or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Opera submits iPhone browser to Apple for App Store review
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Opera submits iPhone browser to Apple for App Store review - Page 3

post #81 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

THIS PRODUCT IS NOT GOOD FOR SECURE COMMUNICATION!

Sure it is.

Quote:
So what's the point of this software?

Even if you don't want to use it for banking and stuff like that, it can still be used for reading news, etc.

Quote:
I'm not seeing much of a reason to give up your privacy and have each and every web site you visit processed by Opera Software.

Opera Software has an excellent privacy track record, so that really isn't a problem.

Quote:
They might also have something going for it in compression... but many web sites do that on their own now don't they?

No. Opera Mini compresses data up to 90%.

Quote:
So what is the point???

It's for anyone not on a perfect connection.

Anyone who doesn't want outrageous roaming charges.

Anyone who doesn't have an unlimited data plan.
post #82 of 123
I don't this app will be approved, for what it's worth, but I see more in Tulkas' logic than yours anonymouse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I'd be completely and utterly shocked if it were approved because a) it is in fact a browser, regardless of how that functionality is implemented, that violates the terms of the developer agreement

So you're saying "duplicates core functionality". Which is probably fair enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

It seems pretty obvious to me. It launches other executable code on Opera's proxy's, thus falling foul of at least the "otherwise" clause. It uses interpreted code not run by Apple's Documented APIs and built-in interpreter(s) by running JavaScript on those proxies. The quoted restriction doesn't limit itself to "other executable code" or interpreters located on the iPhone. Other browsers or apps with web views are fine because they go through Apple's Documented APIs and built-in interpreter(s).

This is an idiotic interpretation at best. Every web request must necessary result in code being executed on the other end. Thus, by your interpretation, anything that connects to the internet must not be acceptable.

Surely Apple must mean within the context of the four wall of their device. Any other interpretation is asinine.
post #83 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Apple API does not do your work for you as a programmer. You are still expected to write the code, using the provided API when necessary. Opera could written their own decompression algorithm. That in and of itself is not a violation of the SDK, at least not the clause quoted.

How does a decompression engine violate this:
"An Application may not itself install or launch other executable code by any means, including without limitation through the use of a plug-in architecture, calling other frameworks, other APIs or otherwise. No interpreted code may be downloaded or used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple's Documented APIs and built-in interpreter(s)."?

Any decompression will be built into the app, so it would't be launching (or installing) additional executable code. Decompressing a data stream is not the same as interpreting or executing additional code. If Opera's implementation does rely on interpreted code or launching additional executable code, outside of their app (not on a server), then yes, they are in violation. I just don't see how you can say decompressing data is in violation, simply by being decompression.

Apple offer developers UIWebView API for displaying webpages. Opera admitted that they are using their "own little language" for the front-end. Therefore, they are are using a non Apple documented API. If a developer want to display webpages then he/she will have to use Apple's UIWebView class. If a developer is not using UIWebView to view webpages then he is violating the mentioned clause.

I don't know why this is hard for you to understand.
post #84 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

Even if you don't want to use it for banking and stuff like that, it can still be used for reading news, etc.

I'm pretty sure that Apple doesn't want users to have to be thinking with iPhone apps, "Is it OK for me to use this app in these circumstances?" Sort of undermines the whole user experience to satisfy an extremely tiny minority of users.
post #85 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

With Opera mini, you're not only not getting "the full internet," you're getting compressed renderings of web pages filtered through internet proxies you have no control over. You might as well be behind the great firewall of China.

So are you saying that Opera is censoring sites? If not, then what on earth is the GFW comparison all about?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Opera knows this app will be rejected because the app violates the iPhone SDK agreement. Everyone knew that since the first public release of the app store.

Except Opera Mini doesn't execute code. All JS handing is done on the server, not on the Opera Mini client.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pumpkinhead View Post

On the other hand, I work at a carrier and as someone who builds web apps that have to support multiple browsers on a device, including Opera Mini, it can be a major pain.

You'd better get used to it. Opera Mini has more than 50 million users, and adds new users at a rate of 4-5 million a month or so. Active users, that is. Not just downloads.

Quote:
And there seems to be a long list of sites that Opera mini can't handle and has to bump them into the handset's native browser, confusing them further.

