Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 10th Feb 2010 16:58 UTC
Opera Software As should be common knowledge by now, Apple is very restrictive and sometimes quite arbitrary in managing its App Store. One thing is clear, though: fat chance there's going to be an alternative browser in the App Store (i.e., one that doesn't use WebKit). Mozilla didn't even bother to submit Fennec, but Opera is going head-to-head with Apple: the Norwegian browser maker has announced Opera Mini for the iPhone, but has not yet submitted it for approval.
Order by: Score:
Safari is not the only one...
by sigzero on Wed 10th Feb 2010 17:20 UTC
sigzero
Member since:
2006-01-03

There is at least one other browser in the App Store. I hope Apple allows Opera to get into the App Store as well.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Safari is not the only one...
by kragil on Wed 10th Feb 2010 17:34 UTC in reply to "Safari is not the only one..."
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

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 ;) ?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Safari is not the only one...
by NeoX on Thu 11th Feb 2010 03:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Safari is not the only one..."
NeoX Member since:
2006-02-19

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...

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

There is at least one other browser in the App Store.


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

Reply Score: 2

CaptainN- Member since:
2005-07-07

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.

Reply Score: 1

whartung Member since:
2005-07-06

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.


*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."

Reply Score: 2

SamAskani Member since:
2006-01-03

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

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

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.

Reply Score: 4

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

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...

Reply Score: 2

PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

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?

Reply Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

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.


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.

Reply Score: 4

CaptainN- Member since:
2005-07-07

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

Reply Score: 1

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

"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.


*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.

Reply Score: 2

mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

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...

Reply Score: 2

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

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.

Reply Score: 2

PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

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.

Reply Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Because it's Apple's phone?

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

Reply Score: 2

PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

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.

Reply Score: 1

aldeck Member since:
2006-12-07

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)."


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.

Reply Score: 1

PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

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

Reply Score: 1

FishB8 Member since:
2006-01-16

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.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Creap
by Creap on Wed 10th Feb 2010 17:50 UTC
Creap
Member since:
2009-08-05

Technically Opera Mini does not have a rendering engine in the application you install. It receives pre-rendered pages from Opera Mini servers.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by Creap
by kfet on Thu 11th Feb 2010 10:07 UTC in reply to "Comment by Creap"
kfet Member since:
2005-07-06

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

Reply Score: 2

AT&T
by Cody Evans on Wed 10th Feb 2010 18:03 UTC
Cody Evans
Member since:
2009-08-14

With "Upto 90%" reduction in data usage, AT&T might pressure Apple to allow Opera...

Reply Score: 3

JavaScript
by Elv13 on Wed 10th Feb 2010 18:34 UTC
Elv13
Member since:
2006-06-12

is interpreted code

Reply Score: 2

RE: JavaScript
by PresentIt on Wed 10th Feb 2010 22:45 UTC in reply to "JavaScript"
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

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

Reply Score: 0

Basis for suit?
by iaefai on Wed 10th Feb 2010 18:38 UTC
iaefai
Member since:
2009-12-14

Could it be possible that opera wants to fight apple on the issue (legally), especially when it should be plain to all that apple would never actually accept it?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Basis for suit?
by Kroc on Wed 10th Feb 2010 18:55 UTC in reply to "Basis for suit?"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

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.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Basis for suit?
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 10th Feb 2010 18:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Basis for suit?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

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.

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Basis for suit?
by dalingrin on Wed 10th Feb 2010 19:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Basis for suit?"
dalingrin Member since:
2009-03-12

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


Couldn't agree more!

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Basis for suit?
by kragil on Thu 11th Feb 2010 03:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Basis for suit?"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Basis for suit?
by PresentIt on Wed 10th Feb 2010 22:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Basis for suit?"
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

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.

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.

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.

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...

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

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

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: Basis for suit?
by nt_jerkface on Thu 11th Feb 2010 03:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Basis for suit?"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


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


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.


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.

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.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Basis for suit?
by PresentIt on Thu 11th Feb 2010 09:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Basis for suit?"
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

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.

