OSNews

What about "(i.e., one that doesn't use WebKit)" don't you get?
Is it that WebKit is the rendering engine of Safari?
Is it that other browers that use Safaris Engine (WebKit) are allowed but new engines are not?

Or didn't you just read the TFA before posting ?

What is it about being nice that you don't understand?

Is it to civilized?
Is it that you don't have manners?
Perhaps you don't like being courteous?
Sheeshk.

Not everyone knows what webkit is nor do we always catch and "get" things the first time we read something...

There are more than enough browsers in the App Store. However, they're all using the iPhone's WebKit. They're just shells.

That'll likely be true of Adobe AIR based apps too (many people missed this, but it isn't Flash on iPhone that Adobe is pushing with iPhone Packager, it's AIR - likely using iPhone's built in WebKit, instead of it's own).

Also, the problem with adding a web browser to App Store according to Apple's ToS is that you can't include your own interpreter - meaning no third party JavaScript engines. Opera may have actually circumvented that by doing the rendering remotely (I'm not really sure how their compression works, but I'm sure some of it runs through their proxy servers).

It's also possible that they plugged in JavaScriptKit in place of their own interpreter. I'd bet though, that they are setting up the stage for anti-competitive alleging legal maneuvers.

*sigh*

This keeps getting parotted.

You can have all the interpreters etc. you want in your app.

What you CAN NOT do is DOWNLOAD CODE in to the interpreters. If the code is bundled with your app, no big deal. If you want to, say, embed intercal in your app bundle and execute intercal code, go ahead. Just don't download intecal code from internet and execute it.

Quoting the developer agreement:

"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)."

You can bundle VMs if you like, byte code interpreters, etc. You just have to bundle the code to be run with these engines in your app. Also, you can't have a "JIT" that creates executable code.

"An Application may not itself install or launch other executable code by any means."

To be honest, this is quite a healthy policy for the sake of security and to keep away nasty malware developpers

Bullshit argument, and it has always been.

Design a good operating system and provide sane defaults, and your system is secure. This PR statement parroted by the Apple faithful implies that because Mac OS X does not have the type of totalitarian control the iPhone does, that Mac OS X is insecure. Secure operating systems exist without totalitarian control. Mac OS X is secure. Linux is secure.

Lorelai and Alicia are walking down the street in Amsterdam, when Alicia notices that Lorelai throws a bit of salt on the pavement every 10 minutes. Why do you do that? she asks.

Well, to ward off elephants, of course! replies Lorelai.

But there no elephants here, Alicia says, puzzled.

So it works! replies Lorelai.

Allowing users to execute unchecked code is a security compromise, regardless of the system.

http://blog.intego.com/2009/01/22/mac-trojan-horse-osxtrojaniservic...

Safari executes unchecked code. Why would Opera, which probably has the best security track record of any "mainstream" browser, not be allowed to execute code when the arguably less secure Safari is able to?

Agreed; at what point does the end user actually take responsibility for their actions and decisions made when using their computer/phone/etc? it is the one thing I can't stand about Apple is their condescending, "we know whats best for you" attitude. Allow people the freedom to screw things up - thats the only way people learn; by losing years worth of work in a second.

I stand corrected - however, those restrictions do apply to a Javascript interpreter.

*sigh*

This keeps getting parotted.

You can have all the interpreters etc. you want in your app.

What you CAN NOT do is DOWNLOAD CODE in to the interpreters. If the code is bundled with your app, no big deal. If you want to, say, embed intercal in your app bundle and execute intercal code, go ahead. Just don't download intecal code from internet and execute it.

Quoting the developer agreement:

"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)."

You can bundle VMs if you like, byte code interpreters, etc. You just have to bundle the code to be run with these engines in your app. Also, you can't have a "JIT" that creates executable code.

"An Application may not itself install or launch other executable code by any means." "

Take a second to read over those terms. How would you get a javascript interpreter into your web browser with these terms in place? A javascript interpreter, by definition, has to download code from the internet and interpret it. That goes against the ToS.

