Linked by David Adams on Wed 29th Oct 2008 20:55 UTC, submitted by Geir Johasen
Opera Software An interesting NYT Bits blog entry covers Opera's mobile browser. Buried in the middle of the article is this quote: "Opera's engineers have developed a version of Opera Mini that can run on an Apple iPhone, but Apple won't let the company release it because it competes with Apple's own Safari browser." It also talks about Opera on the Wii and browsers in cars. A good read. My Take: But back to the iPhone. As tempted as I am to just shrug it off, since Apple is free to run its App Store any way it pleases, as an enthusiastic iPhone user, I think Apple is shooting itself in the foot here, as it is with all the "competitive" apps being rejected. Apple does stand to lose some Google revenue by letting people use other browsers, but they have much more to gain by unleashing the creativity of the developer community and giving them the freedom to improve or replace core iPhone functionality. Hopefully competition from Android forces them to wake up.
Order by: Score:
Ridiculous
by Buck on Wed 29th Oct 2008 21:11 UTC
Buck
Member since:
2005-06-29

This is ridiculous - Opera has actually made their engineers port their browser to the iPhone and all the while they knew perfectly it wouldn't be allowed in the app store, it's clearly outlined in the agreement. Just why do they do that?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Ridiculous
by Schmeggma on Wed 29th Oct 2008 21:26 UTC in reply to "Ridiculous"
Schmeggma Member since:
2006-01-14

Maybe they just wanted to.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Ridiculous
by mmu_man on Wed 29th Oct 2008 21:32 UTC in reply to "Ridiculous"
mmu_man Member since:
2006-09-30

Because it's an unfair and abusive clause of the EULA.
And in many countries (at least France), it's unfaithful competition and as such illegal.

Reply Score: 16

RE[2]: Ridiculous
by melkor on Wed 29th Oct 2008 21:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Ridiculous"
melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

Yeah, well. There's a reason why I've been saying that Apple is a bastard company, a far worse monopolist than Microsoft has EVER been. EULAs should be made illegal, and all contracts should be set by a government body. In fact, business should be solely controlled by governments, and not by rick pricks like Steve Jobs.

I give us 50 years max. to continue on the same path of capitalism and government structure before it all collapses.

Dave

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Ridiculous
by ari-free on Wed 29th Oct 2008 22:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ridiculous"
ari-free Member since:
2007-01-22

I prefer freedom, thank you very much.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Ridiculous
by melkor on Wed 29th Oct 2008 22:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ridiculous"
melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

freedom? freedom for businesses to do whatever they like, at the expense of the "people". Sorry, I think of the people first, business last. A business NEVER has individualistic rights, and nor should it, because it cannot EVER be trusted with that. It's bad enough that business bloody interferes with governmental decisions, something that if any politician had a backbone, they'd be getting rid of. Our politicians ONLY pander to business.

As an example, the US 700 odd billion dollar bailout of rich *unts. *uck 'em. Let them sink. It was their own greed, and their own screwups that led them lending money to people who could never afford to pay back the loans that has caused this issues. It is well known that CEOs etc got hefty pay rises depending on how many loans were made, not how many were feasible. As a direct result of this, when the US economy goes South, it *ucks up the rest of the world.

I'm proudly extreme left, anti capitalism, anti US because those are the values that I believe in. I'm not some lemming who's been brainwashed like the rest of you poor bastards.

Dave

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: Ridiculous
by ari-free on Wed 29th Oct 2008 23:13 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ridiculous"
ari-free Member since:
2007-01-22

Sorry, I think of the people first


you're a fool if you think governments do. That's why we should support non profit organizations such as Haiku, mozilla and linux foundations.

Edited 2008-10-29 23:19 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Ridiculous
by Moochman on Wed 29th Oct 2008 23:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ridiculous"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

hmm i tend to be pretty left wing too but... ur definitely still a lemming. just a different species.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Ridiculous
by jlarocco on Thu 30th Oct 2008 00:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ridiculous"
jlarocco Member since:
2005-09-14

It doesn't make sense to argue against capitalism and against the Wall Street bailout at the same time. The oposite of capitalism would be like a big government bailout for everybody, all the time.

Massive government intervention and regulation are the anti-thesis of capitalism.

Also, your apparent view that the government is always looking out for people is a bit naive. Politicians care about one thing: keeping their cushy jobs.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Ridiculous
by melkor on Thu 30th Oct 2008 03:51 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Ridiculous"
melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

Agreed about politicians. That's why I keep saying the only good politician is a dead one. There's a good old Aussie pollie joke that unfortunately, I probably couldn't say here ;-) The joke is here though:

http://www.emailcash.com.au/Community/ForumPost.aspx?topicid=750511

I actually sent this as an EMail to several of the public EMail addresses of prominent Australia politicians, they probably didn't appreciate it ;-)

Dave

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Ridiculous
by SReilly on Thu 30th Oct 2008 13:06 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Ridiculous"
SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

Massive government intervention and regulation are the anti-thesis of capitalism.

