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.
Thread beginning with comment 336521
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Hummm!!
by Bit_Rapist on Thu 6th Nov 2008 16:44 UTC in reply to "Hummm!!"
Member since:

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.

Read the SDK terms, its not naive to read those terms and come to the conclusion that your application will not pass the process! The thing is draconian at best. The terms of the license are anti-competitive, and many potential iPhone developers have been vocal about it.

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.

How did he lie exactly? He read the terms of the SDK and concluded that Opera would be denied on the iPhone. That is not a lie, that is an evaluation of the licensing terms. That he did not contact Apple means nothing, in fact, if he needs to contact Apple just to be sure, then its a further sign that Apple's SDK terms are really f*cked as they obviously are not very clear on top of being draconian and absurd.

The lengths people go to defend this company and the screwball sh(t they pull floors me at times.

Reply Parent Score: 5