Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 5th Nov 2008 16:03 UTC, submitted by Cam
Opera Software Last week we had some contradicting reports regarding Opera Software and its Opera Mini web browser. The New York Times' Bits weblog and Daring Fireball's John Gruber contradicted one another concerning a possible iPhone version of Opera Mini - or more specifically, about whether or not Opera had actually submitted Opera Mini to Apple. The Bits weblog has now settled the issue.
Permalink for comment 336452
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by Hakime on Thu 6th Nov 2008 04:23 UTC
Member since:

If this little episode tells us anything, it's that Apple's policies towards the iPhone and its developers is a hot iron, and it most likely will be for the foreseeable future.

Really? Instead of trying to hide the fact that you got it wrong all along why don't you just admit that relating informations without some care is not a good thing. And this is what this story tells us not the non-sense that you wrote. The fact remains that everybody was getting aggressive to anyone trying to defend Apple on this one and at the end it tuned out that those people were completely foolish and wrong (where are they by the way, now that the truth is out, why this forum is so quite?) and editors on osnews are responsible on how the story is exposed to those people.

Back to when the news was published on osnews, here is what David Adams was saying:

"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."

This kind of opinion based on nothing, based on unverified informations is also responsible on how people react, as some of them think that they can call trolls other people having a different approach to the story, a different opinion, feeling that they can do that on behalf of the common thinking.

And the fact remains that you fail to blame Opera (besides yourself for poor journalism) for its incredible lack of communication on what was simply disinformation. Jon Stephenson von Tetzchner from Opera made a lie, pure and simple. This is what he was saying first and reported on the NYT:

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.

We know now it was a lie as Opera never submitted Opera Mini to Apple neither Apple has had any knowledge of Opera plans and therefore Apple never had an anti-competitive behavior against Opera as most of people naively assumed. And moreover than this lie, shame on Opera not to have corrected the information more quickly and to have let it go so big so that it was reported by many medias. Opera did this for its own benefit, trying to let people think that its product are necessarily better than the one of the big bad Apple.

Opera is responsible of this story, not Apple, their browser being not very popular on Mac, they really did not help themselves on this one. And really they can keep their crappy browser for them, i don't want to use the product of a compagny which tries to advertise its products by using lies against another one. Because the real one who behaved in an anti-competitive way is Opera not Apple.

And finally, even though we know now that Opera Mini is written in native code, Opera still fails to say us what exactly then in the SDK agreement is stopping their development. Why don't they make full transparency on what they wanted to do and what prevented them to do it in the SDK agreement?

Edited 2008-11-06 04:25 UTC

Reply Score: 1