Opera Mini for iPhone sits on sidelines due to App Store rules

[AppleInsider]

A professionally-developed alternative to Apple's Safari web browser for iPhone already exists in Opera Software's labs; Apple's guidelines for App Store submissions, however, are allegedly keeping it from seeing the light of day.

Opera chief Jon Stephenson von Tetzchner recently told the New York Times (by way of MacNN) that Opera Mini, one of the company's mobile web browsers for smartphones, has already been ported to the iPhone but can't be released as Apple's rules for the App Store preclude software that replicate the core functionality of the iPhone or iPod touch.

The revelation is an unusual one given Apple's official stance on third-party apps as early as March, when the iPhone Software Developer Kit was first released. The Cupertino, Calif.-based cellphone maker specifically bars third-party interpreters that call on non-Apple frameworks and languages, which by definition would include Opera's web rendering engine. This would have left Opera Software converting software unlikely to be released in the near term.

Still, the news doesn't represent the first instance that Apple has rejected apps that would challenge the usefulness of its own code.

Software developer Almerica last month discovered that a submitted podcast download and playback utility Podcaster was rejected for supposedly replicating iTunes -- even though there was no Apple equivalent on the iPhone at the time. However, a recent leak has suggested that Apple may allow podcast downloads in its upcoming iPhone 2.2 update.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[kim kap sol]

Wrong. It's not a question of anti-competitiveness. It's a question of not allowing apps that run binaries. It's not allowed. Period.

I don't agree with it either but Opera could run Flash and other binaries...this is unallowed...it's also the reason why NES and Gameboy emulators and interpreters such as ScummVM can't be put on the App Store.

It has *nothing* to do with challenging Apple's own Safari.

[PXT]

"Professionally-developed"?

When it was sure to be rejected, I don't think this work was very professional.

[irnchriz]

Who would WANT to run Opera mini on their iPhone anyway??? Its shite.

[Virgil-TB2]

The whole "controversy" comes down to the fact that Apple is denying apps that "replicate the core functionality of the iPhone" (i.e. - replacement browsers, email etc.) and that they didn't write that down anywhere.

So what?

Is it a reasonable proscription? Of course. Should they have written it in stone? Sure. Is it possible when designing a whole new platform that they forgot a couple of things? Probably.

Again ... so what?

Gruber and his cronies and friends that are pushing this story are making mountains out of molehills as is their wont. It makes sense to me that a device with such severe limitations in terms of hardware, battery life and performance would want to reserve core functionality for itself. This is an entirely reasonable position to take.

[DMarrero]

apple is making a big mistake here. Competition enables rapid progress in product improvement. I don't see how browser competition will take away revenue. It is still on the iphone and improved browser functionality will allow for increased attention to the iphone. Poor planning on apples part.

[eAi]

Originally Posted by kim kap sol

Wrong. It's not a question of anti-competitiveness. It's a question of not allowing apps that run binaries. It's not allowed. Period.

I don't agree with it either but Opera could run Flash and other binaries...this is unallowed...it's also the reason why NES and Gameboy emulators and interpreters such as ScummVM can't be put on the App Store.

It has *nothing* to do with challenging Apple's own Safari.

But equally, Opera could _not_ run flash, just like Safari doesn't. Theres nothing that says Opera will have any more functionality than Safari does. Many applications on the App Store download information and interpret it in various forms (to display lists of train times, geocaches, music tracks etc). I'm not sure what point you draw the line at.

There's nothing magically dangerous about interpreting code. In fact it's generally considered safer - e.g. Java coded is sandboxed from the hardware. We know Apple have these rules, but we'll see that they'll be the first ones allowed to break them, which is, in many ways anti-competitive.

I can't see Apple's justification for such limits, beyond keeping control over their platform.

Virgil-TB2: What's to say that Opera Mini can't be better than Safari - less battery life, better performance etc? Why should Apple prevent third parties from improving 'core functionality'?

[johnqh]

This is a one-sided story, without Apple's response.

More likely, Apple won't any any browser due to the restriction on loading other apps. It was designed as a safe measure against virus and worms. Web browser, by definition, may load and run other software (javascript, java, flash etc).

[kim kap sol]

Originally Posted by johnqh

This is a one-sided story, without Apple's response.

More likely, Apple won't any any browser due to the restriction on loading other apps. It was designed as a safe measure against virus and worms. Web browser, by definition, may load and run other software (javascript, java, flash etc).

Exactly so.