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.

The same practices that Firefox was able to combat?

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."

The Opera CEO is pathetic. He was charging 40 DOLLARS for his browser before Firefox came around.
Are you a Communist or something?


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.

It was actually the success of Firefox that forced him to switch to an ad revenue model.

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!

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Basis for suit?
by nt_jerkface on Thu 11th Feb 2010 23:32 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Basis for suit?"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

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.


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.

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

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.


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.

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.


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


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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Basis for suit?
by PresentIt on Fri 12th Feb 2010 06:58 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Basis for suit?"
PresentIt Member since:
2010-02-10

Oh and which law would that be?

European competition law.

The EU fines have been out of emotional resentment towards Microsoft, not as the result of breaking law.

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

The browser wars did not start with IE6 as the EU seems to assume.

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

How was Firefox able to gain a majority share in Germany? Was Microsoft not committing the same wrongdoings there?

Read the quote from Mozilla again. Thanks.

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.

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.

Wrong, search-based revenue models were around as early as 2000.

Not available to browsers like Opera.

Make all the excuses you want but none can explain how Opera has done so poorly compared to Firefox.

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 ran and whined to the EU because they are losing.

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.

They filed a complaint in 2007 which is after the IE6 lock had been broken.

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

It isn't the fault of Microsoft if consumers don't want to install Opera.

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.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Basis for suit?
by nt_jerkface on Fri 12th Feb 2010 22:56 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Basis for suit?"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


European competition law.

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


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.


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.


Not available to browsers like Opera.

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.

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!

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/


How was Opera "losing" exactly?

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


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

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.


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

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


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

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


But what you are also failing to address in your amazing ignorance is that Mozilla and Google joined the complaint as well.

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.


But I guess you think they were losing and consumers didn't want to use their products too, eh? LOL.

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.

Reply Score: 3

Will look
by Zibert on Wed 10th Feb 2010 19:51 UTC
Zibert
Member since:
2010-02-10

The main is that a php form (http://phpforms.net/php-forms.html ) would work there properly

Edited 2010-02-10 19:54 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Opera Mini
by ebasconp on Wed 10th Feb 2010 21:26 UTC
ebasconp
Member since:
2006-05-09

AFAIK, Opera Mini is a tiny application that shows web pages already pre-rendered in Opera servers; it is a very useful application to low-end mobile phones but I do not see its usefulness in high end devices [can we think in the iPhone as one of them, right?].

So, it is easy to see why Apple is not having problem with this application to enter into their AppStores, that's because it is a very limited "web browser" that cannot compete in any way with the main stream "real world" browsers, including Opera Mobile or Opera Browser.

Edited 2010-02-10 21:27 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Comment by steveh2005
by steveh2005 on Wed 10th Feb 2010 22:43 UTC
steveh2005
Member since:
2007-06-28

Hey, just make the Opera Mini available for download.

...I'll take care of the nitty gritty of getting it installed on my iTouch. ;-)

Reply Score: 1

Untested Waters
by Stratoukos on Wed 10th Feb 2010 23:31 UTC
Stratoukos
Member since:
2009-02-11

Although Apple doesn't allow browsers that don't use the Webkit engine, Opera Mini doesn't contain a layout/JS engine but is only capable of rendering a markup language sent by Opera's servers. So I would say that you can compare it to an application rendering a downloaded PDF or word document, and there are plenty of those out there. Truth be told, some javascript gets on the phone, but it's only some event listeners (onUnload, onSubmit, onChange, onClick) that signal the server to redraw the page and resend it.

What I'd like to know is if they include a Java ME interpreter or they rewrote it in C/Obj-C. On one hand, it would be kinda foolish to port an entire application to a new platform when there is a big chance you are not going to be able to publish it. On the other hand, it wouldn't be Opera's first Opera Mini outside Java and they probably had a lot of time to develop it (Opera Mini builds on the iPhone are supposed to exist since 2008).

Reply Score: 1