skyfire rip? http://www.skyfire.com/

So Skyfire is coming for the iPhone?

It's funny, though. People are wondering if Opera could cope with the added users from iPhone.

Skyfire would die. They don't have a working business model, and use far more bandwidth.

 

[sam-i-am]

So the app includes an OBML interpreter doesn't it? Wouldn't they then get denied for having a non-native interpreter included in their app?

 

[iPrep]

The desktop version has always failed to impress (its speed is average at best)

Opera has always been known as one of the fastest browsers. It's certainly blazing fast on actual web sites, and with 10.5 it's the fastest at even Apple's own benchmarks.

and the mobile versions have always sucked.

Maybe, but not anymore. Opera Mini 5 and Opera Mobile 10 are awesome.

Combine that with the fact that Opera decided to blame their very small market share on a so-called Microsoft monopoly with IE, and decided to gripe and complain to the EU leading to that ridiculous browser ballot ordeal.

Opera's market share is probably 3-5% in the US, and 5-10% globally. Their revenue from the desktop version has consistently grown by 50-100% yearly for a long time. Not exactly a company in trouble.

And I haven't even gotten into how the claimed market share figures are bogus either. When Chrome had 10 million users and Opera 30 million users, the stats sites claimed that Chrome had a higher market share than Opera. How on earth is that possible?

They could have just make a better browser that could actually compete (like Mozilla did with Firefox) but instead they had to play dirty and whine that they were being oppressed by MS in the browser market.

They didn't "whine" about anything. They reported Microsoft's crimes. Mozilla and Google fully supported the case, and joined a bit later.

And Mozilla explained how Firefox actually shows how broken the market is because of Microsoft:

"When the only real competition comes from a not for profit open source organization that depends on volunteers for almost half of its work product and nearly all of its marketing and distribution, while more than half a dozen other "traditional" browser vendors with better than I.E. products have had near-zero success encroaching on Microsoft I.E.'s dominance, there's a demonstrable tilt to the playing field. That tilt comes with the distribution channel - default status for the OS bundled Web browser."

No actually Opera, it's because your browser sucks.

How can a browser that "sucks" have a market share of up to 50% in some countries?

 

[coleridge78]

Opera has always been known as one of the fastest browsers. It's certainly blazing fast on actual web sites, and with 10.5 it's the fastest at even Apple's own benchmarks.

I've never found Opera's speed to come anywhere close to their published numbers, but it obviously depends on environment so I won't say "Opera sucks", just "try before you buy" because absolute statements are always wrong.

Maybe, but not anymore. Opera Mini 5 and Opera Mobile 10 are awesome.

I find them ugly and clumsy, but that's personal.

How can a browser that "sucks" have a market share of up to 50% in some countries?

It's odd that in the same post you rail about IE's predatory monopoly, but then assert that there's a direct correlation between quality and marketshare...

 

[iPrep]

I've never found Opera's speed to come anywhere close to their published numbers, but it obviously depends on environment so I won't say "Opera sucks", just "try before you buy" because absolute statements are always wrong.

What are their published numbers, exactly? Until Opera published numbers using benchmarks from other browser vendors, I haven't exactly seen a lot of numbers from Opera.

It's odd that in the same post you rail about IE's predatory monopoly, but then assert that there's a direct correlation between quality and marketshare...

I'm sure you can tell the difference between gaining market share by abusing one's monopoly, and doing so with legal methods.

It's also quite strange when Mac users are talking about Opera having an allegedly low market share, considering Apple's market share in the PC market for all these years... It's kind of embarrassing to see people on Macs use the same fallacious arguments against Opera that have been used against Macs for all these years.

 

[lixuelai]

I used to use Opera a lot and if I wasn't trying to keep a single browser on all my computers and Opera not integrating well into OSX I would still be using it.

 

[wikoogle]

Opera is awesome. Opera Mini is the fastest mobile browser in my experience.

The recently released Opera 10.5 beta is objectively the fastest browser for Windows systems. Every single speedtest and benchmark done across a variety of websites confirms it. Yes it's faster than both Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox and pounds Safari into the ground in terms of speeds.

I for one hope Apple doesn't reject Opera. If they reject it to try to monopolize the market instead of giving their customers more choice, I hope they get sued, and they probably will, and I'll be opting to get a Driod based phone next time, one that doesn't stifle the amount of choice their customers have.

Why should we be forced to use a slow ass browser just because Apple is afraid of a little competition? What if Windows suddenly decides it's going to lock out Safari, Google Chrome and Firefox because it doesn't like them eating into IE's marketshare? Those same fanboys here who will defend Apple doing the exact same thing will whine and complain endlessly if MS did that.

If Apple fears Opera will eat into their marketshare, make Safari faster, don't lock out competitors. It'll help alleviate the bandwidth problems AT&T is having too and improve 3G coverage.

And that whole duplicates functionality is the biggest load of BS I've heard today. If that's a valid excuse, why are there dozens of apps that duplicate the Stocks functionality, dozens of apps for the clock and alarm functionality, dozens of apps for voice memos, photo taking, calculator, weather, calender and even a mapquest app. The only reason Google Voice was rejected was because Apple is pissed off about the Andriod platform and the Droid phone. Google Voice shouldn't have been rejected and neither should Opera Mini.

 

[coleridge78]

I'm sure you can tell the difference between gaining market share by abusing one's monopoly, and doing so with legal methods.

Indeed I can, but this response tells me you may not have caught my meaning. The different ways to gain market share aren't relevant to this particular question.

 

[aegisdesign]

Open platforms are wonderful and some great software comes out of them, but so does a lot of crap. There's no quality control and you potentially leave your system open to attack by malicious software.

I am NOT defending Apple's supposed quality control, nor am I saying that Opera Mini is malicious software, BUT open platforms lead to vulnerabilities.

This is one reason (I'm sure there are others.) why Apple is being so strict, and why open platform phones will soon have to require anti-spyware and anti-virus software.

Apple wants to keep things simple and secure for the average user. Get used to it.

Huh? Safari is a mostly Open Source application (WebKit/JSCore) sitting on top of an Open Source operating system kernel and core libraries (Darwin, OpenSSL and a bunch of other UNIX/BSD Open Source stuff).

Opera is NOT Open Source.

Opera Mini in particular is going to be pretty bombproof since it's running on Opera's server and proxying to you a compressed binary image in Opera's own format. If there's anything going to go pear shaped it's at the server end.

History has also shown that the Open Source systems (Linux, OSX...) usually are less vulnerable to attack than the closed ones (Windows, Symbian in the past)

Stop spreading FUD.