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

Opera Submits Browser App to Apple, Starts Countdown

iPrep said:
No, it does support JavaScript, and even Ajax to a certain extent.
Click to expand...
It supports some javascript, but only a very small subset on the client. Depending on what functionality the website in question uses, sites may work perfectly, work partially, or not work at all. I don't want to have to worry about if the site I'm using is working correctly.

This link has some more information on what javascript is supported.

iPrep said:
Opera is based in Norway, which has some of the strictest privacy laws in the world. Your data is safer at Opera than at most American companies, I would guess.
Click to expand...

I don't care what privacy laws Norway has - there's no way I'm giving any of my financial information to a third party that has nothing to do with the initial transaction. That just gives thieves another avenue of attack to get my personal information. If I'm giving Amazon my credit card information, I want to be sure that Amazon is the only ones who get it. That way I have an avenue of recourse should my information get out.
 
TuffLuffJimmy said:
Then please, enlighten the rest of us. Describe the mechanisms of the engines and why, specifically, Safari is faster than Opera.
Click to expand...

I have no intention to write a thorough description of how an engine would work, especially since that information can be easily found on the net. Instead, I'll keep it simple.

while (Opera Javascript Engine > Safari Javascript Engine)
{

(Webkit engine + Safari Javascript Engine) > (Presto Engine + Opera Javascript Engine)

}
 
Denied

Apple will toss this piece of crap faster then you can say lawsuits. Apple in no way wants apart of the legal mess Opera is headed for.

Opera will be dead in a year they just don't have the funds to deal with the hundreds of copyright lawsuits there just signed up for. They do realize that they are re-rendering copyrighted content don't they. Google gets sued just for links and has a sizable legal team. Opera will shut down the second Mr Murdoch's lawyers call end of story.
 
IntelliUser said:
I have no intention to write a thorough description of how an engine would work, especially since that information can be easily found on the net. Instead, I'll keep it simple.

while (Opera Javascript Engine > Safari Javascript Engine)
{

(Webkit engine + Safari Javascript Engine) > (Presto Engine + Opera Javascript Engine)

}
Click to expand...
impressive, your executing code is Boolean therefore doesn't compile. Nice try. Again, you obviously have no idea how either engine works.
 
trrosen said:
Apple will toss this piece of crap faster then you can say lawsuits. Apple in no way wants apart of the legal mess Opera is headed for.

Opera will be dead in a year they just don't have the funds to deal with the hundreds of copyright lawsuits there just signed up for.
Click to expand...

Opera Mini has been available for a long time, about 4 1/2 years.

trrosen said:
They do realize that they are re-rendering copyrighted content don't they.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they know exactly what they are doing.
 
friedmud said:
Sigh. Really?

Come on people! How many times have we been over this.

1. If you are NOT a monopoly you can do what you want.
2. Apple does NOT have a monopoly on mobile phone operating systems.
3. IF Apple does gain a full monopoly on mobile phone operating systems _then_ they can be required by governments to allow competitors products.
4. UNTIL that happens see #1

Now... whether or not it is good for Apple's business to deny their customers these kinds of apps is another question altogether...
Click to expand...


Uhh, whos to say that Apple doesn't have a monopoly? Mobile OSX only has one browser available for it right now - Safari - which is provided by Apple themselves. If Apple stops another company from trying to provide an alternative, then that sure seems like monopolistic practices to me. I'm not talking about government regulations at this point, i'm just talking about letting other people use what they want.
 
CubeHacker said:
Uhh, whos to say that Apple doesn't have a monopoly? Mobile OSX only has one browser available for it right now - Safari - which is provided by Apple themselves. If Apple stops another company from trying to provide an alternative, then that sure seems like monopolistic practices to me. I'm not talking about government regulations at this point, i'm just talking about letting other people use what they want.
Click to expand...