No, it doesn't. You're missing the point being made here. You can include your own interpreter if it is going to execute code that is also bundled with the app, or bundled with modules that can be added to extend that app, because any of that code can be tested by Apple before the app is approved. You can't include you're own interpreter if it's going to download arbitrary code from the 'net because they can't, and won't, take responsibility for how any bundled third party interpreter interacts with the phone when running arbitrary code.

It's still about being able to control what code is run on the device, (a) for profit and (b) for security. Yes, in that order too. They are after all a company whose goal is to generate a profit and returns for share holders. If those who complain about their "restrictive" practices were in this boat they wouldn't be so critical...

And I think you missed my point. I know full well what the ToS say and why. My point was simply that, in a web browser, a Javascript interpreter *is* going to execute non-bundled code. That's a fact. Therefore, it would violate the ToS.

Except Opera Mini executes the JavaScript on Opera's servers, not the phone. The Mini browser client is just a thin client which basically shows images sent to it from the server.

But ignoring that for a second, why should Safari be able to execute interpreted code remotely if no one else can? Safari is no more secure than other browsers. Opera has an excellent security track record, for one.

Because it's Apple's phone?

It hasn't been approved or rejected, you should probably wait before getting indignant.

The point is that the arguments against Opera Mini approval are false (that doesn't mean it will be approved, though).

That, and Apple is being hypocritical.

But where do we draw the line between data and code? As soon as your code does an "if" on some data then you're interpreting the data, and that's where we can start calling it code. Or does the data need to contain ampersands and brackets to be considered code?

Also, what if you write an interpreter running on Apple's js interpreter? Like http://joeganley.com/code/jslisp.html .I guess this case is not ambiguous, as it is run by Apple's interpreter.

Opera Mini doesn't do code/JS execution on the phone. All website code is handled by the Opera Mini servers.

I was reading through this wondering when somebody would bring this up.

All these people arguing about details that don't even apply to this situation is kinda funny.

Opera Mini does have a rendering engine, it's just not HTML that it renders, but the compressed Opera Binary Markup Language (OBML - http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/opera-binary-markup-language/).

Which is fine, markup rendering is not exactly executing code.

How they handle JavaScript will be much more important for getting approved, I was under the impression that Opera Mini does have some embedded JavaScript engine.

Edit: reading trough Opera's description of OBML it seems like it requires some limited JavaScript support on the device.. It'd be interesting to see how they'll handle this on the iPhone without getting rejected.

Edited 2010-02-11 10:12 UTC

But the JavaScript is interpreted on Opera's servers, not on the Mini client on the phone.

We are talking about the same Opera that petitioned Microsoft to adopt standards in IE (which they did with IE8—More of CSS2.1 than Opera themselves), and the same Opera that then didn’t see that as good enough and complained to the EU that there should be other browsers on Windows (read: ours), and the same Opera, when the EU offered a ballot, complained that it was unfair.

Haven’t we been here before with Opera Mini on the iPhone? http://www.osnews.com/story/20477/Gruber_Opera_Never_Submitted_Mini... Oh, yes, they lied.

Opera are announcing this for the sole purpose to go winge the EU about Apple’s App Store policies when Apple reject Opera Mini.

Well, someone has to do the dirty work. Good on 'm.

Couldn't agree more!

I couldn't agree more. At least in Europe market laws sometimes change things.

In the US big corps can do just about anything.

You want to patent life? Sure thing. No more natural corn for farmers it is.

BTW: Every geek NEEDS to read Daemon and FreedomTM by Daniel Suarez. Best books in a very very long time.

This is false. Opera only sent one complaint, and that was back in 2007.

Opera did not send more complaints than that.

It was Microsoft who proposed the browser ballot. Opera, Mozilla and Google merely responded with their thoughts on the proposal.