That is a gross oversimplification and not actually the truth.

Capitalism, as originally codified by Adam Smith in his seminal work on the subject "Wealth of Nations", makes no mention of regulation as being wrong or undesirable. It does argue that too much taxation and intervention by governments should be curtailed as the market is the only truly free and impartial means of the distribution of wealth and produce, but it does not mention the regulation of those markets.

What you are repeating is the BS that American super capitalists want you to believe. As long as there is no regulation of industry and market, these greedy swine can have they're way with you and your money.

Most modern economies recognize this and have put in place regulations to help keep the playing field even. Therefore, a more appropriate name for the economical systems we live with today would be mixed economies, as even the small amount of government intervention that people like Adam Smith where willing to allow for is not enough to protect Joe Sixpack against the predations of robber barons.

The fact is, Super Capitalism does not and cannot work. All it becomes is a means by witch Oligarchs get richer while they walk all over the poor. It is in no way better, in fact in many ways worse, than a state owned capitalism, i.e. the USSR and just like the Soviet Union, the system would eventually implode taking everything and all else with it.

Reply Score: 6

RE[7]: Ridiculous
by jlarocco on Fri 31st Oct 2008 01:00 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Ridiculous"
jlarocco Member since:
2005-09-14

"Wealth of Nations" doesn't really mention regulation at all. In fact, the "invisible hand" from the book requires that participants be able to choose for themselves what they consider to be in their best interest. Strict regulation is the opposite of letting people choose for themselves.

The entirety of Book V covers the role of government, and limits its role to providing defense, justice, and public goods. It also covers tax collection and public debt. No where does it say the government should regulate industry and limit choice.

I'll also point out that "Wealth of Nations" was written over 230 years ago. The "state of the art" in economics has advanced a bit since then, and most modern economists would agree that regulation hurts markets far more than it helps.

As evidence that "Super Capitalism" does work, certainly better than USSR style socialism, notice that there's almost a direct correlation between the economic freedom in a country and the standard of living in that country. Countries with high economic freedom, such as Hong Kong or the United States rate significantly higher than the few USSR-like socialist/communist countries that haven't completely imploded.

I'll admit there's a small role for government in any economy, but limiting people's choice isn't part of it.

Edited 2008-10-31 01:01 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Ridiculous
by asupcb on Wed 29th Oct 2008 22:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ridiculous"
asupcb Member since:
2005-11-10

Right because government control works so well everywhere it's ever been tried. There is a reason Socialist countries like the USSR and China under Mao fail and collapse on themselves because governments are incapable of doing much of anything correctly. Market economies are better, including those severly hampered by regulation like every economy currently in existence. Please realize that there does not exist a single country in the world with a free market economy because they are all mixed economies now minus a few socialist relics like Cuba and North Korea. Although even those countries keep themselves from starving through black markets in basic products and services. If you want to understand why government does not work I suggest you read Socialism by Ludwig von Mises written in 1922 which accurately predicted why and how the Soviet Union would collapse economically. It also explains what function prices perform in the economy.

You know you don't have to buy Apple products. There are a lot of alternatives out there. I don't buy Apple products and I get along just fine.

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: Ridiculous
by NiceGuyEddie on Thu 30th Oct 2008 00:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ridiculous"
NiceGuyEddie Member since:
2006-03-22

I'm surprised that your views are so one-sided (considering recent world events). So, Socialism never works, even though your government is nationalizing financial institutions left, right and centre (Freddie Mac, Mannie Mae, etc etc).

Yep, it's clear that market economies are better...until they f#&k things up and go running to the government for a hand-out.

Live by the sword...and then go and hide behind mom when things get too tough.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Ridiculous
by Adamal on Thu 30th Oct 2008 02:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ridiculous"
Adamal Member since:
2005-07-06

If you dig deeper in the cause of the economic situation in the US, you'll find it was government regulation that caused it. One of the causes (there are many) is the quota that was placed on Freddie Mac and Mannie Mae to give out loans to people who normally wouldn't be given loans so lower income families could have a piece of the American Dream. Sounds good in theory but it didn't really work out. The the problem right now is people think it was deregulation that caused this issue and that false logic is going to make it worse.

Sorry for the side track...

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Ridiculous
by NiceGuyEddie on Thu 30th Oct 2008 04:08 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Ridiculous"
NiceGuyEddie Member since:
2006-03-22

I'm not sure I go along with the views of Russell Roberts et al; again I feel that his viewpoint is somewhat partisan.

Yep, sorry, this is diverting off-topic too much :-(

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Ridiculous
by ari-free on Thu 30th Oct 2008 04:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ridiculous"
ari-free Member since:
2007-01-22

freddie mac/fannie mae was privatized profits and socialized risks (backed up the the govt). It was like a garbage producing virus that grows and grows, without fear of failure, until it dominated the market.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Ridiculous
by chopstix on Thu 30th Oct 2008 05:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ridiculous"
chopstix Member since:
2008-10-30

Well said NiceGuyEddie. The media has been feeding us so much crap that we miss the forest for the trees.