Apple said there will be no interpreted code allowed other than what Apple decides should be interpreted. Chances are that Opera submitted it's Opera mini and it was judged capable of interpreting code and thus rejected.

Any emulator or interpreter submitted to the App Store will see this same refusal. If Apple allowed Opera mini, then they would have to allow NES, SNES, Gamboy, PSX, emulators as well as interpreters such as ScummVM. I'd like that very much but as you said, it opens the door to problems.

[FreakyT]

Man, Apple is evil. If Microsoft pulled this kind of nonsense the justice dept would be on their case in a heartbeat.

[pdiddy]

Originally Posted by FreakyT

Man, Apple is evil. If Microsoft pulled this kind of nonsense the justice dept would be on their case in a heartbeat.

No they wouldn't. Apple created the hardware, it's running their OS, and they run the App Store. They can deny any app they choose. Their practices aren't even remotely related to what Microsoft did. This is a closed system that Apple will let you play in if you follow their rules. There's nothing anti-competitive about what they're doing.

[lightstriker]

Originally Posted by FreakyT

Man, Apple is evil. If Microsoft pulled this kind of nonsense the justice dept would be on their case in a heartbeat.

Nokia, Sony E. or Palm doesnt have to let Opera, IE, Camino or Safari on their systems either. Apple and iPhone doesn"t have a monoply on the smartphone or any phone market.

[Macfabulous]

Originally Posted by DMarrero

apple is making a big mistake here. Competition enables rapid progress in product improvement. I don't see how browser competition will take away revenue. It is still on the iphone and improved browser functionality will allow for increased attention to the iphone. Poor planning on apples part.

Apple must have some fundemental new plans for their entire platform (both software and hardware wise) that will make it a "no go" for certain intrusive apps right now. It´s all about the ecosystem!

Well, the thing is that Apple probably is having BIG plans for the Safari browser. They want Safari to be the platform for all communication and apps (think cloud) in the future. Future Apple hardware products is right now being prepared and constructed to take advantage of this. This in a way so Apple products will have the advantage and edge when compared to competing products. The entire Apple ecosystem will be woven into Safari and vice versa, and thus become impossible to neglect. Important and umatched Apple features (hardware wise and software wise) will be dependant on each other in such ways that Safari becomes THE browser to use and Apple products THE way to use it. Thus the competition will not have a chance. This is what Apple wants

Apple is in my mind about to evolve their ecosytem BIG TIME and Safari is the "glue" element for this to really happen. Multitouch is implemented as THE way to interact with these new products. Safari and the "cloud" is important here! ...and the new user-experience has to be consistant all the way through. Therefore they are protecting Safari so fiercly and not allowing certain apps on their platform/iPhone. Apple are protecting the new and comming innovations.

When we se AppleTV 3.0 this will all take speed. The AppleTV will be the center piece in this upcoming and improved Apple eccosytem. From your couch you will surf the web, meet friends over iChat, watch movies and hear music via iTunes/frontRow and last but not least... get access to a fullblown Mac OS via your living room TV aka the Apple TV. All this via your iRemote/iPhone and this with great networking and fast invisible syncing capapillities via Safari and cloud computing. Now you will truly hold the world in just one hand,- Your remote (iPhone)

Apple wants your living room, your office, your free time and your workspace. The closed and perfectly tailored eccosystem is the way Apple thinks, it will succeed. Mac OS and Safari via the "cloud" is the way they wiil glue it all together There is no place for interfering apps for now! Not while the above process is in the oven and not revealed.

Just my five cents

[a_greer]

Originally Posted by irnchriz

Who would WANT to run Opera mini on their iPhone anyway??? Its shite.

Competition is the driver to innovation

Safari could stagnate, but if there is competition on the same platform, there could be an arms race of sorts, and Apple doesnt wanna be shown up on their own platform, they dont want a new browser feature to show up on their platform that isnt from them, and as much as Opra isnt that great, they were the first to do tabs, they had the most standards compliant engine for a while, and it Opera mini isnt bad on other platforms like Blackberry.

they would have done the same with Mac, but that woulda never flown in the 80s.

[frugality]

Originally Posted by pdiddy

No they wouldn't. Apple created the hardware, it's running their OS, and they run the App Store. They can deny any app they choose. Their practices aren't even remotely related to what Microsoft did. This is a closed system that Apple will let you play in if you follow their rules. There's nothing anti-competitive about what they're doing.

It's the same as Microsoft trying to make IE part of a, as you say, 'closed system.' They wanted to mandate the use of their browser with Windows. Apple is making a dangerously similar choice here.

