Opera Set to Preview 'Opera Mini' Browser for iPhone

[betab]

No chance!

There are several alternative web browsers in the App Store that have already gone through the approval process. There's no reason for Apple to reject this one just because it's a browser and "competes" with Safari.

All the browsers approved are based on safari. This, I belive, is completely new. It will hit the approval process like a brick wall.

SPLAT!!

 

[Stella]

9th Feb 2010. Apple share of smartphones, worldwide was 25% (2nd place behind RIM at 49%). As we all know, RIM BB's are pointless, useless and only for suited nutters to fiddle with emails when on the train or down the pub.
iPhones are for intellegent, sexy and sophisticated individuals who appreciate choice and quality.

Therefore, I rest my case!

Seriously though, 25% of market share worldwide. That seems pretty significant to me.

You are talking u.s marketshare and not worldwide.

In Q4 2009, iPhone had 16% share, third behind BB.

1. Symbian
2. Blackberry
3. iPhone.

http://www.cellular-news.com/story/41792.php

And yet still they lag and lag and lag in market share overall.

Yep, its quite often that the innovators don't do so well because others will just copy.

I think part of the problem for Opera is that they *used* to charge for the desktop browser so it never caught on. Opera do a lot better on mobile browser platforms, it seems. (Opera still do charge for native mobile browsers - Opera Mini is free ).

 

[*LTD*]

Data just goes through a proxy server that compresses and adjusts the page for small screen devices.

Pros:
Extremely noticeable on slow connections.
Text is adjusted to the screen size, pages look almost like on a desktop (zooming out).

Cons:
Scripting is done on their proxy servers, which means no advanced features. No flash either.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Mini#Functionality

Certainly, the more phones there are, the more workload they'll have. In that wiki article there is a graph showing the amount of data consumed by users.

That was very helpful. Thank you.

 

[dubbz]

9th Feb 2010. Apple share of smartphones, worldwide was 25% (2nd place behind RIM at 49%). As we all know, RIM BB's are pointless, useless and only for suited nutters to fiddle with emails when on the train or down the pub.
iPhones are for intellegent, sexy and sophisticated individuals who appreciate choice and quality.

Therefore, I rest my case!

Seriously though, 25% of market share worldwide. That seems pretty significant to me.

worldwide=US

RIM doesn't have that kind of market share worldwide, nor does Apple.

Just saying.

Edit: Stella beat me to it

 

[plings]

Opera is the least popular browser in market share, yet they're the most vocal.

So what you are saying is that small companies shouldn't be able to say anything?

Also, you are wrong about Opera being the least popular. It might not be among the top 3 desktop browsers, but it's the #1 mobile phone browser with nearly 30% market share.

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.

This is completely false. They notified the authorities of Microsoft's anti-competitive practices once. That was it. And Mozilla and Google joined the complaint.

Opera has not filed any other complaints about Microsoft, and certainly not Apple. To claim that they have filed complaints against Mozilla is just insanity!

As is the claim that they have filed complaints against PC manufacturers. They have done no such thing.

Why the lies?

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

Where did you get this idea? Clearly from the misconception that Opera has filed lots of complaints, which they haven't.

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.

Opera is based on Norway, which has some of the strictest privacy laws in the world. I would trust Norwegian companies over US companies any day.

 

[Cloudane]

Hahaha good luck Opera, you'll need it.

I'd sincerely like to see Opera on the iPhone as nothing has ever come close to their ability to make a browser small, quick and efficient. But I think the chances of them getting it approved are somewhere between "infinitesimal" and "none whatsoever".

I wonder why they'd go to all the trouble of developing an iPhone version that anyone in their right mind knows would get rejected - are they thinking of pulling antitrust on them like what Microsoft went through for forcing people to use IE, or perhaps looking to fall back to Cydia and the tiny coverage they'd get through that route?

 

[ddrueckhammer]

If the EU or DOJ were to punish Apple for not allowing other browsers on their platform, they need to similarly punish Nintendo since afaik you can only install Opera on the Wii & DS and certainly Nintendo holds a more dominant market share in the console market than Apple does in the smartphone market....