There is nothing free-market about FNMA (Fannie Mae) and coercion by justice dept. for banks to make sub-prime loans. The US Banking and mortgage institutions are not market economies because the central bank wields so much control over them and has sole control over the money supply. Fannie/Freddie are also competing with government sponsored advantages against private banks so they can take more risks than private banks can. The banks should be left to fail. Murray Rothbard and Henry Hazlitt have both written great historical pieces that helped me get my perspective straight.

But I digress... As for OperaMini, Apple is missing the boat on this but they should be free to do whatever they want because it's their product and no one else can say anything about that. If one doesn't like it, they are free to associate with any other they wish.

Ciao,
A liberal democratic republican (lower case)

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Ridiculous
by rajan r on Thu 30th Oct 2008 08:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ridiculous"
rajan r Member since:
2005-07-27

Because Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were the pinnacle of private banking?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Ridiculous
by chopstix on Thu 30th Oct 2008 05:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Ridiculous"
chopstix Member since:
2008-10-30

Mises is cool. Go Austrian!

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Ridiculous
by aurora72 on Fri 31st Oct 2008 12:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ridiculous"
aurora72 Member since:
2008-10-31

It looks like the discussion of whether the state should be involved in business or not has been started in areas other than financial&mortage market!

State intervention isn't evil.

Yes, the state can be misused and even be brought down to its knees that's right but the state can never be as greedy and selfish and egoist centric as an individual and their respective businesses!

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Ridiculous
by Silent_Seer on Sat 1st Nov 2008 13:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Ridiculous"
Silent_Seer Member since:
2007-04-06

Not that I am defending Apple here, but if you don't want to use their product, cause you don't agree with their practices, then don't. They are a niche player anyways. I think they are entitled to having their embedded devices (iphone, ipod, AppleTV) as open or as closed as they want.

Full disclosure: I do not use any Apple product. Nor should any student such as me, who are always constrained for cash.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Ridiculous
by tyrione on Thu 30th Oct 2008 00:12 UTC in reply to "Ridiculous"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

This is ridiculous - Opera has actually made their engineers port their browser to the iPhone and all the while they knew perfectly it wouldn't be allowed in the app store, it's clearly outlined in the agreement. Just why do they do that?


They have so much time on their hands that they don't need to move Opera to Qt 4, until at least Qt4.5 is out?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Ridiculous
by cg0def on Thu 30th Oct 2008 14:51 UTC in reply to "Ridiculous"
cg0def Member since:
2006-02-12

This is ridiculous - Opera has actually made their engineers port their browser to the iPhone and all the while they knew perfectly it wouldn't be allowed in the app store, it's clearly outlined in the agreement. Just why do they do that?



The answer to your question is simple. The people running Opera are as stupid as they've always been. Not only is it stated in the agreement that you CANNOT develop products that directly compete with Apple's software but there were quite a few articles about apps being stopped by Apple because of the same reason. My guess is that Opera is depending on people "illegally" installing their product not that the NDA is no longer there. Only this is probably the dumbest idea in the history of the software industry.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Ridiculous
by hangman on Thu 30th Oct 2008 21:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Ridiculous"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

Wow cg0def, angry much? LOL.

"The people running Opera are as stupid as they've always been."

Oh yeah, they are so stupid their growth is amazing. Opera Mini has had a growth of more than 300% in a year. They keep having record revenues and profits.

"there were quite a few articles about apps being stopped by Apple because of the same reason"

And you know exactly when Opera did this, do you? What makes you think Opera did this AFTER those apps?

Geez.

"My guess is that Opera is depending on people "illegally" installing their product"

How on earth would you do that? The iPhone doesn't have Java, so you would need the C based client, but that isn't even available for download anywhere.

You are obviously extremely ignorant.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ridiculous
by hangman on Thu 30th Oct 2008 21:11 UTC in reply to "Ridiculous"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

Buck:
"Opera has actually made their engineers port their browser to the iPhone and all the while they knew perfectly it wouldn't be allowed in the app store"

Considering that Opera specializes in making it easy to port their browser to many different platforms, I doubt it was a big deal. Probably some hacking needed on their existing C based Opera Mini browser.

What makes you think it is clear what Apple will allow or not? Opera Mini has a completely different approach to browsing, so it doesn't compete directly with Safari.

Reply Score: 1

Crashes less often...?
by JakeWharton on Wed 29th Oct 2008 21:33 UTC
JakeWharton
Member since:
2008-10-29

I don't care if Microsoft ports IE5.5 to the iPhone...if it crashes less often than Safari I'm all for it. I have never used Opera as a main desktop browser but I'm well aware of its exclusive feature set. I think Apple would have had a mass defecting from Safari if they let this through and it was to the quality of normal Opera.

No I am not justifying their actions.

