Opera teases speedy iPhone browser but denies pact with Apple
Opera this week showed off a new version of its mobile browser created for the iPhone, but the company has told AppleInsider that the software has not yet been submitted to Apple's App Store.
Contacted by AppleInsider Tuesday, Opera spokeswoman Falguni Bhuta said Opera is just showing an exclusive preview of Opera Mini for the iPhone at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona only to media and partners. She also specifically disputed a report that claimed Apple and Opera were "working together" on the browser.
"We haven't worked with Apple on it yet," Bhuta said. "We haven't submitted it to the App Store."
Apple has rejected any non-WebKit third-party browsers submitted to the App Store that might replace its own, native Safari application included with all versions of the iPhone and iPod touch. The Cupertino, Calif., company has not indicated that it has changed its policies, suggesting that if Opera were to submit its browser, Apple would reject it.
Apple has not allowed some applications that replicate core features already built in to the iPhone. The most high-profile non-acceptance into the App Store was the Google Voice application, which Apple said too closely mimicked the iPhone's standard software, including management of calls, voicemail and text messages.
Talk of Opera Mini for iPhone occurred soon after the App Store opened in 2008. Even then, it was noted that Apple's rules for submissions kept the software from seeing the light of day.
In its demonstrations of the unreleased iPhone browser, Opera has said its option is six times faster than Apple's Safari when running over 3G. It also restarts with the same session when the browser is closed and reopened.
Opera claims its browser is capable of superior speeds when compared to Safari due to the compression technology used by the company. It noted that Opera Mini has "significantly faster" Web site loading, and can reduce data surcharges for customers. The Opera Mini application also includes the usual features from the browser, such as tabs, Speed Dial, password manager and bookmark syncing.
Officials with the company have said they believe there is no reason for Apple to reject the Opera Mini browser from the App Store. Opera's mobile browser is not based on the WebKit open source project.
"Opera's mission is to bring the Web to the world, and by making Opera Mini available on yet another platform, we are one step closer," said Jon von Tetzchner, co-founder of Opera Software.
Contacted by AppleInsider Tuesday, Opera spokeswoman Falguni Bhuta said Opera is just showing an exclusive preview of Opera Mini for the iPhone at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona only to media and partners. She also specifically disputed a report that claimed Apple and Opera were "working together" on the browser.
"We haven't worked with Apple on it yet," Bhuta said. "We haven't submitted it to the App Store."
Apple has rejected any non-WebKit third-party browsers submitted to the App Store that might replace its own, native Safari application included with all versions of the iPhone and iPod touch. The Cupertino, Calif., company has not indicated that it has changed its policies, suggesting that if Opera were to submit its browser, Apple would reject it.
Apple has not allowed some applications that replicate core features already built in to the iPhone. The most high-profile non-acceptance into the App Store was the Google Voice application, which Apple said too closely mimicked the iPhone's standard software, including management of calls, voicemail and text messages.
Talk of Opera Mini for iPhone occurred soon after the App Store opened in 2008. Even then, it was noted that Apple's rules for submissions kept the software from seeing the light of day.
In its demonstrations of the unreleased iPhone browser, Opera has said its option is six times faster than Apple's Safari when running over 3G. It also restarts with the same session when the browser is closed and reopened.
Opera claims its browser is capable of superior speeds when compared to Safari due to the compression technology used by the company. It noted that Opera Mini has "significantly faster" Web site loading, and can reduce data surcharges for customers. The Opera Mini application also includes the usual features from the browser, such as tabs, Speed Dial, password manager and bookmark syncing.
Officials with the company have said they believe there is no reason for Apple to reject the Opera Mini browser from the App Store. Opera's mobile browser is not based on the WebKit open source project.
"Opera's mission is to bring the Web to the world, and by making Opera Mini available on yet another platform, we are one step closer," said Jon von Tetzchner, co-founder of Opera Software.
Comments
Apple has rejected any third-party browsers submitted to the App Store that might replace its own, native Safari application included with all versions of the iPhone and iPod touch. The Cupertino, Calif., company has not indicated that it has changed its policies, suggesting that if Opera were to submit its browser, Apple would reject it.
Apple has not allowed applications that replicate features already built in to the iPhone. The most high-profile non-acceptance into the App Store was the Google Voice application, which Apple said too closely mimicked the iPhone's standard software, including management of calls, voicemail and text messages.
That is an outright lie. I have downloaded over 10 free web browsers from the app store in addition to buying one. I currently use iCab Mobile for $1.99 which is incredibly useful. I use it for downloading and storing offline webpages. It is fully functional and not banned. I hate it when people misrepresent Apple's stance on an issue.
