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.
Thread beginning with comment 408715
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: Basis for suit?
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 10th Feb 2010 18:56 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 Parent Score: 7

RE[3]: Basis for suit?
by dalingrin on Wed 10th Feb 2010 19:23 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Basis for suit?
by kragil on Thu 11th Feb 2010 03:23 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Basis for suit?
by PresentIt on Wed 10th Feb 2010 22:52 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 Parent Score: 7

RE[3]: Basis for suit?
by nt_jerkface on Thu 11th Feb 2010 03:52 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 Parent Score: 3