Most of them is probably because of browser sniffing.
post #86 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

it is, as you point out, "dangerous" because it, "doesn't provide any of the standard protections people expect to be there,"

This is clearly nonsense.

Quote:
Opera are clearly baiting Apple, in a rather childish manner, in fact.

Baiting? LOL. Opera is doing PR. Nothing childish about that.

Quote:
I think this is a slam-dunk rejection for violating the developer agreement

Which is nonsense because it doesn't execute code on the client.

Quote:
and for undermining the iPhone user experience and security

Again, nonsense. It's even more secure than Safari because all code is executed remotely, not on the phone.

Quote:
It's not like more than a handful of people care about Opera anyway, and it's not like it offers anything useful without also bringing huge downsides with it.

Opera Mini has more than 50 million users. I guess you are saying that no one cares about the iPhone either, then?
post #87 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

This is an idiotic interpretation at best. Every web request must necessary result in code being executed on the other end. Thus, by your interpretation, anything that connects to the internet must not be acceptable.

Only, if as pointed out countless times (ok, a bit of hyperbole, but won't people bother to actually read?) in this thread, if you ignore this part of my post:

Quote:
Other browsers or apps with web views are fine because they go through Apple's Documented APIs and built-in interpreter(s).
post #88 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I'm pretty sure that Apple doesn't want users to have to be thinking with iPhone apps, "Is it OK for me to use this app in these circumstances?" Sort of undermines the whole user experience to satisfy an extremely tiny minority of users.

Users don't have to think about that. Only paranoid people will be worried. Opera has an excellent privacy track record.
post #89 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Other browsers or apps with web views are fine because they go through Apple's Documented APIs and built-in interpreter(s).

And Opera doesn't execute code on the phone. It's executed on Opera's servers. What's sent to the phone is basically an image.
post #90 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

Again, nonsense. It's even more secure than Safari because all code is executed remotely, not on the phone.

I'll only bother responding to this point. It's not more secure than Safari because your SSL connections are not encrypted end-to-end.
post #91 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Anonymouse wins the thread! Yay!

Seriously, "Tulkas"??? you filled pages and pages of writing and I've read it all and you just don't have any argument against what anonymouse is saying. Nothing. Nada.

Anonymouse like all of us, could turn out to be wrong, but nothing you have said indicates that in any way. You are just being bitchy and harping about perceived details in conversations that didn't actually even happen the way you thought they did.

Really, which point that anonymouse has posted, especially his first post since he referenced it again, has any merit? I have repeatedly, and clearly explained the faults in his 'reasons'. If you are not capable of reading the fairly simple posts, do not try to blame that limitation on my bitchiness.

It isn't that he and you could turn out to be wrong. But that nothing he has asserted has a basis in fact or reason. He claims it violates this and that, yet cannot back any of it up. I could claim it will be rejected because their logo is red. How does one argue against that sort of assertion? You could ask for proof, but that won't happen.

The 'perceived' details are simply what he posted. Perhaps you could give an example were I have railed against something he didn't post? I guess this should be expected from someone that thinks Opera isn't a browser.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #92 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

There's been speculation that opera is trying to bait Apple into a trap here.

What kind of trap might that be?

This conspiracy nonsense needs to stop. All Opera wants is to get more users, and the iPhone is an untapped user base of millions.
post #93 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I'll only bother responding to this point. It's not more secure than Safari because your SSL connections are not encrypted end-to-end.

It is more secure because any malicious code aimed at taking over the phone is executed on the server rather than the phone itself, making the phone safer.
post #94 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

Users don't have to think about that. Only paranoid people will be worried. Opera has an excellent privacy track record.

You can discount this issue if you wish, but Opera's behavior in this regard is contrary to everything people have come to expect in sending "private" information over the web. And, it's not paranoia to worry about it, it's stupidity not to.
post #95 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

And Opera doesn't execute code on the phone. It's executed on Opera's servers. What's sent to the phone is basically an image.

Now you're just ignoring the first part of the post.
post #96 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Apple offer developers UIWebView API for displaying webpages. Opera admitted that they are using their "own little language" for the front-end. Therefore, they are are using a non Apple documented API. If a developer want to display webpages then he/she will have to use Apple's UIWebView class. If a developer is not using UIWebView to view webpages then he is violating the mentioned clause.

I don't know why this is hard for you to understand.