That's not true, there are several Webkit-based browsers available. Unless you want to consider that a monopoly too.:rolleyes:
 
Runt888 said:
It supports some javascript, but only a very small subset on the client. Depending on what functionality the website in question uses, sites may work perfectly, work partially, or not work at all. I don't want to have to worry about if the site I'm using is working correctly.

This link has some more information on what javascript is supported.



I don't care what privacy laws Norway has - there's no way I'm giving any of my financial information to a third party that has nothing to do with the initial transaction. That just gives thieves another avenue of attack to get my personal information. If I'm giving Amazon my credit card information, I want to be sure that Amazon is the only ones who get it. That way I have an avenue of recourse should my information get out.
Click to expand...

To pick fault, that would rule the iPhone out too since it doesn't support flash.
 
IntelliUser said:
And who says it was supposed to compile? It was just a concept.
Click to expand...
That's not at all what I meant. Obviously it won't compile as it isn't written in any programming language. What I meant is the logic is wrong, because the executing portion of your while statement is nonexecuting Boolean.




Again, you obviously have no idea what "speed" means.
Click to expand...

I use Camino as my everyday browser, but have used Opera a fair bit. Opera is definitely not lacking in the speed department, perhaps there is something wrong with your set up considering you're arguing with facts.
 
CubeHacker said:
Uhh, whos to say that Apple doesn't have a monopoly? Mobile OSX only has one browser available for it right now - Safari - which is provided by Apple themselves. If Apple stops another company from trying to provide an alternative, then that sure seems like monopolistic practices to me. I'm not talking about government regulations at this point, i'm just talking about letting other people use what they want.
Click to expand...

because it is only on apple products. you can't have a monopoly on your own product. I can go out and get a nexus one and it will not have safari i can get a blackberry and it won't have safari. I have so many other options for mobile os. Do u understand that a company does not have to allow any other things on thier devices if they don't want to. why can't mircrosoft make a online service for the ps3.
 
2 things will happen.

1) It won't be approved.
2) Apple will take their time in approving it, which will give them time to make safari work the same way. That way they won't have everyone switching over to a faster browser.


And on a side note, "More browsing for your MB?" do you think the carriers around the world want that!
 
Dangerous Game

No doubt OM 5 for iPhone will be approved.

However, Opera is playing a VERY dangerous game here.

1. If Apple approves this in less than 7days - then ALL developers will expect this of their apps not just for iPhone but also for iPad! Apple is NOT going to want to cause this kind of stir for future applications.

2. OM is showing off their "Turbo" or proxy compression servers/technology on a 2G band in the sneak peak video! This will win over blind fans but those of us that know close to 3.5Mbps with low latency will not improve data speeds if the 3GS is on UMTS vs Safari. I don't think you'd get even 3 pages of NY Times before Safari completes 1 page.

The other part of this count up page is that should Apple dis-approves this app; regardless of the reason, developers & users alike will see this as "Apple is not happy they where shown up in their own sand-box" attitude against software/features that are better than Apple's'.

Still with just 3-4mths before rumored iPhone 4 hardware gets released its going to have a short lifespan; before revision.
 
TuffLuffJimmy said:
That's not at all what I meant. Obviously it won't compile as it isn't written in any programming language. What I meant is the logic is wrong, because the executing portion of your while statement is nonexecuting Boolean.

The logic isn't wrong humanity-wise, but anyway, you got the point.
I use Camino as my everyday browser, but have used Opera a fair bit. Opera is definitely not lacking in the speed department, perhaps there is something wrong with your set up considering you're arguing with facts.
Click to expand...

I don't think so since I'm not the only one who's experiencing this. I know quite a few people (personally and over the net) who agree with me.

But let's just cut this stupid discussion (Yeah I know I started it). They're just browsers, who cares who uses what. The important thing is that they can deliver high-quality porn efficiently.
Click to expand...
 
CubeHacker said:
Uhh, whos to say that Apple doesn't have a monopoly? Mobile OSX only has one browser available for it right now - Safari - which is provided by Apple themselves. If Apple stops another company from trying to provide an alternative, then that sure seems like monopolistic practices to me. I'm not talking about government regulations at this point, i'm just talking about letting other people use what they want.
Click to expand...

