Nah.
Nah. Apple's just taking what Microsoft makes and makes it better, like it always does.
Nah. Apple's just taking what Microsoft makes and makes it better, like it always does.
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 Mini Not Rejected?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm sure the proxy and pagerender-server will be paid with extra advertisements on the rendered pages. 
You also imply that he makes up sources.
I have never seen any hint of this before from anywhere else. So is that something he does? Or did you make it up? If you made that up then is the "chronic apologist" also made up? I really don't know. All I know is that you've given no proof for any of this, and I doubt some of it. Therefor, I now doubt all of it.
Unless you have some sort of proof for what you're talking about, that is. I'm only familiar with Daring Fireball articles that are well-researched and truthful. If that's not what they're all like you're going to have provide links to show me what you mean.
EDIT:
How is that "spin?" It looks to me like normal blogging. He's reporting things he learned. You can take them or leave them. He's reporting what he's heard, which is NOT the same as making stuff up, like you implied. It may well be wrong for one of these reasons you listed, but none of that means he made up it up. He heard it, he reported it. That's not "spin" nor is it lying.
Nothing wrong with a monopoly as long as it is not abused, Apple doesn't use the same tactics that Microsoft did. Forcing ATT to not use Android phones would be such a illegal act.
Apple hasn't been anti-competitive
Thank you for some reasonable comments on the matter. It seems the comments that fly after every iPhone article on the web scream that Apple will get what's coming to them for their anti-competitive behavior, when they have done nothing wrong.
They can have as tight a grip as they want on the iPhone, heck they could even tighten their grip on OS X on Macs, its not illegal until they start using that control as leverage against competitors - in Microsoft's case, it was them refusing to license Windows to certain manufacturers unless they stopped including Netscape pre-installed on their machines.
Like your example, if Apple threatened to pull the iPhone unless AT&T stopped selling Android phones or Blackberries, that would be anti-competitive. Not letting some company release software for your device is not illegal - though I agree it will piss off a few people.
Thank you for some reasonable comments on the matter. It seems the comments that fly after every iPhone article on the web scream that Apple will get what's coming to them for their anti-competitive behavior, when they have done nothing wrong.
They can have as tight a grip as they want on the iPhone, heck they could even tighten their grip on OS X on Macs, its not illegal until they start using that control as leverage against competitors - in Microsoft's case, it was them refusing to license Windows to certain manufacturers unless they stopped including Netscape pre-installed on their machines.
Like your example, if Apple threatened to pull the iPhone unless AT&T stopped selling Android phones or Blackberries, that would be anti-competitive. Not letting some company release software for your device is not illegal - though I agree it will piss off a few people.
Finally! The same crappy browser you've grown to hate on your Wii, OS X, Windows, and Linux will make it to our iPhone! I can't wait!
I think there is plenty of room for mobile Safari to improve, having Opera (or any other third party browser) available is good for all of us.
Competition drives innovation.
Veri is obviously trolling or he hasn't read many of Grubers posts concerning the SDK and other developer issuers regarding the iPhone. Gruber if anything has been using the popularity of his site to help the developers battle Apple over some of the more controversial early moves they have made with the SDK and the app store.
Apple's harming themselves by being anti-competitive and not allowing these apps on.
1. It's hurting their rep.
2. They're missing out on sales from these apps that do what they offer for free built in.
3. The more quality choices, the more appealing the iphone as a whole is.
As for another browser, I would possibly be interested. Why would people be interested in alternatives on a desktop but not mobile platform?
1. It's hurting their rep.
2. They're missing out on sales from these apps that do what they offer for free built in.
3. The more quality choices, the more appealing the iphone as a whole is.
As for another browser, I would possibly be interested. Why would people be interested in alternatives on a desktop but not mobile platform?
If the OBML file includes the locations of links then they will work in exactly the same way as any other browser, the fact that it's a static image would be irrelevant. HTML can already embed links in a image. Movies wouldn't play in a static web page, but then they form a pretty small minority of the web and aren't much of a loss on a mobile browser.
If you had actually read the article, instead of churning out more "Apple is teh new Micro$oft" garbage, you would be aware of the fact that Opera Mini hasn't even been submitted to the Apple store - did the title "Opera Mini Not Rejected" not give you any clues?
In reality it's people like you who are hurting Apples rep by posting this kind of nonsense without being in full possession of the facts. Go on, tell us how Apple are about to be prosecuted out of existence by the EU, I don't think any armchair lawyers have mentioned that in this thread yet.
Apple doesn't want to be to much dependent on 3P software it does not control, another browser, router, iTunes lookalike or Flash could become to important for the platform. These company's would then have to much power over Apple's product or damage its reputation with bad software updates (Flash on PPC macs is horrible), a nice app now can be a nightmare for Apple in 5 years.
