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.
Nicely said, and I definitely learnt a few things from your comments. I really dont understand why Opera does a JPEG render of the websites, but it sounds horrific, as is the rerouting through Opera servers. If I wanted a re-routed internet on my phone, I'd use Blackberry \