In 1984 Apple did the hammer-smashing-big-brother ad. Apple is slowly becoming Big Brother. As they take over more and more market share, they will have to watch their step carefully. Someone may end up having to hurl the hammer at Apple.

[a_greer]

Originally Posted by lightstriker

Nokia, Sony E. or Palm doesnt have to let Opera, IE, Camino or Safari on their systems either. Apple and iPhone doesn"t have a monoply on the smartphone or any phone market.

First, palm is a joke
now, sony and nokia make feature phones, that is to say toys for teenyboppers. The iPhone is in a differant leauge, it is a premium smartphone, and they brag about their app ecosystem...and they constantly block the cool stuff...

Watch out Apple, if the first Android phone didnt sting ya, the second or third may...

[kim kap sol]

Originally Posted by a_greer

Competition is the driver to innovation

Safari could stagnate, but if there is competition on the same platform, there could be an arms race of sorts, and Apple doesnt wanna be shown up on their own platform, they dont want a new browser feature to show up on their platform that isnt from them, and as much as Opra isnt that great, they were the first to do tabs, they had the most standards compliant engine for a while, and it Opera mini isnt bad on other platforms like Blackberry.

they would have done the same with Mac, but that woulda never flown in the 80s.

If Safari on the iPhone was vastly different than Safari on the desktop, someone might be compelled to agree with you. But this competition you speak of is happening on the desktop and trickles down almost instantly to the iPhone/iPod... so calm down, dude.

[daniel84]

I'm kind of on the fence on this one but swaying in favour of Apple's stance. After all, Safari provides core functionality on both the iPhone and iPod Touch which are both essentially closed platforms. The app store and the ability to install apps gives the illusion of openness but it is just that, an illusion. I can completely understand why Apple wants to protect its platform and many other companies do the same with their own technology but it's not as noticeable because third parties in most cases have little to no chance of making any money by offering alternative core functionality on devices like game consoles and other closed software platforms such as the plethora of handheld devices currently on the market. I can't imagine Sony agreeing to an alternative media player on the PS3, for example. Or perhaps TomTom could allow us to install third party codecs for the media players in its sat-nav systems. I doubt it... So why should Apple allow this? Especially when it clearly breaks the rules they laid out after investing so much time, money and effort in developing an SDK and distribution system built precisely to protect its investment in this new platform.

I was kind of on the fence when I started writing this but all that swaying leaves me in the Apple camp. Sorry Opera.

[tmedia1]

This is precisely why the ANDROID platform is SO IMPORTANT. It will eventually catch up and hopefully surpass the iPhone ecosystem. At the very least lets hope it will be successful enough to put pressure on Apple to "allow" more core apps and more options when it comes to features. Come on, even the 3G iPhone doesn't have copy and paste, to do lists and many more basic features that Steve doesn't care about. Until ANDROID begins to give some real competition to his Holy Phone, Steve will never give you a complete feature set.

[alpha10711]

Originally Posted by pdiddy

No they wouldn't. Apple created the hardware, it's running their OS, and they run the App Store. They can deny any app they choose.... This is a closed system that Apple will let you play in if you follow their rules. There's nothing anti-competitive about what they're doing.

I can't believe you don't recognize the contradiction in your own statement. The situation you have described is precisely what "anti-competitive" means.

[pmjoe]

Originally Posted by pdiddy

Apple created the hardware, it's running their OS, and they run the App Store. They can deny any app they choose. [...] There's nothing anti-competitive about what they're doing.

In your mind maybe.

[tmedia1]

To bad Safari is such a weak browser, otherwise your post might be interesting.

[guinness]

Considering how frequently Safari crashes on my Touch with FW 2.1, I'm all for alternative browsers.

[sflocal]

I'm with Apple on this one. Introducing 3rd party browsers on the iPhone would turn it into a mess as it is on the desktop having applications that work in one browser and not the other. Having only one browser and ONLY one browser would guarantee that an iPhone-enabled website will in fact work on an iPhone.

All you conspiracy-theorists can contemplate Apple's true wickedness on this subject until you're blue in the face. The reality is that Apple wants to maintain consistent core functionality so the end-user doesn't have to complain about why a certain web app doesn't work or display properly on the iPhone. The 2% of you guys still continue to think of this device as a miniature handheld "desktop" computer when it is not. I can totally understand why Apple does it and appreciate them for having the cajones to say "No" to people/companies/whiners for certain apps.