We need browser choice on Nintendo products NOW!

 

[zacman]

Last summer after the 3GS was released I was in an Apple store and two guys compared the browser speed of the 3G to the 3GS.

They used the stores' wifi to load engadget. Just for fun I jumped in with my E51 and Opera Mini and I only used the 3G network instead of the wifi DSL connection in the store.

Opera mini on the E51 was around 2-3times faster than the 3GS and it even loaded the full version of the engadget website instead of the special iphone version.

 

[plings]

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

One feature: Compression.

Another feature is Speed Dial, which Apple borrowed from Opera for Safari on Mac.

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

It does compression, so it does perform better than Safari. Up to 6 times faster, apparently.

-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).

No, Opera has its own browser. They will not make just a Safari skin, or they would have done it already.

Opera Mini is a "thin client" browser which even does things like copy and paste, tabbed browsing, password management, find in page, etc.

But I think the chances of them getting it approved are somewhere between "infinitesimal" and "none whatsoever".

Maybe that is why Opera is announcing it in advance, to put pressure on Apple.

are they thinking of pulling antitrust on them like what Microsoft went through for forcing people to use IE

Opera has never accused Apple of illegal behavior, so that is not likely at all. Microsoft did break the law, while Apple didn't. Which is why Opera is doing it this way, I guess. They won't just accuse companies without a good reason.

 

[MaSx]

lol this is going to be interesting. I really want to see how it ends up. They cried out loud for Microsoft to add their browser in Windows. And seeing how Apple's past, present has been.. lol Good luck Opera!

 

[plings]

They used the stores' wifi to load engadget. Just for fun I jumped in with my E51 and Opera Mini and I only used the 3G network instead of the wifi DSL connection in the store.

These people who are crying about antitrust charges are clearly talking out of their behinds. There's no danger of antitrust charges against Apple here. This is just Opera announcing it in advance to put pressure on Apple that way.

 

[xUKHCx]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)

Fwiw, I agree with you, and I don't think anything but safari will gain much traction on the iPhone. It is the gold standard, and for good reason. That's not to say opera won't be a better fit for some, but it's going to be a tough sell because people are really pretty happy with safari.

Gold standard?, it is essentially the only browser on the phone. I know there are other browsers available but they are pretty much skinned versions of Safari with a few different features.

The iPhone platform (iPod Touch/iPhone/Soon to be iPad) is large and a number of users who use Opera Desktop would beenfit greatly with having the mobile version. Afterall with Opera link all of your machines are updated almost instantly when you make a change on one of those.

Opera is still around?

Yeah and their browser is actually really good.

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.

Indeed, this will get rejected. As per the quote in my previous post they haven't even submitted it to Apple yet. They are using this as a platform to try and force apple's hand.

 

[plings]

It's a publicity stunt for the other mobile devices, nothing more.

Nonsense. They have an iPhone version, and they are going to demo it. Of course they want to be on the iPhone. They want to be on as many phones as possible. If this is a PR stunt, it's to put pressure on Apple.

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

It does compression, making surfing faster and cheaper.

And yet still they lag and lag and lag in market share overall.

Nope. They are the biggest mobile browser, and their desktop user base has more than doubled every two years or so. They aren't bundled with an OS like IE and Safari and don't have an online ad monopoly like the one Google is using to promote Chrome (they used to promote Firefox), so they have to stand on their own. And they have done pretty damn well considering that they are up against massive corporations with massive resources that just use the browser as a loss leader.

Indeed, this will get rejected.

Says who? Apple accepted Spotify.

They are using this as a platform to try and force apple's hand.

You make it sound like that's a bad thing.

"Bringing the web to the world" in addition to all the other browsers out there?

Pretty shabby mission statement..

Why? Opera Mini runs on just about any phone, and it's particularly frequently used in countries where it's the only way to access the web.

 

[BTW]

It is highly unlikely that Apple would approve this. The reasoning is that the Opera browser could be a trojan horse and allow Flash and Java onto the platform. Apple would lose control of development and their iPhone cash cow. There's no way they would allow that to happen.

