Why exactly would Opera make a port of the crappy Opera Mini for the iPhone? Like the post says, it uses a third party server to render webpages into images. Obviously the iPhone is capable of using a port of Opera MOBILE which is a conventional browser i.e. renders HTML on the device. So why wouldn't they port Opera Mobile instead?
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
Why?
History says otherwise, as there are already a number of free, cheep or included web browsers designed to talk to a specific domain.
Most notable is Google Maps.
They may need to use Webkit as the client side rendering engine, but no reason to think if they play within the SDK rules then it wouldn't get through.
Might be a great move with all the people who would buy it to "stick it to the man", the "man" getting his 30% cut out of the deal.
Then again I think it would tank as people start to get burned by it.
Hell yeah many people care
All Mobile Opera has to do to win me over is provide provide a better bookmarking system, and get an Acid3 Test score of 27 or more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpPCKoU0DeE
Besides, with how slow and bloated many Java and Flash apps are due to improper coding, it would probably be at least a year post-release before Apple fixes the Safari bugs that involve loading said run-time enviroments.
I mean, I've seen Safari choke and die on just a little bad JavaScript, so I don't expect it to be able to handle improperly coded Java or flash much better.
Besides, Opera has been in the mobile market FAR longer than Safari, so on the iPhone I'd expect it to be a much more capable browser.
I say, Apple please let them in, then try to beat them at their own game (if you can). ^_^
BTW, wtf is with that backspace bug in Opera where backspace-presses are buffered & delayed to the point where it ends up clearing the entire form rather than the four(or however many) characters you wanted it to?
All Mobile Opera has to do to win me over is provide provide a better bookmarking system, and get an Acid3 Test score of 27 or more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpPCKoU0DeE
Besides, with how slow and bloated many Java and Flash apps are due to improper coding, it would probably be at least a year post-release before Apple fixes the Safari bugs that involve loading said run-time enviroments.
I mean, I've seen Safari choke and die on just a little bad JavaScript, so I don't expect it to be able to handle improperly coded Java or flash much better.
Besides, Opera has been in the mobile market FAR longer than Safari, so on the iPhone I'd expect it to be a much more capable browser.
I say, Apple please let them in, then try to beat them at their own game (if you can). ^_^
BTW, wtf is with that backspace bug in Opera where backspace-presses are buffered & delayed to the point where it ends up clearing the entire form rather than the four(or however many) characters you wanted it to?
Amen. They can write it in fortran for all I care. As of right now safari on the iphnoe is way, way the most unstable browser platform I have used. SAFARI CRASHES ALL THE TIME ON THE IPHONE, it's almost unusable, bring in the alternatives or get off your a...es at apple and fix the buggy safari. Everywhere I have used opera, and despite my initial disliking of the idea of it (it being commercial) and being in the firefox, I can attest that everywhere I have used it it's been a stellar experience, they got some very creative and intelligent people working at opera no doubt.
No, it won't. First of all there's so much competition out there, and adroid hasn't even penetrated an infinitisimaly small portion of the market yet, so how can it be the de facto competitor to osx on the iphone? It's not. That's just crap talk.
Opera knows the position of form controls as well. In fact, a radio button that was selected (had a dot inside) when the page was loaded will be redrawn (without the dot) when another radio button in the same group is selected; however, if any JavaScript is associated with the change of selection, Opera Mini sends another request to the server and the server parses the JavaScript.
So Gruber posts a story saying that Apple rejected Opera Mini sparking another debate on Apple policies. And then later retracts his story.
Doesn't that seem a little sensationalist?
Doesn't that seem a little sensationalist?
This article makes it sound like Opera is not even compatible with the iPhone.
They also say their server converts the page to an image before downloading to the phone - but how would we be able to click on links or pull down menus? Huh?
Even then, we still don't know if Apple would approve it.
I would love to see a competing browser on the iPhone, such as Firefox, but I just don't know if this "Opera" is the answer ... at least in it's current form. I mean, I'm sure they'll tweak it all they need to in order to make it work, but still won't it just be an unclickable image?
(note: this is not criticism. I know nothing about Opera. I am asking questions so I can learn)
They also say their server converts the page to an image before downloading to the phone - but how would we be able to click on links or pull down menus? Huh?
Even then, we still don't know if Apple would approve it.
I would love to see a competing browser on the iPhone, such as Firefox, but I just don't know if this "Opera" is the answer ... at least in it's current form. I mean, I'm sure they'll tweak it all they need to in order to make it work, but still won't it just be an unclickable image?
(note: this is not criticism. I know nothing about Opera. I am asking questions so I can learn)
update to story
Update: Upon further investigation, the differences between the New York Times and John Gruber's accountings may be based in semantics rather than substance.
