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

Opera Set to Preview 'Opera Mini' Browser for iPhone

kdarling said:
Apple does not allow other browser engines.

The "alternative browsers" in the app store are simply different UI wrappers around the stock Safari.
Click to expand...

Yeah. As far as the rumor goes, Opera was denied once already.

Before everyone insists that you don't need another browser, etc, etc, etc, the selling point of Opera Mini is the compression it uses. It works EXTREMELY well, and their claims of 6x speed is certainly true on slower networks (slower than 1MB)
 
I say Apple should approve them just to shut them up. It's not like many people will even bother downloading their app. Opera is the least popular browser in market share, yet they're the most vocal.

In fact, they're constantly complaining to regulatory agencies about Microsoft, Apple, Mozilla and any and all major PC manufacturers that won't install their browser by default.

It's a ridiculous company that for some reason doesn't want to stand on its own merits even when their products are good (like the Wii's Opera-based browser).

cumanzor said:
Before everyone insists that you don't need another browser, etc, etc, etc, the selling point of Opera Mini is the compression it uses. It works EXTREMELY well, and their claims of 6x speed is certainly true on slower networks (slower than 1MB)
Click to expand...

And it's a security nightmare as everything you access via their browser has been compressed (and theoretically logged and stored) by their servers. As if we don't already have enough problems with ISPs keeping data.
 
won't use it if it does flash. but i'd like to see this approved and in the store. the competition will be good for apple. which means they'll not allow it...too bad.
 
kdarling said:
Apple does not allow other browsers.

The alternatives in the app store are simply different UI wrappers around the stock Safari.
Click to expand...

Apple's official position as I understand it is to disapprove apps that duplicate iPhone core app functionality.

As such, it shouldn't matter what the code is under the hood, e.g. whether it is webkit, gecko, or just a lightweight wrapper on the Sarfari rendering component.

The strictest interpretation of Apple's guidelines would mean that apps can't offer embedded maps or web browsers- they'd expect you to shell out to one of the native apps. Obviously this isn't the case.

Seems like a slippery slope that they're already halfway down.
 
i wish Opera could stay away from the desktop market and also iPhone and Android and concerntrating on fixing the retarded web experience on more primitive phones (and Windows Mobile). And the PS3.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.1-update1; en-gb; Nexus One Build/ERE27) AppleWebKit/530.17 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/530.17)

Why the hate? Choice is a good thing!. :p

Think different, people! :)
 
Ca$hflow said:
I doubt they will get approval for the iPhone. It's always about the money and I can't see apple giving up any market share in the browser market. It's unfortunate really.:(
Click to expand...

Having said that Opera appears to come with OS X as standard. Discovered it when I went to open a torrent file before having downloaded Transmission.
 
Apple needs to get over the whole Thou Shalt Not Compete With Apple thing. It's a huge conflict of interest to use your position as the hardware manufacturer to eliminate all competition for your own applications. It's unhealthy for the App Development atmosphere and it creates a huge mistrust between developers and Apple. It's come a long way, but so long as Apple is the jury, and the jury is looking out for Apple, the developers are never going to get a fair chance.
 
If the app uses WebKit to render web pages, then there should be no problem with it being accepted. If they're trying to use their own rendering engine Presto, though, there's no way it will fly. Apple has a clear and long-standing policy of allowing only WebKit-based browsers on the iPhone.
 
Monopolies Commission calling?

If Apple reject this application, then isn't this a clear cut case of pot, kettle and black?

M$ were slated in the press for their monopoly of their IE browser on the Windoze platforms. Personally, I think the whole monopoly, bundled software is a croc of **** but there you are.

Apple are doing the same restrictive practice as M$ so they should expect some kickback.

Opera is not my choice at all and I quite like Safari as it happens but with Apple having such a huge % marketshare of the smartphone sector, this is very restrictive for consumers.

Stand up people, and be heard!
 
And if Apple does reject it as expected, I hope they hand it over to Saurik to put in the Cydia Store. I'd definitely download it and give it try. I just can't believe people actually defend Apple's stance of not allowing apps that "duplicate core functionality". Let the customer decide for themselves, dammit.
 
I really hope Apple approves this, if just for the reason that some competition might get them to improve Safari on the iPhone. If they don't approve it, I hope Opera raises a real stink. The whole duplicating functions argument is really lame. Apple should be confident in their products enough to stand by them and not try to stifle all competition.
 
I have four browsers on my HTC Touch Pro: Internet Explorer, Opera Mobile, Opera Mini, and Skyfire. My favorites are Opera Mini for speed and Skyfire for Flash. I wish that these two would become available for the iPhone.
 
Opera has a fairly dedicated user community. I think they're trying to leverage their user base to confront Apple, basically--hoping that the demand for an Opera Mini alternative forces Apple to change its policy.

Good luck with that!
 
Hopefully this gets rejected, unless it offers at least one feature that Safari does not.

-There is no chance that it peforms better than Safari, aka no reason to use it.

-There is little chance that they've found a way to add even one key feature that Safari is missing (after all, its really just Safari with the Opera name on it, since the SDK does not permit anything different).

-Full Screen Web Browser w/ Shake-to-Reveal Address bar is a unique app that was not rejected from the App Store because it offered something that Safari did not.
 
Personally I hope Apple approves this because I would like to try it! The compression really does work great, or at least it did on my old Nokia S60 phone. After getting used to Opera Mini and its speed and interface, I found the built-in (WebKit-based!) browser almost unusable.

Mobile Safari is great—the best—but I'd love to see what Opera can bring to the table.
 
GeekGuys said:
If Apple reject this application, then isn't this a clear cut case of pot, kettle and black?
Click to expand...

I was just about to make the very same point. In Europe, it cost MS $$$ for anti competitive behaviour. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case

Now is Apple being anti competitive by not allowing apps onto its platform?
What would our world be like if the same practice was applied to the desktops?

It will be interesting to observe how this pans out over the next months.
 
adamaray said:
I am interested if it has the ability to use flash... I doubt thats going to happen any time soon.
Click to expand...

Flash support comes at the platform level, not the browser level. Adobe has to make it work with the iPhone OS, not with Safari.

As for the browser, it's nothing more than Opera wasting their time and trying to drum up publicity. No one seriously thinks Apple is going to approve it. They rejected other apps for duplicating questionable iPhone content. They won't greenlight a new browser that directly competes with Safari.

Opera are desperate to garner attention, nothing more.
 
easterncanuck said:
It's a publicity stunt for the other mobile devices, nothing more. Everyone knows it would never get past approval for the iPhone.

Plus it doesn't have Flash either, according to engadget, so what's the point?
Click to expand...

What is the point for Safari or Chrome when people have IE and FF.
 
Denarius said:
Having said that Opera appears to come with OS X as standard. Discovered it when I went to open a torrent file before having downloaded Transmission.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. It does however install itself as part of some adobe programs.
 
rwilliams said:
And if Apple does reject it as expected, I hope they hand it over to Saurik to put in the Cydia Store. I'd definitely download it and give it try. I just can't believe people actually defend Apple's stance of not allowing apps that "duplicate core functionality". Let the customer decide for themselves, dammit.
Click to expand...

This is not a Mac. Know what you're talking about before posting your self-important rants. The SDK itself does not permit the creation of native web browsers, because the core tools require the Safari webkit, and in the end you cannot create anything that is drastically different from Safari.

A.K.A., no reason for any other Web Browser on the iPhone UNTIL Apple changes the SDK. Understand reality before posting, pls.
 
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