 

[RMo]

I don't think you guys know how it works

This is Opera Mini we're talking about here, not Opera Mobile. Most people seem to be commenting that Apple will disallow this because it opens the possibility for (forbidden) code interpretation, but in reality, Mini does almost all of that work on Opera's servers, then sends data (compressed, by the way) to the device. Again, 99% of the work happens on Opera's end. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_mini

There is a chance Apple will actually allow this. They could still claim "duplicate functionality," although then I'd question why they didn't with the 500 Safari clones currently available. But Java, Flash, or arbitrary code execution are out of the question.

 

[xUKHCx]

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.

You probably have Adobe CS suite, it is included with that.

Says who? Apple accepted Spotify.

From the fact that the quote that I was replying to shows that the SDK only allows webkit based browsers on the iPhone. Not to mention the quote in my first post which shows that even the developers aren't sure that it will get approved.

You make it sound like that's a bad thing.

Well if you read my previous posts in this thread you'll understand my viewpoint.

Posted from Opera 10.50 Internal 8240.


Note: Despite the terms above this is a public release, it is the latest 10.5 Pre Alpha version for OS X

 

[AppleMojo]

This is all quite natural for the progression of the App Store.

Personally, I think Apple has the right to determine what is and isn't allowed on their App Store, regardless if I agree with the policy or not.

This may be the perfect situation for Opera to put Apple in a situation where they may accept the App to avoid attention or reject it and risk a federal case and ruling on competition / anti-trust.

History is on Opera's side.

 

[jaw04005]

You know that opera has a very large share in the mobile browser market. More than 25% actually.

Yes, I’m well aware of their market share on mobile devices (particularly Symbian phones, which last time I checked most shipped Opera as their default browser.) I was referring to their share on the desktop market, which usually ranks them last of the five main browsers (IE, Firefox, Safari, Chrome, Opera).

http://marketshare.hitslink.com/bro...qpmr=100&qpdt=1&qpct=3&qptimeframe=M&qpsp=129

So what you are saying is that small companies shouldn't be able to say anything?

That’s no what I’m saying at all.

This is completely false. They notified the authorities of Microsoft's anti-competitive practices once. That was it. And Mozilla and Google joined the complaint.

My sentence was poorly worded. I know they haven’t filed regulatory complaints against any other company except Microsoft. However, they have complained publicly about Apple, Mozilla and PC manufacturers that wouldn’t do deals with them to load their browser on default installations.

Opera has complained many times about various competitors and various problems to anyone who will listen. They’re the most outspoken of the entire browser industry.

Opera on Apple’s iPhone in 2008:

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/why-you-will-not-see-opera-on-your-iphone/

Opera on Net Applications’ market share measurements:

http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2009/11/03/browser-stats

Opera on Mozilla’s mobile browsing project:

http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/show.dml/7371

Opera on Mozilla’s security disclosure policy:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=884

Opera on Microsoft’s MSN Web site:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/06/msn_deliberately_breaks_operas_browser/

Opera on Microsoft’s decision to ship a browser-less Windows SKU:

http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/en...6/Opera-Decries-Microsoft-EU-Browser-Move.htm

Opera on Microsoft decision to allow IE removal from Windows 7:

http://www.geek.com/articles/news/opera-says-lack-of-ie-in-eu-windows-7-not-good-enough-20090612/

Opera on Windows 7’s ballot screen:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/28/eu_windows_ie_antitrust_ballot_questionnaire/

Opera on compatibility with Microsoft Web services:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/11/opera_ceo_microsoft_windows_ie_apis/

Opera worries about recognizable IE logo:

http://www.techflash.com/seattle/20...cons_in_Windows_ballot_proposal_51792607.html



I was making the point that for a company that supposedly has superior products (in which some of those claims are absolutely true — just compare the PS3 InFront browser to the Wii’s Opera browser), they spend an awful lot of time moaning and bashing their competitors.