Edited 2008-10-29 21:34 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Why don't they
by mmu_man on Wed 29th Oct 2008 21:35 UTC
mmu_man
Member since:
2006-09-30

make an Haiku version instead ?
we'd certainly not turn it down ;)

Reply Score: 7

RE: Why don't they
by ari-free on Wed 29th Oct 2008 22:04 UTC in reply to "Why don't they"
ari-free Member since:
2007-01-22

exactly. If you don't like apple's rules, make something better and have your own say.
That's what firefox is doing to IE and that's what Android should hopefully do to iphone.

Edited 2008-10-29 22:06 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Why don't they
by ebasconp on Thu 30th Oct 2008 02:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Why don't they"
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

exactly. If you don't like apple's rules, make something better and have your own say.
That's what firefox is doing to IE and that's what Android should hopefully do to iphone.


I use and I like Opera a lot, and it is, IMHO, the best and finest browser on the field right now, they took care a lot on details, and such details really matter.

Reply Score: 3

v Also
by Buck on Wed 29th Oct 2008 21:36 UTC
If MS did this...
by helf on Wed 29th Oct 2008 22:07 UTC
helf
Member since:
2005-07-06

... everyone would be crying MONOPOLY and ANTITRUST and SATAN SPAWN!!111

Reply Score: 12

RE: If MS did this...
by LB06 on Thu 30th Oct 2008 00:06 UTC in reply to "If MS did this..."
LB06 Member since:
2005-07-06

That's because MS has a defacto monopoly position on desktop OS'es and productivity.

Reply Score: 1

RE: If MS did this...
by tyrione on Thu 30th Oct 2008 00:10 UTC in reply to "If MS did this..."
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

... everyone would be crying MONOPOLY and ANTITRUST and SATAN SPAWN!!111


Like hell they would. You forget something. I'll help out. If Microsoft sold their own developed Phone they could put whatever the hell browser on it that they want.

Of course they would have to negotiate with the Telcos and deal with the Telcos telling them what they can and cannot have on that phone, or they can find another carrier to negotiate for more control. Meanwhile, other companies will step up and work with the Telco to get the contract.

Reply Score: 2

RE: If MS did this...
by DigitalAxis on Thu 30th Oct 2008 01:24 UTC in reply to "If MS did this..."
DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

Isn't that what we're doing?

Reply Score: 5

But
by Vinegar Joe on Wed 29th Oct 2008 22:18 UTC
Vinegar Joe
Member since:
2006-08-16

If Apple is a hardware company (as we're reminded almost daily here by fanboys) why does simply having a choice in browsers give Steve the heebie jeebies?

Reply Score: 12

RE: But
by Morgan on Thu 30th Oct 2008 13:06 UTC in reply to "But"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I've never understood Apple's contention that it is "just a hardware company" myself. Without OS X, my Mac mini is just a very stylish and compact PC. The OS is the main reason I use Macs, as it is the best fit for me and the way I use a computer. Similarly, without the subset of OS X and the fancy interface, the iPhone is just a slab of glass and metal/plastic.

Some of Apple's greatest achievements have been in the software development arena; OS X itself is quite obvious, but also look at suites like iLife and iWork, both of which are sold separately from the OS.

As for your question: It scares Steve because Safari is the most used component of the iPhone and is the reason a lot of people buy them. Mail is the other great iPhone app, and I'm pretty sure that if Mozilla made a mobile Thunderbird it wouldn't make it into the app store either. Apple may be a hardware company in Steve's eyes and those of its hardcore fans, but it still is wholeheartedly dependent on its own custom software to power its hardware.

Reply Score: 4

jrash
Member since:
2008-10-28

In articles about them being pulled from the app store for competing with other apps I don't need. I waited in line at an Apple store for hours to get my iPhone and if I could go back in time and get an eee pc instead I would do it in a heartbeat. The iPhone is a neat little device but it is horrible as a phone, and I hate the fact that now I have sold my soul to AT&T and to Apple, a company I used to have so much respect for. What next? Blocking apps for my Macbook Pro?

Reply Score: 1

melkor Member since:
2006-12-16

You don't get any pity from me, serves you right for being a lemming. I hope you learn from your mistake.

Dave

Reply Score: 2

jrash Member since:
2008-10-28

Whatever dude, enjoy your Soviet radio phone.

Reply Score: 3

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

What next? Blocking apps for my Macbook Pro?


If they thought they could get away with it...

Reply Score: 5

v So Apple allows Opera on the iPhone
by jackeebleu on Wed 29th Oct 2008 22:39 UTC
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm not sure why you got modded down; it's been my observation among people I know with iPhones that this is exactly what happens. I've had one co-worker return his iPhone 3G a few days after buying it because he had downloaded a bunch of the worst apps in the Store and they didn't work as advertised. He felt that he was throwing away good money on a toy phone, and went back to his Microsoft-based smartphone. I tried to explain to him that his choice of apps was the problem, to which he replied that they shouldn't offer the bad ones at all if they crash the phone. He had an excellent point.

Reply Score: 2

Sue Sue Sue!
by wonea on Wed 29th Oct 2008 22:41 UTC
wonea
Member since:
2005-10-28

Pleeeeeeeeeeaase I hope Opera sues! Please please, that would make my day. :-D

Show Apple were to shove the collective arse! iPhone Opera yes please!