An Opera employee blog seems to indicate that Apple is indeed using anti-competitive reasoning for keeping the Opera Mini browser off the iPhone. However, neither the employee's blog entry nor the New York Times article indicate that the browser was officially submitted to the App Store and rejected, the point to which Gruber took issue. It remains possible that Apple and Opera have been communicating via channels outside of the App Store submission process.
Update: Upon further investigation, the differences between the New York Times and John Gruber's accountings may be based in semantics rather than substance.
An Opera employee blog seems to indicate that Apple is indeed using anti-competitive reasoning for keeping the Opera Mini browser off the iPhone. However, neither the employee's blog entry nor the New York Times article indicate that the browser was officially submitted to the App Store and rejected, the point to which Gruber took issue. It remains possible that Apple and Opera have been communicating via channels outside of the App Store submission process.
Manicured Garden
I suppose I am just too used to the openness of my Mac or the Windows computer sitting in my den. But Apple's stance on third party development on the iPhone just bothers me. And this does shy me away from buying into that manicured Apple garden. But alas it is their garden, and despite what I may think, they can do as they please.
I suppose I am just too used to the openness of my Mac or the Windows computer sitting in my den. But Apple's stance on third party development on the iPhone just bothers me. And this does shy me away from buying into that manicured Apple garden. But alas it is their garden, and despite what I may think, they can do as they please.
Hell Yes! Safari is needs some competition. It's very unstable keeps crashing on me. Can't really fill forms reliably. If it worked we wouldn't need apps that surf the web for you.
This is all the employee has to say
"It's pretty well known."
Well it's not know it's just strongly held belief. The jury is out on this one.
So did they submit it or not a clear yes or no answer would be nice.
Till then it's spin. The original article hooked a lot of horses to the cart, to try and milk as much publicity as possible now they are fueling the fire with no new real information.
Good on them I say milk it for all it's worth, but they have to remember their own creditability is at stake if it turns out they are BSing, or they blow it up to much.
"It remains possible that Apple and Opera have been communicating via channels outside of the App Store submission process."
I get the feeling that is highly likely.
I get the feeling that is highly likely.
Why would anyone even want Opera Mini
http://blogs.computerworld.com/opera_mini_on_iphone_goes_back_and_forth_without_having_gone_nowhere
Opera mini is for dumb phones.
http://blogs.computerworld.com/opera_mini_on_iphone_goes_back_and_forth_without_having_gone_nowhere
Opera mini is for dumb phones.
All the processing takes place on Opera's servers. What the client gets is just an "image". No scripts or anything like that. Apparently.
The fact is that Apple rejected Opera Mini. What the process was is unknown, but that's the fact.
Not at all.
So the straw you are grasping for is that "Opera Mini wasn't submitted"? What if Opera has other channels to communicate with Apple through? Ever considrered that? I guess not.
Must... defend... apple...
It's not just the hardware. It's the network connection, and it's particularly useful to get stuff compressed up to 90% if you pay per KB, and if you are in an area where the network coverage is poor.
You are clearly a bit confused. Opera Mini is nothing like WAP or other attempts to replace the full web. That Opera Mini happens to use its own format as communication between the Opera Mini server and client is irrelevant. The point is that Opera Mini reads completely standard web pages.
Spoken like someone who doesn't live in the real world. Not everyone with an iPhone has unlimited data plans. And not everyone has perfect network conditions. In both cases, Opera Mini would help a lot.
Opera Mobile 9.5 gets 70-80 something on Acid3.
Yeah, it's immensely stupid to receive compressed data if you pay per KB, or if your connection is poor.
Stupid indeed. I mean, who would want to save money or get content quickly even if you don't have an unlimited data plan, and/or you don't live in a city with decent network coverage?
Must... defend... Apple...
Maybe you should try to realize that the world doesn't revolve around you. Not everyone is in your situation. Not everyone has unlimted data plans and perfect network conditions. Even on the Messiah Phone.
So maybe there are other channels to communicate with Apple than submitting an applications like everyone else?
What, are you crazy? The original article was a couple of random sentences in a huge interview about all sorts of stuff.
Yeah, they could release, um, the iPhone's Mobile Safari which gets a 74/100, which beats Firefox, Opera Mobile, and Opera Mini. Beats all the mobile browsers and half the desktop ones. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3#Layout_engines
My question is this: when are we going to see Chrome for the iPhone? It doesn't violate the SDK because it uses Webkit.
Not using WebKit or using WebKit does affect any current SDK guideline.
Google may never release a version of Chrome for the iPhone since Safari already defaults to Google for searches. I hypothesize that Google's only interest in making a browser if for a future internet capable dumb terminal where a Google based browser is how you access everything.