If what you're looking for is a free-for-all wild-west mentality, then by all means sell your iPhone and pick up a G1 Android phone and be done with the whining. 98% of iPhone users will not give even a minimal damn about loading Opera or any other browser. Honestly, g-e-t o-v-e-r i-t!

Any "real" web developer knows what a pain in the backside it is to develop a web-app and have to test it on every flavor of web browser in various operating systems to make sure everything is consistent and works right. Most just give up and have it work on a couple popular browsers and be done with it. We have enough of a headache developing our web apps on the desktop and appreciate the cleanliness that the iPhone presents to us.

Apple allowing only their browser on the iPhone will make it so much easier for iPhone web developers to ensure their iPhone sites can be tested once and it will work on every iPhone. Implementing Flash or Java is a separate subject.

This is not about you. This is about eliminating confusion and frustration for the joe-end-user.

*end of rant*

[bslaght]

but...this is what smart business is. I am sorry, but it's apples phone, apples rules. And I would go so far to say this was also fair in the MS browser wars (and any anti-comp talk about MS). It's their software, their rules. This is what capitalism is people...plain and simple...its dog eat dog out there and you must do what you can to get and stay ahead.

now i dont know enough to say if this is to do with binaries or core function issues...but..thems the breaks. whine and moan that a certain company won't let you on their phone...gimme a break...opera hasn't made headway onto the desktop..do they really think they will win on the mobile platform?? Seriously...???

[Macfabulous]

Originally Posted by daniel84

I'm kind of on the fence on this one but swaying in favour of Apple's stance. After all, Safari provides core functionality on both the iPhone and iPod Touch which are both essentially closed platforms. The app store and the ability to install apps gives the illusion of openness but it is just that, an illusion. I can completely understand why Apple wants to protect its platform and many other companies do the same with their own technology but it's not as noticeable because third parties in most cases have little to no chance of making any money by offering alternative core functionality on devices like game consoles and other closed software platforms such as the plethora of handheld devices currently on the market. I can't imagine Sony agreeing to an alternative media player on the PS3, for example. Or perhaps TomTom could allow us to install third party codecs for the media players in its sat-nav systems. I doubt it... So why should Apple allow this? Especially when it clearly breaks the rules they laid out after investing so much time, money and effort in developing an SDK and distribution system built precisely to protect its investment in this new platform.

I was kind of on the fence when I started writing this but all that swaying leaves me in the Apple camp. Sorry Opera.

I couldn´t agree more! It´s Apple´s phone... It´s Apples hardware. They decide! And when they can do this, why would they then let a competitor in "the backdoor"? As I described earlier, is Apple probably having very good reasons not to do so. They are protecting future products in order to win even more market share. It´s their product and their choice. If they fail they fail. If they succeed it will be with glamorous features and quallity products. Let them do it "the Apple way"

[g3pro]

No amount of RDF or rationalization should allow you to conclude anything other than Apple is being a giant dick right now regarding 3rd party development.

[Macfabulous]

Originally Posted by g3pro

No amount of RDF or rationalization should allow you to conclude anything other than Apple is being a giant dick right now regarding 3rd party development.

...and your argument is?

[daniel84]

Originally Posted by g3pro

No amount of RDF or rationalization should allow you to conclude anything other than Apple is being a giant dick right now regarding 3rd party development.

There was a time when we all thought it was a miracle that Apple was offering the means for third parties to develop in a controlled environment. I think the current setup is a sweet deal for most people developers/consumers/Apple. Of course you'll find the odd disgruntled techno geek or developer but if they're not happy don't bother with the iPhone. Apple are simply protecting their investment in the platform they created.

Safari for iPhone may still have a few bugs but they'll be dealt with precisely because the environment in which Safari runs is a very controlled one making it easier to manage and pin point where things are going wrong. I seem to remember Safari on the desktop had its fair share of problems to start with but over time bugs were dealt with and features were added.

If you still think they're being dicks, go and buy a phone from a less dickish company. Let me know what you come up with.

[Mazda 3s]

I say give Opera a chance. Anything is better than crashtastic Safari mobile

[TenoBell]

Originally Posted by alpha10711

I can't believe you don't recognize the contradiction in your own statement. The situation you have described is precisely what "anti-competitive" means.

You compete in a market. You do not compete on one proprietary platform.

Apple used its own resources to develop the iPhone and is free to use it as they choose. What Apple decides for the iPhone does not impact competition for the entire mobile phone market as a whole.