Apple offers the API, but that doesn't demand that you have to use their API for every function of your app. If they are using their own API, then of course it is an undocumented API. (This should not be confused with using an undocumented Apple API). That clause does not state that devs are restricted to using Apple provided APIs and only Apple provided APIs. If the SDK has such a restriction, that clause is not it.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #97 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

It is more secure because any malicious code aimed at taking over the phone is executed on the server rather than the phone itself, making the phone safer.

That doesn't necessarily make it more secure (ignoring the SSL issue for the time being). It's still at least possible that someone can develop an exploit that causes the server to send data to the browser that causes it to perform a malicious action.
post #98 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Apple offers the API, but that doesn't demand that you have to use their API for every function of your app. If they are using their own API, then of course it is an undocumented API. (This should not be confused with using an undocumented Apple API). That clause does not state that devs are restricted to using Apple provided APIs and only Apple provided APIs. If the SDK has such a restriction, that clause is not it.

Really?!

Quote:
"No interpreted code may be downloaded or used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple's Documented APIs and built-in interpreter(s)."

It can't get clearer than that.
post #99 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Really?!


"No interpreted code may be downloaded or used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple's Documented APIs and built-in interpreter(s)."

It can't get clearer than that.

Oh f me gently. Do we really need to have a refresher course on interpreted vs compiled code?

Edit: ok, maybe that came off a bit harsh.

We can be pretty sure Opera won't be implementing their decompression in Java or python or some other interpreted language. Their browser will be a native Obj-C/C app and will implement their decompression in C or ObjC, i.e. compiled code. A restriction prohibiting interpreted code does not prohibit them from writing a native app that uses code not directly referenced from the iPhone API.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #100 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Oh f me gently. Do we really need to have a refresher course on interpreted vs compiled code?

Edit: ok, maybe that came off a bit harsh.

We can be pretty sure Opera won't be implementing their decompression in Java or python or some other interpreted language. Their browser will be a native Obj-C/C app and will implement their decompression in C or ObjC, i.e. compiled code. A restriction prohibiting interpreted code does not prohibit them from writing a native app that uses code not directly used from the iPhone SDK.

This will help you understand what that clause mean and how it applies to Opera app.

Quote:
If taken at face value, the restrictions would ban seemingly innocuous apps, according to a blog entry made by Mozilla developer Rob Sayre. Besides the Firefox web browser made by his own company, programs such as Opera and Excel would be forbidden from running on the phone as-is due to their uses of scripting language inside the software. Even some games that use an interpretive language in the background, such as Quake, would also be barred from the iPhone.
post #101 of 123

That article is from before a single native app was released and was speculation from a Mozilla dev regarding Opera. Not an Opera dev regarding Opera Mini.

The inclusion of their own interpreter would be a problem, if they are including an interpretter. Not related to their implementation of data decompression with in their app.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #102 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Really, which point that anonymouse has posted, especially his first post since he referenced it again, has any merit? I have repeatedly, and clearly explained the faults in his 'reasons'. If you are not capable of reading the fairly simple posts, do not try to blame that limitation on my bitchiness.

It isn't that he and you could turn out to be wrong. But that nothing he has asserted has a basis in fact or reason. ...

I don't have time to be your editor, but suffice to say that intelligent people can disagree however much you pretend that they can't. Your story, and your interpretation of anonymouse's (and everyone else's) statements isn't the only one (there is an implied "duh" there I think).

All I can say really is that from my point of view, anonymouse is making cogent interesting points and you are trying to knock them down with a lot of blather that just doesn't make sense or mean much AFAICS.

Every post you make you re-frame something anonymouse has said, essentially changing the meaning of what was said, introducing irrelevant side points and then knocking down the argument that wasn't actually being made.

Like I said, you could be wrong, anonymouse could be wrong, I could be wrong, etc...

but for today, and limited to the arguments presented on this forum, I think anonymouse's ideas are far more sensible than yours and likely to be correct. Call it an opinion if you want to ignore it and keep on feeling like your winning the day.
post #103 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post


THIS PRODUCT IS NOT GOOD FOR SECURE COMMUNICATION!

This is the reason it will get rejected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_cazorp View Post



I'll pass.

ditto
post #104 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

I don't have time to be your editor, but suffice to say that intelligent people can disagree however much you pretend that they can't. Your story, and your interpretation of anonymouse's (and everyone else's) statements isn't the only one (there is an implied "duh" there I think).