(The only unverified rumor I have heard is that they only allow Webkit based browsers, not other based ones like Opera, but I'm not sure about this.)
Officials with the company have said they believe there is no reason for Apple to reject the Opera Mini browser from the App Store.
I'm pretty sure Apple has many reasons to reject any third party browser.
That is an outright lie. I have downloaded over 10 free web browsers from the app store in addition to buying one. I currently use iCab Mobile for $1.99 which is incredibly useful. I use it for downloading and storing offline webpages. It is fully functional and not banned. I hate it when people misrepresent Apple's stance on an issue.
(The only unverified rumor I have heard is that they only allow Webkit based browsers, not other based ones like Opera, but I'm not sure about this.)
Nope, not true. That is just a different UI on top of Safari.
Nope, not true. That is just a different UI on top of Safari.
No. You are misrepresenting things here.
Browsers are only allowed if they use WebKit, but that doesn't mean that it's "just a different UI on top of Safari."
If that was true then all browsers except Mozilla and MSIE are also "Safari" including the desktop version of Opera.
Browsers are only allowed if they use WebKit,
You know, if that's true, would that mean we could see Google Chrome one here too, because it also uses Webkit?
Opera this week showed off a new version of its mobile browser...
I don't know who wrote this, but this has to be the most slanted article written for AppleInsider in a long while.
First it's a whole article about Opera's new "browser" which isn't actually a browser in the normal sense of the word, that not only doesn't discuss that fact, it doesn't even mention it? What gives? Are you guys purposely trying to deceive here?
Sure it's 6 times faster, but isn't a discussion of the fact that it uses Operas servers to achieve this relevant? How about the security issues of going through some unknown "browsing service"? How about the simple fact that this "browser" is merely showing you jpegs of pages, as opposed to the pages themselves? How can you write an article about this and not include all this stuff?
Secondly, this article repeats things that just aren't true, like "Apple has rejected any third-party browsers submitted to the App Store that might replace its own, native Safari application ..."
The only true fact I get from this article is that the author probably uses Opera.
Opera this week showed off a new version of its mobile browser created for the iPhone, but the company has told AppleInsider that the software has not yet been submitted to Apple's App Store.
I say put up or shut up Opera, you pulled this same prank when the App store was announced, but they NEVER submitted it to Apple. It is great and all that you say you can do all these great things. Submit it to Apple and let them decide if it is worth approving, not just posture for months on end and then announce that you have a new version and rinse and repeat.
No. You are misrepresenting things here.
Browsers are only allowed if they use WebKit, but that doesn't mean that it's "just a different UI on top of Safari."
If that was true then all browsers except Mozilla and MSIE are also "Safari" including the desktop version of Opera.
Mozilla as stated, uses Gecko, IE uses Trident, and Opera uses Presto, not Webkit. Safari would more be a Konqueror clone, as webkit is a fork of KHTML.
That is an outright lie. I have downloaded over 10 free web browsers from the app store in addition to buying one. I currently use iCab Mobile for $1.99 which is incredibly useful. I use it for downloading and storing offline webpages. It is fully functional and not banned. I hate it when people misrepresent Apple's stance on an issue.
(The only unverified rumor I have heard is that they only allow Webkit based browsers, not other based ones like Opera, but I'm not sure about this.)
They should have clarified more but it's still mobileSafari in all those browser. They're just pulling the framework. Apple hasn't allowed any runtimes not included in the iPhone already.
Luckily for those looking for other options, Opera doesn't violate any of those rules. I had hoped SkyFire would make a debut, too.
I hope Apple accepts it. It seems like a nice browser with some good features.
You know, I'm quite intrigued by the concept behind Opera Mobile. It is a terrific idea to render the page on the server and merely send an image of it to the device. I'm not sure if that is exactly how it works (how do you click links?) but such is how I've heard it explained. Also, Apple can never reject it if they don't submit it. I think they're just trying to make a big stink so that when they do submit it, Apple will be "forced" into accepting it. We'll see.
No. You are misrepresenting things here.
Browsers are only allowed if they use WebKit, but that doesn't mean that it's "just a different UI on top of Safari."
If that was true then all browsers except Mozilla and MSIE are also "Safari" including the desktop version of Opera.
The term WebKit could also be misleading. To be exact, Apple only allows browsers that are based on top of the exact Webkit engine built into iPhone OS. They don't allow any separate copy of browser engines.
You know, if that's true, would that mean we could see Google Chrome one here too, because it also uses Webkit?
Okay, we should probably define it more clearly.
Browsers that do not use apples Built-in Webkit Engine get rejected.