[TenoBell]

Originally Posted by g3pro

No amount of RDF or rationalization should allow you to conclude anything other than Apple is being a giant dick right now regarding 3rd party development.

Looking at how quickly the App store has grown with nearly 5000 apps that have accounted for over 200 million downloads. Can you site a vastly more successful development platform?

[guinness]

Originally Posted by TenoBell

Looking at how quickly the App store has grown with nearly 5000 apps that have accounted for over 200 million downloads. Can you site a vastly more successful development platform?

Windows for starters. I'm all for improving Sw standards, but the apps I have on my Touch are buggier on average than apps on my WinMob PDA or Symbian smartphone, the supposed Apple QC just doesn't exist in the app store. And I would like it if the paid apps had more demos so that you could try them first.

And mobile Safari would be a lot better if it didn't crash as often - really it doesn't run java or flash, so it should be very, very stable but it's not. It's a good mobile browser, but it's far from great.

[Hands Sandon]

Opera Mini is fast and almost never crashes on my Mogul 6800. SkyFire would be another must have browser on the iPhone, as things currently stand. Browsers would rake in money for Apple, just like tethering plans. I'm using NetShare and I've never had any trouble from ATT because of it. So much for all those fear mongers on that subject!

[RichL]

This is the reason why my iPod touch is jail-broken and will remain so.

I do not want someone else telling me what I can and cannot do with my own property.

[wheelhot]

I'm with Apple on this one. Introducing 3rd party browsers on the iPhone would turn it into a mess as it is on the desktop having applications that work in one browser and not the other. Having only one browser and ONLY one browser would guarantee that an iPhone-enabled website will in fact work on an iPhone.

Yeah, that's a very good point, Im sure web developers had enough with the different web browser standards.

[BlackSummerNight]

Safari is shit, it crashes atleast 4 times a day on me. The only reason why Apple doesn't want Opera on the iPhone is because they know the Opera team will do a better job.

They killed the over the air podcast because they didn't want any competition, and now they are killing the Opera browser.....what a bunch of pussies they have at Apple.

Anyone have the link to jailbreak a iPhone 2.1 software.

[Mazda 3s]

Originally Posted by BlackSummerNight

Safari is shit, it crashes atleast 4 times a day on me. The only reason why Apple doesn't want Opera on the iPhone is because they know the Opera team will do a better job.

They killed the over the air podcast because they didn't want any competition, and now they are killing the Opera browser.....what a bunch of pussies they have at Apple.

Anyone have the link to jailbreak a iPhone 2.1 software.

Exactly, Mobile Safari is absolute junk. It crashes numerous times a day for me. Last night, I was browsing eBay and had AppleInsider open in background (second tab). Damn thing crashed 4 times in a span of twenty minutes on my iPod touch 2G. And that's all I was doing, browsing the web -- I wasn't even listening to music or anything

And worst of all, sometimes Safari crashes so hard that it deletes all my cookies -- which is a SERIOUS pain in the ass when I have about 100 pages bookmarked (there go all my logins/passwords).

Apple needs to get on the ball with all of these Safari crashes or let someone else step in with a superior platform.

[slapppy]

Originally Posted by irnchriz

Who would WANT to run Opera mini on their iPhone anyway??? Its shite.

Safari is crap. Crashes like there's no tomorrow on the iPhone 3g.

[johnqh]

Originally Posted by Mazda 3s

Exactly, Mobile Safari is absolute junk. It crashes numerous times a day for me. Last night, I was browsing eBay and had AppleInsider open in background (second tab). Damn thing crashed 4 times in a span of twenty minutes on my iPod touch 2G. And that's all I was doing, browsing the web -- I wasn't even listening to music or anything...

Apple needs to get on the ball with all of these Safari crashes or let someone else step in with a superior platform.

People still expect iPhones to be a computer, it is not.

1. iPhone has only 128MB RAM. Please check your activity monitor and see how much RAM it uses. (mine shows 77MB with appleinsider.com).

2. That's probably one big reason why Apple doesn't allow background processes. A couple of those and the whole RAM gets eaten up.

3. A lot of websites are huge messes these days. YouTube takes almost 80% of CPU on my P-M 1.3G. Even AppleInsider.com takes 15% of CPU of my 2G C2D when it is complete idle. Some Chinese websites take 60% of CPU when it is completely IDLE!

4. A third party web browser, which would only want to add features with no regard on hardware, RAM and battery, will only crash more, and guess what they are going to say? "It is Apple's fault, iPhone doesn't have enough RAM, not powerful enough etc".