PS: I'm a long time Mac User.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Sue Sue Sue!
by cyclops on Wed 29th Oct 2008 22:51 UTC in reply to "Sue Sue Sue!"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

Pleeeeeeeeeeaase I hope Opera sues! Please please, that would make my day. :-D

Show Apple were to shove the collective arse! iPhone Opera yes please!

PS: I'm a long time Mac User.


P.S I hate the way people with opinions have justify it by saying they use the products they rail against...(although I do miss MollyC)

I had a MAC Macintosh SE (Dark Castle in monochrome for the win) does that make my opinions more valid??

PPS Yes I do still say "For the Win"

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Sue Sue Sue!
by flump on Thu 30th Oct 2008 09:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Sue Sue Sue!"
flump Member since:
2006-06-19

He did that so someone wont just label him as an apple hater. He's just proving that he likes other Apple products but disagrees with this policy.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Sue Sue Sue!
by Morgan on Thu 30th Oct 2008 13:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sue Sue Sue!"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Some of the more hardcore Apple fans (I loathe the term "fanboy" in any context) would label him a hater because he didn't say a prayer to Jobs with every post, despite his "I'm a Mac user" qualifier.

No matter what your personal stance, when you post an opinion online there's an inevitable crowd of zealots champing at the bit to cry heresy at you. They're like zombies; you can't escape them short of joining them, and then your brain turns to mush.

Oh, and I'm a Mac user too. :-)

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Sue Sue Sue!
by wonea on Thu 30th Oct 2008 10:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Sue Sue Sue!"
wonea Member since:
2005-10-28

"Pleeeeeeeeeeaase I hope Opera sues! Please please, that would make my day. :-D

Show Apple were to shove the collective arse! iPhone Opera yes please!

PS: I'm a long time Mac User.


P.S I hate the way people with opinions have justify it by saying they use the products they rail against...(although I do miss MollyC)

I had a MAC Macintosh SE (Dark Castle in monochrome for the win) does that make my opinions more valid??

PPS Yes I do still say "For the Win"
"

Look, I love Apple products. Wanted to make my voice known that I actually use their products.

Aside from the frankly feeble excuses are making are evading the point. Phones are as powerful as computers nowadays, if I was forced to run Internet Explorer on Windows I'd be annoyed. It's exactly the same situation. Dress it up as you like, but Apple are in the wrong. For that reason I'm waiting for the google phone. Yes, it will have a kill switch for applications. On the whole I think we've taken a step back in our freedoms, yet people seem boweled over by the technology and forget their fundamental rights.

Yes, I remember back Windows 95 trying relentlessly trying to remove Internet Explorer. Ended up going into regedit. Fear where going down the same road.......

Reply Score: 2

My Take + Linus
by cyclops on Wed 29th Oct 2008 22:48 UTC
cyclops
Member since:
2006-03-12

I really hate "my take" its bad enough when when paragraphs are chosen to make their point rather than sticking with say the summary. That said its about the only one I agree with.

Just for fun isn't this a GPL2 vs GLP3 argument. "Its their hardware they can do with it what they want"

or how about

"If people want open hardware they should buy open hardware"


Ignoring the other arguments from Linus, both of which I think are nonsense. If you want choice buy open hardware. Hopefully the Openmoko will be in its more stable/feature rich and functional revision 2. Money talks.

...oh and opera, seriously now too heavyweight for my blood. I could could understand the whinging and moaning if it was firefox mobile ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: My Take + Linus
by Moochman on Wed 29th Oct 2008 23:23 UTC in reply to "My Take + Linus"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Opera the engine is actually way more nimble, compact and portable than Gecko AFAIK.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: My Take + Linus
by cyclops on Thu 30th Oct 2008 10:23 UTC in reply to "RE: My Take + Linus"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

lol apparently not

Reply Score: 1

RE: My Take + Linus
by hangman on Thu 30th Oct 2008 21:17 UTC in reply to "My Take + Linus"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

Say what?

Opera heavyweight?

Opera is smaller and faster than Firefox! At least on mobile phones. Firefox was designed for PCs. Opera was designed from the ground up to run on phones.

Opera is smaller, faster and uses less memory than Firefox.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by squelart
by squelart on Wed 29th Oct 2008 22:54 UTC
squelart
Member since:
2007-03-22

As much as I hate seeing apps refused on pretext of competing with Apple's apps (e.g. mail, music, etc.) and also as much as I hate Safari crashes (getting a bit better) and confusing reloading/not reloading decisions, I see one argument for banning other web browsers:

As a web developer, I know I can develop a website tailored to the iPhone by following one set of rules, which are nicely documented on Apple's website. If Apple permitted other browsers, I would have to test and develop for them as well (unless they can reach 100% compatibility), and also test on all of them.

Web browsing is so important for the success of the iPhone that Apple cannot risk fragmenting the iPhone-tailored www.