Googles Chrome does use Webkit, but has its own implementen.
Google Chrome on Mac OS X _does_use Webkit, but not the webkit framework that is built-in in Mac OS X.
So, the whole discussion is not about the browser engine, but rather the frameworks.
if google chrome would use the iphones built-in webkit framework, than it would be fine and apple woudln't reject it (at least not on that ground).
They should have clarified more but it's still mobileSafari in all those browser. They're just pulling the framework. Apple hasn't allowed any runtimes not included in the iPhone already.
You're saying that they're using Webkit (as opposed to a skinned Safari)? Also, how is it that iCab has enabled downloading of files? Is it just that they added a script that tells the browser to store the next linked object into the app's local storage as opposed to the temp storage? I know that iCab has added a lot of features not in mobile Safari and am wondering how that is possible if they can't edit the runtime or add scripting.
So, the whole discussion is not about the browser engine, but rather the frameworks.
if google chrome would use the iphones built-in webkit framework, than it would be fine and apple woudln't reject it (at least not on that ground).
Yes, that is more accurate.
However, Opera does all the execution on its servers and just delivers a compressed image (or other form of static content) to the user, so presumably would pass.
That same server-based execution would of course preclude running of Flash content (usefully).
Okay, we should probably define it more clearly.
Browsers that do not use apples Built-in Webkit Engine get rejected.
Googles Chrome does use Webkit, but has its own implementen.
Google Chrome on Mac OS X _does_use Webkit, but not the webkit framework that is built-in in Mac OS X.
So, the whole discussion is not about the browser engine, but rather the frameworks.
if google chrome would use the iphones built-in webkit framework, than it would be fine and apple woudln't reject it (at least not on that ground).
Thank you, that cleared up a lot.
You know, I'm quite intrigued by the concept behind Opera Mobile. It is a terrific idea to render the page on the server and merely send an image of it to the device. I'm not sure if that is exactly how it works (how do you click links?) but such is how I've heard it explained.
You can try it out on Mac, Windows, and Linux by running the desktop version of Opera and playing with the Opera Turbo feature.
Personally, I think it's something they should have done back in the dial-up days.
You're saying that they're using Webkit (as opposed to a skinned Safari)? Also, how is it that iCab has enabled downloading of files? Is it just that they added a script that tells the browser to store the next linked object into the app's local storage as opposed to the temp storage? I know that iCab has added a lot of features not in mobile Safari and am wondering how that is possible if they can't edit the runtime or add scripting.
It they go outside the guidelines they will be rejected. My Beejive IM app access a web browser) and downloads files. I don't think I can move those files to the system without first MMS or emailing them to myself.
As I recall, you just call WebKit.framework. It's been awhile since I was pushing through the SDK so I may be remembering incorrectly or things may have changes. I'm sure we have devs here with more detailed and up to date info.
You're saying that they're using Webkit (as opposed to a skinned Safari)? Also, how is it that iCab has enabled downloading of files? Is it just that they added a script that tells the browser to store the next linked object into the app's local storage as opposed to the temp storage? I know that iCab has added a lot of features not in mobile Safari and am wondering how that is possible if they can't edit the runtime or add scripting.
File Handling (what to do when opening an URL with .zip) and Page Rendering are two totally different things.
All, the WebKit-Frame work (and therefore engine a little more deeper inside the framework) does, is "convert the HTML code to an image that is displayed inside a WebView". (yes, the insides of a webview is basically just an rendered image, you can see that when zooming you first get a low-res page and after the webkit-framework rerenders the code you get the adapted high-res image).
dont confuse mobile safari with the webkit-framework.
mobile safari uses the webkit framwork AMONG OTHERS.
when you browse a homepage in MS (mobile safari) and click a .zip-link, its not the webkit-framework that says "i cant display this file". its the MS that decides you can't open the file.
another app (iCab e.g.) get the .zip-link and tells you "hey i can't open it, but i could save it".
the "saving-part" has nothing to do with the webkit-framework apart from receiving the URL from the webview.
might be a stupid comparison, but see as it as a car.
The webkit-rendering-engine (the thing safari, chrome, palm pre, etc) use is the engine of the car. just the engine, without the gears, without the transmission, without the other stuff.
the WebKit-Framework from the iPhone OS is the rest of the technical stuff, like the transmission, the gears, the tank, the engine-cooler, etc.
The iCab/mobile Safari app is the rest of the car. How the dashboard looks, how many doors the car has, airconition, color of the chassis etc.
I'm pretty sure Apple has many reasons to reject any third party browser.
Such as the $100,000,000 per year from Google?
Yep, that's 100,000,000 reasons right there