Opera is based on Norway, which has some of the strictest privacy laws in the world. I would trust Norwegian companies over US companies any day.

I doubt many will see it that way. It would be interesting to learn what they do with their Opera mini data. I’m sure it would be a gold mine for advertisers.

 

[cvaldes]

There are several alternative web browsers in the App Store that have already gone through the approval process. There's no reason for Apple to reject this one just because it's a browser and "competes" with Safari.

My guess is that the other alternative browsers aren't using private APIs.

Apple will probably deny the Opera browser because of its use of private APIs (I'm guessing it does) and/or other violations of the iPhone SDK/App Store terms and conditions.

 

[frjonah]

I, for one, hope they let it through... competition is good for progress.

Also, I think consumers are discriminating enough to figure out when a device's performance is poor due to software compared to hardware... if a Flash-enabled browser was allowed in the app store and it caused the iPhone family devices to crash all the time, I would hope that the majority of consumers wouldn't blame the device...

Yes... I know this app doesn't support flash, but I am advocating a more open app store in which apps with features is not officially supporting are allowed their fighting chance on the open market.

 

[macUser2007]

I wish Skyfire comes to the iPhone/iPad.

We need FLASH!!!!!

(Without Flash, I am not buying the iPad).

Skyfire on Cydia would be fine, too....

 

[Number 41]

I, for one, hope they let it through... competition is good for progress.

Also, I think consumers are discriminating enough to figure out when a device's performance is poor due to software compared to hardware... if a Flash-enabled browser was allowed in the app store and it caused the iPhone family devices to crash all the time, I would hope that the majority of consumers wouldn't blame the device.

Which do you think would be more likely to be spoken by a teenager who owns an iPhone to his friends:

"Dude, my iPhone keeps crashing..."
or
"Dude, this software I downloaded keeps crashing my iPhone"

I fully support Apple's restrictive policies designed to keep the phone error free and in need of only minimal tech-support. It has contributed to overwhelmingly positive word-of-mouth about the iPhone user experience while angering only the lunatic fringe of people who are never happy unless their phone is accessible at the root level to do their bidding. It's a business decision they've made, and if you don't like it you are free to purchase any number of other handsets and platforms on the market.

I don't get this entitlement mentality people have regarding the iPhone platform. It's a closed platform and closed application ecosystem. You knew this when you purchased the phone. You had other options (and, with the introduction of Android, you have even more options today) and you made the decision to support Apple. If people decide that this closed platform is bad, they will choose to support other handsets and Apple will either open their platform to avoid losing business or they will lose money.

People need to stop whining about this. Vote with your wallet (i.e. don't buy an iPhone) if you don't like Apple's policy.

 

[WilliamLondon]

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.

No, I don't believe it's the same. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the whole IE/monopoly issue is that there are browser plug-ins people built which *only* run on IE (e.g. Active-X controls) because websites built these because IE was ubiquitous at the time. What do Active-X controls require? Well, I believe they require a Microsoft back-end. They aren't standards based, and when you have a position where you are installing a non-standards based browser by default on every machine with your operating system (90%+), people are locked in because "it won't run unless you have IE". That's the issue as I understand it. It's nothing to do with denying someone a browser.

 

[plings]

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.

Why? Opera is doing just great. 1/3 of their revenue is from the desktop version.

 

[iPrep]

Also, how will this affect battery life & how fast will this be? If my understanding is correct, more compression = more processor power needed to decompress it & use it.

Actually Opera Mini doesn't do any decompression. It receives a proprietary binary format. The description sounds like it's more like downloading and showing an image. So Opera Mini is extremely lightweight, and probably saves your battery compared to a standard browser.

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.

What makes you so sure? They approved Spotify, remember. And they approved alternative UIs for Safari. Opera Mini also doesn't execute any code on the phone, as the page handling is done by Opera's servers.

Opera are desperate to garner attention, nothing more.

Why would they be desperate? They have an iPhone version, and they intend to show it off. And they announce it before they submit the application to put pressure on Apple. That's not desperation. That's a clever way to prevent Apple from rejecting their browser without anyone noticing.