But for everything else, please let all applications loose! I want a GPS nav program, I want a network sharing app, I want a better email app, etc.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by squelart
by mmu_man on Wed 29th Oct 2008 23:02 UTC in reply to "Comment by squelart"
mmu_man Member since:
2006-09-30

iPhone-tailored www ???
The web is about _interoperability_.
That is, about providing *information* to everyone regardless the platform.
Even on the iPhone and its only browser shall I be free to force the font I want and other CSS values.
The only "compatibility" that should matter is the one to the W3C standards. Then Apple is free to implement features through a custom implementation of these standards for simpler use, but forcing formats on web pages makes them not web pages anymore.
Anyone thinking it's about providing something that *looks* how they want didn't understand what the web is.
Go read http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/

Edited 2008-10-29 23:04 UTC

Reply Score: 10

RE[2]: iPhone is one browser
by squelart on Thu 30th Oct 2008 01:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by squelart"
squelart Member since:
2007-03-22

The iPhone provides a different user interface from most computers: Small screen, no mouse but multi-touch interface. W3C does not provide a standard way to deal with those (yet).

For me, web *apps* provide more than just information, they provide a way to interact with the information. Because of my personal interests, I wanted to make an iPhone-friendly version of a graphical function grapher -- the 'standard' version works on all desktop browsers, so I'm all for W3C compatibility there. But as a lazy developer wanting to create this iPhone view, I don't want to deal with potentially different ways to access the non-standard interface.

Say Opera was available on iPhone, but not compatible with Safari's iPhone extensions. My app would appear as it does on the desktop, which would make it impractical to use on iPhone -- i.e. Opera fans would probably just never use it.

Now if jQuery took care of all inconsistencies between iPhone browsers, I would care less. :-)
Or if W3C offered a standard interface to iPhone-like gizmos and Safari followed it, that'd be great!

[edit] Oh, and I just wanted to give *one* argument for limiting browsers on the iPhone, from the point of view of web *apps* developers (on a new kind of platforms for which there are no standards yet), and Apple's "our way is the best and only way" motto...
As a simple user, I would love to be able to use Firefox on the thing! And as a freedom lover, I would indeed prefer if there were no restrictions on apps (unless illegal). But Apple has the right to restrict things on its product, customers have the right not to buy the iPhone, and finally everybody has the right to complain about restrictions. :-)

Edited 2008-10-30 01:26 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: iPhone is one browser
by hangman on Thu 30th Oct 2008 21:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: iPhone is one browser"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

You are not making sense.

You don't develop for the iPhone browser.

You develop using open standards.

And if you do develop for the iPhone browser, Opera Mini for the iPhone would be the exact same rendering engine as the other Operas no on the iPhone.

Opera is the most widely used mobile browser anyway...

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: iPhone is one browser
by squelart on Thu 30th Oct 2008 23:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: iPhone is one browser"
squelart Member since:
2007-03-22

You are not making sense.

You don't develop for the iPhone browser.[...]
if you do develop for the iPhone browser[...]


Who's not making sense? :-)

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: iPhone is one browser
by hangman on Sat 1st Nov 2008 08:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: iPhone is one browser"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

I said that you shouldn't do it, but if you do... etc. Was it really that hard to understand?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by squelart
by UltraZelda64 on Thu 30th Oct 2008 00:40 UTC in reply to "Comment by squelart"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

As if Apple couldn't just say, "You can use any browser you like, but it's unsupported. If a page doesn't display properly, use Safari, or you're on your own."

I was never going to get an iPhone to begin with (never did get all the commotion about it), but bad behavior like this makes my stance seem much more solid.

Edited 2008-10-30 00:40 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Comment by LB06
by LB06 on Thu 30th Oct 2008 00:03 UTC
LB06
Member since:
2005-07-06

Personally I think the result of Jobs' strategy should be a function of competitive (dis)advantage, as long as the market in which they operate is fair, well functioning and evenly balanced. Ask Neelie Kroes about it.

Reply Score: 1

Dear Opera
by tyrione on Thu 30th Oct 2008 00:07 UTC
tyrione
Member since:
2005-11-21

Produce a Qt 4 version first for us.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Dear Opera
by ebasconp on Thu 30th Oct 2008 02:31 UTC in reply to "Dear Opera"
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

Produce a Qt 4 version first for us.


Why?

Do you think Opera 9.6 with Qt3 is not as good product as Safari?

Will the widget framework do some functional difference?

Ok, I do not say Qt3 is better than Qt4, but banning a product because it do not use my desired framework does not make sense at all. In that way, I would not use VMware Workstation in Linux because it ships with GTK+ instead of Qt... sounds weird!

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Dear Opera
by tyrione on Thu 30th Oct 2008 19:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Dear Opera"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

"Produce a Qt 4 version first for us.


Why?

Do you think Opera 9.6 with Qt3 is not as good product as Safari?

Will the widget framework do some functional difference?

