Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 2nd Nov 2008 10:59 UTC, submitted by Cam
Opera Software Earlier, we reported that Apple had rejected Opera Mini from the App Store. A New York Times blog entry claimed that Opera's CEO and co-founder Jon Stephenson von Tetzchner said that Apple wouldn't let them release Opera Mini for the iPhone because it competed with Mobile Safari. John Gruber, of Daring Fireball, did some researching of his own, and found out via anonymous sources who do not wish to be identified, that the situation is a little bit different.
Order by: Score:
much simpler...
by mmu_man on Sun 2nd Nov 2008 13:53 UTC
Member since:

HTML is interpreted code (let alone JS...), so no need to take the Java excuse.
But that clause seems more than abusive to me.

Reply Score: 4

RE: much simpler...
by eggs on Mon 3rd Nov 2008 15:51 UTC in reply to "much simpler..."
eggs Member since:

HTML is interpreted code (let alone JS...), so no need to take the Java excuse.
But that clause seems more than abusive to me.

HTML is a markup language, not a programming language.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by dgoemans
by dgoemans on Sun 2nd Nov 2008 15:26 UTC
Member since:

Where does the java idea come in. I mean they could very well have taken their Opera Mobile code and ported it to the iPhone, since native C++ will run on the iPhone. This Gruber guy is just accusing the NYTimes of faking an interview with Opera CEO, wtf??? I mean, if i were to develop an app for the iPhone, i woudln't even consider Java, i don't see why the Opera team would either. A port of Opera mobile won't be hard, and with my iPhone programming experience so far, it wouldn't surprise me if the full pc Opera version could be ported, it sure has the power!

Reply Score: 1

iPhone SDK licensing sucks
by Bit_Rapist on Sun 2nd Nov 2008 15:29 UTC
Member since:

I'm sure Opera on the iPhone is more of a 'can it be done' exercise for the developers than anything serious considering Apple's SDK terms are draconian.

Why anyone would sink resources into developing for that device is beyond me, unless all you want to do is make games or other trivial time killers.

It is obviously not the platform for serious applications. Apple wants to have exclusive rights on making the killer applications and you should go work on another jewel quest clone.

Its the most uninspiring platform (from a development perspective) that I have seen.

Reply Score: 12

Comment by linumax
by linumax on Sun 2nd Nov 2008 15:41 UTC
Member since:

My understanding, based on information from informed sources who do not wish to be identified because they were not authorized by their employers, is that Opera has developed an iPhone version of Opera Mini — but they haven’t even submitted it to Apple, let alone had it be rejected.

I do not trust unnamed sources on the Internet.

Until there's evidence on either side of the story, this is just another unsubstantiated rumor.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by linumax
by sbenitezb on Sun 2nd Nov 2008 16:47 UTC in reply to "Comment by linumax"
sbenitezb Member since:

You can't really trust anyone in internet. People talk bullshit all the time. Specially journalists, which most of the time put their own missinterpretations in other's people mouths.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by linumax
by StephenBeDoper on Sun 2nd Nov 2008 20:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by linumax"
StephenBeDoper Member since:

You can't really trust anyone in internet.

...unless / until you can find substantiation for their claims. And in this case, the claim is not just unverifi<u>ed</u>, it's unverifiable.

Edited 2008-11-02 20:28 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by linumax
by google_ninja on Sun 2nd Nov 2008 17:04 UTC in reply to "Comment by linumax"
google_ninja Member since:

Especially when the "unnamed source" is quoted by a guy like john gruber.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by linumax
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 2nd Nov 2008 17:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by linumax"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:

Well, Gruber is, of course, a Mac fanboy, but he's not as bad as some others. He's fully capable of criticising Apple when the company deserves it.

So, that's why I think it's difficult to pick a side here based on reputation alone. The "unnamed sources" bit is of course a bit worrying, but then again, it won't be the first time that a blogger/journalist misquotes an interviewee.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by linumax
by mckill on Sun 2nd Nov 2008 18:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by linumax"
mckill Member since:

Grubber has this thing for calling out bullshit from other writers, so i kind of doubt he's just make it up himself. he has real contacts at Apple where he likely got this information from.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by linumax
by Kroc on Sun 2nd Nov 2008 21:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by linumax"
Kroc Member since:

Indeed, Gruber calls out people for wrong reports - - if he wasn't confident, and got proven wrong, he'd be in for a massive backlash.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by linumax
by Soulbender on Mon 3rd Nov 2008 15:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by linumax"
Soulbender Member since:

I guess reading comprehension isn't his (and many others, for that matter) strong suite though since NOWHERE in the NY Times article does anyone say that Opera has submitted it to Apple and/or that it was rejected.

Reply Score: 2

Member since:

The article that originally started all this said

Mr. von Tetzchner said that 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.

Nowhere does it say or even imply that Apple rejected the application from the iPhone store. Apple has shown a predisposition to not allow apps that directly compete with the core Apple applications.

Gruber is a rabid Apple fanboy who jumps to the defense of Apple anytime anyone puts Apple in a critical light. He is a good writer, but a far cry from unbiased. Instead of taking a dispassionate approach to the criticism he attempts to find a way to discredit it. In this case he is using a defense against a charge never made.

It is possible Opera did something outside of the allowed SDK and would get rejected out of hand, It is also possible that Opera never submitted it based on the assumption it would get rejected. In reality all we have is a single paragraph in a mch larger interview that Gruber chose to take offense to.

Edited 2008-11-02 20:20 UTC

Reply Score: 5

apoclypse Member since:

Funny, no one seemed to have any issues jumping on the anti-Apple bandwagon just based off of the same paragraph in said article. The assumption was that the application was submitted and rejected, the article did not specify either way, but people chose to assume that Apple was up to something and have been spreading this throughout the net as evidence that Apple is a bully. Sure there is precedence here, no one is disputing that fact that Apple is a bully when they want to be, what is in this dispute is this particular incident. If in-fact Opera never submitted the application because they knew they were in violation of Apple's SDK agreement then there is no need to blame Apple is there. However its much more entertaining to curse out Apple than it is to verify facts, no we'd rather blow an unverified one-liner in an article out of proportion.

This guy is basically saying that the event never happened and given his reputation I'm bound to believe him rather than believe a mob with pitch forks that jumped on the bandwagon. That is no to say that their isn't a basis for the hysteria. Apple did reject podcaster but based off reports for the 2.2 update of the iPhone then yes there is s conflict there since the update is supposed to include what podcaster did by default in the ipod application. Its better to reject the app now than for someone to scream hijincks when an update comes along with your apps features included by default. We don't need a repeat of the whole dashboard thing.

Reply Score: 4

Kokopelli Member since:

You know I reread the blog entry by Gruber and I still must be missing something. Where did he make any effort to contact either the original author or the Opera executive? Surely if he wants to set the record straight he should have at least put some effort into getting clarification as to what was said.

But no, evidently pointing out that an author did not base his rant on anything but second hand opinion is jumping on the anti-apple bandwagon. I am not anti-apple though. Honestly I do not give a flying frak about Apple or Opera. My point is that Gruber is accusing misinformation based on details not supported by the statement in the article. If the blogosphere want to infer more than is said than counter those statements. Seek clarity, don't whine that unnamed contacts disagreed with some assumptions made by 3d parties to the interview.

Reply Score: 5