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 408766
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 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

RE[4]: Basis for suit?
by PresentIt on Thu 11th Feb 2010 09:38 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 Parent Score: 0