Ok, I do not say Qt3 is better than Qt4, but banning a product because it do not use my desired framework does not make sense at all. In that way, I would not use VMware Workstation in Linux because it ships with GTK+ instead of Qt... sounds weird!
"

If they're so interested in being a first citizen on the Apple platform, then Qt4.5 for Cocoa is the logical progression.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Dear Opera
by hangman on Thu 30th Oct 2008 21:19 UTC in reply to "Dear Opera"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

Yeah, never mind the fact that Opera Mini is completely different from the Mac OS X version.

According to the Opera developers, there are different teams working on different products, so bringing up the desktop version here is crazy.

Reply Score: 1

Opera Mini is way better in ...
by kragil on Thu 30th Oct 2008 06:25 UTC
kragil
Member since:
2006-01-04

... in situation where you don't have 3G because it compresses websites on their server.

Shame on apple!

Reply Score: 2

Alexandre
Member since:
2008-10-30

Although I've no experience with Opera mini, I suspect that it is a much better browser than Safari.
I think Apple products are very nice and the software is great, but I also think that they like to hide the world outside of Apple box.
Opera in desktop is much, much, much better than Safari, there is no competition.

Reply Score: 3

People are defending Apple
by 3rdalbum on Thu 30th Oct 2008 10:49 UTC
3rdalbum
Member since:
2008-05-26

I can't really believe that people are defending Apple for restricting the iPhone App Store to "Programs that don't duplicate functionality that we already do".

Apple has just started running a TV advertisement here showing lots of the games that you can get for the iPhone. (in fact, as I write this, the ad is playing on my TV). If Apple is going to promote its platform by telling people of all the optional extras that are made by third parties, then Apple would benefit from third parties making a better browser, a better MP3 playback program, a better GPS program, etc.

I mean, Nintendo bundles Wii Sports with the Wii. They don't restrict third party developers from making other bowling, tennis, boxing and golf games. It's not in Nintendo's best interests to limit the number of games available for the Wii, within reason. That's why they haven't stopped Wii Sports competitors like Sports Island; if people are going to buy a Wii to play Sports Island, then Nintendo has won out.

Opera for the iPhone probably wouldn't have sold many copies as Apple users have this "Apple products beat all" mentality and would prefer their broken, security-flawed Safari. But if more people are going to buy an iPhone because they can use/(buy) their beloved Opera browser, then Apple should be happy with that.

Reply Score: 4

RE: People are defending Apple
by hangman on Thu 30th Oct 2008 21:18 UTC in reply to "People are defending Apple"
hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

Opera Mini is free. It would have been free of charge through the iPhone store.

Reply Score: 1

v Going to get an iPhone before Christmas.
by NathanHill on Thu 30th Oct 2008 13:05 UTC
CharAznable Member since:
2005-07-06

Don't download it then.

No need to deprive everybody else.

Maybe it's Apple's App Store, but it's my goddamn iPod.

Reply Score: 2

erikharmon Member since:
2007-06-20

And I am glad that Opera won't be available - it's an okay browser, but Safari is clearly better.


Why do you care if other people want to run Opera on their iPhone?

forcing every device and company to open up is not freedom. I think technological progress has come from a mix and match of open and closed strategies by companies - Android is open, the iPhone is closed. Both should move cellphone technology forward.


That would sound ridiculous if it were applied to freedom in any other context. No one would say it was an abuse of freedom to demand that third-world dictatorships stop abusing human rights. But then, human freedom and code freedom are different things, and maybe the industry does move faster with a mix of open and closed strategies, but don't ever forget that it's still a trading of freedom for convenience. Just because it accelerates the market doesn't change the value judgment of free/less free.

Reply Score: 2

mbharat Member since:
2008-06-19

it's an okay browser, but Safari is clearly better.


Are you kidding? Safari on the macbook is dog slow and crashes a lot. Compared to it, opera is damn good. And because of Opera's integreated mail client, I don't open Mail.app too.
I am a macbook fan, but I believe there are lot of deficiencies in the way apple does things, but overall atleast for me, a mac delivers better value.

Reply Score: 1

NathanHill Member since:
2006-10-06

I've bounced between the other offerings, but Safari (or Webkit) are just faster... even than Firefox 3.1 beta (which is pretty fast). Opera has made improvements every time I try it, but it doesn't cut it. So, Opera on an iPhone doesn't add any value to me or the iPhone platform as I see it.

Reply Score: 1

hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

Opera is actually faster than Safari and Firefox overall, even if they are slightly faster at some JavaScript operations.

Opera Mini is even faster because stuff is compressed 80-90%. Especially nice if your network is slow sometimes.

Reply Score: 1

hangman Member since:
2007-09-05

Opera is much better than Safari.

It's faster in practice (not just in some artificial tests that only measure some parts of JavaScript), and also smaller and more secure.

Opera is not open source, by the way.

Reply Score: 1

NathanHill Member since:
2006-10-06

I guess we will have to agree to disagree, because Opera just runs dog slow on any Mac I've used it on. Windows machines fare a little better. Firefox 3 is a bit better, and Safari, Webkit, and Camino wipe the floor with Opera. I'm sure it probably is faster in some ways, but I've always been disappointed.