No; I was explicit about the assumption that he did not make up his source because I have little reason to believe that he is a credible reporter. Gruber writes opinion pieces, but he's no journalist in the traditional sense. Not putting blind faith in someone who hasn't established a good reputation is not the same as implying that this person is a liar.
If I suddenly reported some news I'd claimed to have come from an authoritative source, I'd hope that you would question, as part of your critical judgement, whether I was just making the whole thing up.
I'm not really following this debacle closely, but afaict:
Assume NYT article correct: risky.
...given that Opera Mini would need a rewrite, as simple research shows: poor research.
Assume Opera Mini has proper Javascript: research skills getting worse.
Assume Javascript is the reason Opera Mini was rejected: wild conjecture, favouring Apple.
Accept that Opera Mini does not have Javascript support: getting there, but not quite right.
Receive whisper that Opera Mini was never submitted to the app store: OK, it's just raw material.
Conjecture that NYT article is shaky: OK, as long as other possibilities are also considered.
No dammit, NYT article must be wrong: OK, then at least consider more innocent errors, such as Mini/Mobile confusion.
This is not a history of "reporting things he learned". It is a conjecturing thought process with pro-Apple spin.
I stated that Gruber is "more often than not" an Apple apologist, not that he was an uncritical lackey. Looking at, say, the response to this story on Slashdot, this opinion is not an unusual one.kcmac said:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/525.18.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.1 Mobile/5F136 Safari/525.20)
So even though we now know Apple hasn't rejected Opera. But even if opera ditched Java I think Apple would still reject it.
So even though we now know Apple hasn't rejected Opera. But even if opera ditched Java I think Apple would still reject it.
Niether here nor there really. I can't see Apple letting any third party browser appear on the iphone, to be honest I wish they'd support syncing with firefox as it is easily the best browser out there.
I'm getting the feeling that hand in hand with a bigger marketshare apple is appearing more and more like microsoft in terms of business practice - lowest common denominator on product lines and features, and profit above all.
There is a thin line between innovation and arrogance...
I'm getting the feeling that hand in hand with a bigger marketshare apple is appearing more and more like microsoft in terms of business practice - lowest common denominator on product lines and features, and profit above all.
There is a thin line between innovation and arrogance...
Well I'm hoping they release Opera Mobile which isn't coded in Java and it has built-in Flash Lite 3.
Actually Apple has worse tactics and since they are smaller in market compared to Microsoft, they get the benefit of the doubt.
Actually Apple has worse tactics and since they are smaller in market compared to Microsoft, they get the benefit of the doubt.
I'm sure the proxy and pagerender-server will be paid with extra advertisements on the rendered pages.
Doubtful, considering Opera Mini is on every other phone platform for free and ad-free.
Opera makes it's money selling the full Opera Mobile browser.
Java is a runtime environment & language just like many other modern technologies that are out there. Java could be used to create a UI that looks exactly like the interface you see on the iPhone. On the other hand, Cocoa-touch could be used to create a totally crappy interface worse than anything you've ever seen done in Java.
The user shouldn't care about the language. A language doesn't make something automatically look awesome or crappy. The Android platform is Java-based, and it doesn't look crappy.
The subject of whether it makes technical sense to support one language or another on a given OS/hardware platform is the only thing of concern here, and this would appear to be a topic that you aren't qualified to discuss.
The optimizations with Opera Mini and the proxy server and so forth are great for hardware with limited capabilities. However, Safari on the iPhone has proven that there is no need for this type of thing. You do not need these types of proprietary schemes, or WAP, etc. on the iPhone, since webkit seems to be able to render even the more complex pages.
It is actually nice to see these types of things abandoned. Same goes for the iPhone interfacing directly with Exchange as opposed to the way the Blackberry does it. The iPhone is truly a handheld computer, as opposed to a primitive device that needs work-arounds and optimization schemes like what we've seen in the past.
It is actually nice to see these types of things abandoned. Same goes for the iPhone interfacing directly with Exchange as opposed to the way the Blackberry does it. The iPhone is truly a handheld computer, as opposed to a primitive device that needs work-arounds and optimization schemes like what we've seen in the past.
Opera's own take
I just realised that one of the guys at Opera unofficially confirmed the NYT story days ago. If I'm having one of my usual attacks of unobservancy, feel free to slap me, but daringfireball.net doesn't seem to have taken this into account in its article. sic transit fidelitas...
I just realised that one of the guys at Opera unofficially confirmed the NYT story days ago. If I'm having one of my usual attacks of unobservancy, feel free to slap me, but daringfireball.net doesn't seem to have taken this into account in its article. sic transit fidelitas...
Quite.
Also, if Apple allowed Java on the iPhone it would be easy to install and run Java apps outside of the App Store, losing Apple the control it requires over what goes and what doesn't on the iPhone. This probably has an equal bearing, if not a greater one, on Apple's stance on Java on the iPhone as appose to just a technical argument.