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.
E-mail Print r 0   · Read More · 15 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 336036
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent 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 Parent Score: 5