Nope... that's like saying that Sony has a monopoly on browsers on the PS3. Or that Samsung has a monopoly on text based browsers on its dumb phones. Those arguments just don't make sense. Those are those companies products... if you don't want to use Sony's browser on the PS3... go buy an XBox. Sony doesn't have a monopoly on consoles... therefore it can do what it likes with the PS3. If Sony did have a monopoly and was using it to force everyone to use their browser... then there would be an issue.

BTW: There is nothing inherently wrong with a monopoly. They can arise naturally through market forces. What is bad is when that monopoly is using it's monopoly status to force users to use _other_ products that are tied to it.

That is the situation Microsoft was in. They DID (do?) have a real monopoly on consumer desktop operating systems... more than 90% of computers were using their OS. Nothing wrong with that... consumers had obviously voted with their dollars. What was wrong is that they used that market position to force consumers to use their browser... which forced developers to use their development tools which further tied people back into the monopoly. THAT is illegal...

COMPLETELY different from Apple having a product in a marketspace (ie smartphones) that is competing on its own merits against many different companies. Apple is completely within their rights to control their product in any way they see fit. Ultimately the consumers can vote with their dollars about whether Apple's control suits them or not.
 
I actually spoke with Opera Software's financial-officer about this today. They are hopeful. And realistically, Apple wouldn't gain anything in case of an rejection. Can you say Windowsesqe business conduct?
 
This rule of no new browsers unless they are based webkit is nonsense. If the idea is to prevent confusion for the end user then even webkit browsers are unnecessary as well. As usual Apple do not want anything that might show their own products in an inferior light.
 
Why should it be rejected?

Safari comes for free on the iPhone and Opera mini improves the iPhone performance.

Considering that Apple sells a platform but not software(in the iPhone case), they have nothing to lose, there is no competition.
 
jimmyjoemccrow said:
This rule of no new browsers unless they are based webkit is nonsense. If the idea is to prevent confusion for the end user then even webkit browsers are unnecessary as well. As usual Apple do not want anything that might show their own products in an inferior light.
Click to expand...

The rule isn't "No browsers not based on webkit". It's actually "no code interpreters"... Which includes HTML renderers. The exception is using an internal interpreter like Webkit.

The purpose here is that Apple is trying to keep out junk interpreted code that would make the iPhone feel slow(er?) and less consistent... But it does have some nasty side effects like not allowing browsers.

I'm not arguing for this strategy... I would personally rather have the ability to choose for myself... But, I do believe it's Apple's right to behave this way. If we don't like it we should choose other phones (and or complain to Apple).
 
FXT 1 said:
I don't think anyone has spoken about the potential cost of this app if it does come out. Since Opera are using server-side compression, i doubt they'll be willing to make this app free.
Click to expand...

This feature is already in use for their feature phone, smart phone, and desktop versions of the app and they're all free. I don't see why this one would be any different.
 
friedmud said:
Sigh. Really?

Come on people! How many times have we been over this.

1. If you are NOT a monopoly you can do what you want.
2. Apple does NOT have a monopoly on mobile phone operating systems.
3. IF Apple does gain a full monopoly on mobile phone operating systems _then_ they can be required by governments to allow competitors products.
4. UNTIL that happens see #1

Now... whether or not it is good for Apple's business to deny their customers these kinds of apps is another question altogether...
Click to expand...

You don't need to have a monopoly in order to be accused of anti-competitive practices, at least not in the EU.


I think....
 
cumanzor said:
You don't need to have a monopoly in order to be accused of anti-competitive practices, at least not in the EU.


I think....
Click to expand...

According to everything I've read, it depends on whether a company is considered to have a dominant position in their market. You can look up competition law in the EU.

I think you could make a case that most normal business practices could be considered anti-competitive.
 
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