Reply Score: 1

humm
by luminoso on Thu 30th Oct 2008 19:07 UTC
luminoso
Member since:
2008-10-30

Oh Microsoft.. Microsoft.. again???

Oh... wait...!

Reply Score: 1

Real Issue
by alcibiades on Fri 31st Oct 2008 09:10 UTC
alcibiades
Member since:
2005-10-12

People always take the line, when any of Apple's business practices are questioned, that if you do not care for them, don't buy the product.

Its not a valid argument. People who have no intention of buying the product object to the practice of limiting what software you can install on it. They object still more to the practice of limiting what software can be installed with the sole aim of maintaining a monopoly of certain kinds of software on the device.

Is this reasonable? Yes, because what they are objecting to is the consequences of a business model, should it either become widely adopted, or should Apple itself obtain major market share.

Let's suppose that everyone starts to behave the same way. Do we really find it a desirable situation if all phones have browsers, calendar apps, games, music etc, but each manufacturer locks his phone to his particular software? Probably then makes sure that the format of any data stored is proprietary and encrypted, that any interface with other devices like PCs is also via proprietary closed packages.

Are you getting a bit uncomfortable now?

Well, it could get worse. Imagine one of these manufacturers has over time got about 60% plus market share. Now you are in the situation you'd be in if MS would not permit any but its own approved software to run on Windows. Office or Works would be the only WP or spreadsheet allowed, because it would not allow any apps that competed with its own stuff. No Filemaker, because it competes with Access. As for competing with Exchange or Outlook, forget it.

People who object to the Apple tactic are not really objecting to Apple, they have a reasonable objection to a step toward an industry structure for software and devices which runs it which they feel limits choice and personal and intellectual freedom.

Apple has always wanted to control the hardware and the software both. The early days of Mac were marked by great tension and suspicion between Apple and the Mac developers. On the PC it got away from them totally. But they are revisiting that war with the mobile phone, as they have with iPod - except, with phones, they are going one step further.

People object reasonably enough because they think its in their interests to have a different industry model: one in which I can play my content on multiple clients, run my OS on multiply sourced hardware, generally, not be locked in to buying every aspect from one vendor. Not objecting to being able to do that. Just objecting to being compelled to do that.

Because of, at bottom, a horrible feeling that if this model takes off, the next thing, after the vendor tells you what you can install, will be the vendor telling you what you can read or play. Think about it.

Reply Score: 2

Just a moment...
by Hakime on Fri 31st Oct 2008 09:10 UTC
Hakime
Member since:
2005-11-16

"Opera in desktop is much, much, much better than Safari, there is no competition"

No way, Opera is slower, and its interface is an awfull mess... but if you like it, good for you. And anyway that't not the point that i want to make here.

" But back to the iPhone. As tempted as I am to just shrug it off, since Apple is free to run its App Store any way it pleases, as an enthusiastic iPhone user, I think Apple is shooting itself in the foot here, as it is with all the "competitive" apps being rejected. Apple does stand to lose some Google revenue by letting people use other browsers, but they have much more to gain by unleashing the creativity of the developer community and giving them the freedom to improve or replace core iPhone functionality. Hopefully competition from Android forces them to wake up."

You are not getting the fact right. The fact that Opera Mini is being rejected has a little to do with Apple trying to avoid competition to its own written apps, that's not the issue here.

From the iPhone SDK agreement, it is written this:

An Application may not itself install or launch other executable code by any means, including without limitation through the use of a plug-in architecture, calling other frameworks, other APIs or otherwise. No interpreted code may be downloaded and used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple's Published APIs and built-in interpreter(s).

In other words the SDK does not allow a third party application to have its own interpreter, in other words an application like a web browser can not have its own javascript interpreter.

Now, Opera Mini has it own javascript interpreter, and the version that Opera wants to propose on the iPhone has probably the same that Opera Mini has always had (a web browser without javascript support is pretty useless in our days), which means that THE REASON WHY APPLE IS REFUSING OPERA MINI ON THE APP STORE IS BECAUSE ITS RUNS A NON BUILT-IN INTERPRETER.

Well, quite different from the conspiracy theory saying that the big bad Apple is rejecting competition on the iPhone, isn't?

And that also means that Opera developers knew it form the beginning that their app will be rejected if they use their own javascript interpreter, this does not come to a surprise to them even though Opera Jon Stephenson von Tetzchner seems to act as it is a surprise.

One can agree or disagree with the fact that Apple does not allow for third party javascript interpreters (there are multiple reasons for that i guess) but please it is important to get the fact right.

Opera Mini is being rejected from the App Store because it violates the SDK agreement, period.

A lot of people does not have a clue of what is the SDK agreement, what it contains, and what it allows to do and not to do on the iphone (and most of people reacting here does not develop for the iPhone hence all the non-sense that i could read in the messages). but keep in mind that there is a SDK agreement that all developers wishing to develop for the iphone should agree with.

Reply Score: 2