Where did Opera lie? The article you linked to contains a journalist's interpretation of what Opera's CEO said. In a followup article he reveals what the CEO actually said. In other words, if anyone was lying it was the journalist, not Opera.

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

Oh, yes, your hatred of Opera seems to be rather irrational by now...


They are obviously not. When Opera filed the complaint against Microsoft, it was after a decade of trying to combat Microsoft's anti-competitive practices by other means.

Then, when Microsoft started sabotaging the CSS Working Group and ECMAScript 4, Opera finally filed a complaint.

Opera is clearly not filing complaints easily. They only filed one complaint, and only because it was the last chance to file it because the window was closing.

Opera is obviously announcing this because it puts public pressure on Apple to accept Opera Mini into the App Store. With all this public scrutiny Apple's actions will be noticed by a lot of people, which makes it harder for them to reject the application.

If Opera actually planned to report Apple to the authorities, they would have accused them of anti-competitive practices. But they never did. And Apple does not have a monopoly anyway, so your hatred of Opera fails again.

Edited 2010-02-10 22:52 UTC

Microsoft proposed it as a compromise after Opera filed an antitrust complaint. Don't make it sound like it was from anything other than EU pressure.


The same practices that Firefox was able to combat? There are countries where Firefox is the dominate browser and yet Windows has an even greater share in those countries than the US.

The Opera CEO is pathetic. He was charging 40 DOLLARS for his browser before Firefox came around. It was actually the success of Firefox that forced him to switch to an ad revenue model. For years he kept the price high even though the consensus was that while his browser was clearly better than IE6 it sure wasn't worth 40 bucks.

Microsoft broke the law, and was reported to the authorities. The authorities looked into it and found that Microsoft was guilty of breaking the law. Microsoft wanted to avoid huge fines and all that, and made a proposal.

The point here is that Kroc lied and claimed that Opera forced Microsoft to add a ballot. They did no such thing. Opera has no power what so ever over the EU or Microsoft.


Firefox is proof of Microsoft's wrongdoings, as Mozilla explains:

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/2009/01/competition_is....

"When the only real competition comes from a not for profit open source organization that depends on volunteers for almost half of its work product and nearly all of its marketing and distribution, while more than half a dozen other "traditional" browser vendors with better than I.E. products have had near-zero success encroaching on Microsoft I.E.'s dominance, there's a demonstrable tilt to the playing field. That tilt comes with the distribution channel - default status for the OS bundled Web browser."



Because clearly you think running a company is free.

How was Opera going to survive as a company if they didn't make money? There was no way, unless you are a Commie and think there is such a thing as a free lunch.

According to you, having an income to keep the company alive is "pathetic". Nice one.


Actually, Opera wasn't forced. They didn't actually WANT to charge, but didn't have a choice since, you know, they had to make their own money and everything, unlike Mozilla.

But then they figured out that they could make money by sending searches to Google, and THAT was when Opera could become a free browser.

Opera could not stop charging until there was an alternative business model in place!

Oh and which law would that be? The EU fines have been out of emotional resentment towards Microsoft, not as the result of breaking law. You are aware that Netscape used to be the dominant browser, right? You are aware that there was a massive switch from Netscape to IE5, right? If you go back and take a closer look at the browser wars you'll find that IE became a dominate browser after Netscape became complacent. The browser wars did not start with IE6 as the EU seems to assume.


How was Firefox able to gain a majority share in Germany? Was Microsoft not committing the same wrongdoings there? The whole issue is that the EU and Opera are upset over consumers not choosing the right browser.


It's called low price / high volume. Opera's CEO should have lowered the price and built a market share. He made poor business decisions, not just keeping the price high but waiting too long to switch to an ad based revenue model. His plan to keep a banner ad displayed in the free version was probably the worst.



Wrong, search-based revenue models were around as early as 2000. Again that still wouldn't excuse charging $40 for a browser when the competition is free. If he charged $100 would you still defend him? Obviously there is a balance that needs to be found and he certainly didn't reach one. Reviews of Opera from over 10 years ago stated that the price was too high.

Make all the excuses you want but none can explain how Opera has done so poorly compared to Firefox.
http://gs.statcounter.com/#browser-na-monthly-200901-201002

Opera ran and whined to the EU because they are losing. They filed a complaint in 2007 which is after the IE6 lock had been broken. Firefox had 28% share in Europe then:
http://mozillalinks.org/wp/2007/07/firefox-takes-28-market-share-in...

28% is enough to keep web publishers from writing IE only websites. It isn't the fault of Microsoft if consumers don't want to install Opera.

European competition law.


No, this is just you being emotional and trying to make up some major conspiracy because of your ignorance.


The EU assumes no such thing. How about educating yourself before making silly statements like that?


Read the quote from Mozilla again. Thanks.


It's called "making money". There was no other viable business model. Maybe not having to make money works in Commie-land. It does not work in the real world.


Not available to browsers like Opera.


Poorly? Since Opera removed the ads, the user base has more than doubled every 2 years. That's pretty good for a company which has had to stand on its own, unlike, say, Firefox! Read Mozilla's statement again, and realize that Firefox was also pushed by Google's online advertising monpoly. The same thing Google is using to push Chrome today. Notice a pattern?


Opera's user base on the desktop was groing quickly in 2007 (and still is), and they were and are the dominant mobile browser. They were also making money and growing fast in all areas. How was Opera "losing" exactly?

All Opera did was to report Microsoft's crimes to the authorities. You are the one whining here.


And yet Microsoft continued to violate the law by bullying OEMs, blocking open standards, etc.


Considering that Opera's user base has only grown, consumers do want to install Opera.

But what you are also failing to address in your amazing ignorance is that Mozilla and Google joined the complaint as well. They wholeheartedly supported the case against Microsoft. But I guess you think they were losing and consumers didn't want to use their products too, eh? LOL.

Not a specific law regarding bundling then, just the arbitrary ruling of a judge.



You still don't get it.

Instead of selling x number of copies at $40 he should have sold (n)x copies at $20. In this case n likely would have been more than 2. It's called adopting a high volume / low price strategy. Lower the price to increase sales and make up for the lower profit margin on volume. In the case of a browser you're much better off doing this to increase your install base.


No there were search affiliate programs open to anyone. There were also a myriad of ways they could have accrued advertising revenue. They only later went with an ad-supported free version and did it in the worst possible method which was to add an additional banner ad to the browsing window. Just terrible.


That just shows that they were employing a poor business strategy. Opera has been around since 1996. They've done a poor job on the desktop. Globally they have about 2%
http://gs.statcounter.com/


They have been losing and in 2007 they could see the competition was just going to get tougher.


Which crime would that be exactly? Including a browser with an OS? That isn't against the law. Having a monopoly isn't against the law either. As I pointed out Firefox had a majority share in Germany which shows that people have choice when it comes to a browser. It isn't as if Microsoft has acted differently in Germany. Opera and the EU are just upset over consumers not choosing correctly.


Microsoft was bullying OEMs and blocking open standards in 2007? I don't think so, and the complaint was related to the browser.


Their share has risen and fallen, in the last year it has lost:
http://gs.statcounter.com/


Amazing ignorance? They joined the complaint to make sure their interests were served. They didn't want a decision to favor Opera. Anyways it was still shameful on the parts of both.


That doesn't make any sense. The EU acted out of resentment towards Microsoft and in favor of a European company. It was never in the interest of consumers. Consumers are free to install and download any browser.

Very few software markets are as competitive as the browser sphere. All the products are free and have billion dollar companies constantly trying to improve their offerings.

Running to the EU is a hail-mary attempt to gain share in the face of tough competitors. There was a time when their only competition was IE6 and they blew their opportunity. Now they not only have to compete with MS and Firefox but also Google and Apple.