All I can say really is that from my point of view, anonymouse is making cogent interesting points and you are trying to knock them down with a lot of blather that just doesn't make sense or mean much AFAICS.

Every post you make you re-frame something anonymouse has said, essentially changing the meaning of what was said, introducing irrelevant side points and then knocking down the argument that wasn't actually being made.

Like I said, you could be wrong, anonymouse could be wrong, I could be wrong, etc...

but for today, and limited to the arguments presented on this forum, I think anonymouse's ideas are far more sensible than yours and likely to be correct. Call it an opinion if you want to ignore it and keep on feeling like your winning the day.

You don't have time because you are unable. Don't make excuses.

There was no need to 'interpret' A's statements. There was no need to reframe anything, and so I did not. I simply explained where I saw the holes in his arguments. Like I said, if you are able, show me where I was incorrect in my discussion with him?

I could be wrong, except I haven't made any claims to know what might happen. Anonymouse made some statements, in a list, about why he felt Apple would not approve Opera mini for iPhone. 3 points. Each had problems. You accuse me of putting up and knocking down strawmen with regard to A's posts. No need for me to have done so, nor have I. The weakness of any of his arguments speak for themselves. If you can't be right or defend your own positions, at least try to keep it honest.

I will it a little simpler for you: from Anonymouse's post #39, of the three points he makes, that you agree with so strongly...back one of them up. he hasn't been able to. You try. (I expect another dodge, but may be you will surprise me.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #105 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

It seems pretty obvious to me. It launches other executable code on Opera's proxy's, thus falling foul of at least the "otherwise" clause. It uses interpreted code not run by Apple's Documented APIs and built-in interpreter(s) by running JavaScript on those proxies. The quoted restriction doesn't limit itself to "other executable code" or interpreters located on the iPhone. Other browsers or apps with web views are fine because they go through Apple's Documented APIs and built-in interpreter(s).

So if I use the Documented APIs to open a socket to a remote server, then issue commands over that socket, which causes an external executable to interpret that command, return a result and then display the result on the screen, that's fine. Because that's all within the scope of the Documented APIs.

And that's *probably* (because I have no idea) the extent of what opera mini is doing, but based on similar implementation on other devices it's *probably* not too far off the mark.

Yes, I have carefully noted your comment that "Other browsers or apps with web views are fine because they go through Apple's Documented APIs and built-in interpreter(s)."

I'm not sure what you mean by built in interpreters. I mean, the Objective C language could be the built-in interpreter. An app is not written solely with API calls. Any data received has to be processed or interpreted. That's where the intelligence of the App comes into play and becomes a key differentiator between one app and another.

(EDIT: The entire sentence in the agreement is "No interpreted code may be downloaded or used in an Application except for code that is
interpreted and run by Apple's Documented APIs and built-in interpreter(s)." I doubt this would be happening in Opera Mini anyway.)

If an app uses solely the Provided APIs to render an outcome, then what does it matter if what it's rendering is a web page or a jpeg, or text, for that matter?

Take Flickr App for example. It makes calls to the Flickr Server and displays the results. It's permissible even though remote code is being executed on the Flickr server. As you say, that's fine because it's using Documented APIs.

DUPLICATES CORE FUNCTIONALITY. That's the only provision that Apple needs to lean on.
post #106 of 123
{Blatant ad-hom removed}


Gazoobee, being unable to post sensible posts doesn't mean you have to resort to personal attacks. In fact, it is a violation of the posting rules here. Perhaps a quick reread through would help you to understand that. Pointing out the weaknesses of Anonymous' arguments, doesn't make me an asshole, just because you fail to understand the positions presented. Perhaps I am an asshole. But resorting to name calling doesn't make you right. Nor does it make Anonymouse right. I guess if you have nothing intelligent to say, name calling is the next best thing?

As far as being willing to listen to others, that is all I am asking. Positions were taking, statements were made. I am asking for rational explanations of those, as they are demonstrably wrong or nonsensical. For the record, I have not taken a position of if it will be approved nor if it should be approved. But for those trying to give reasons that it will not, they should be able to explain why, and not just post circular arguments or factually inaccurate statements.

I get the idea you think Anonymouse needed some help. He was doing quite well without your 'help', not that it particularly well stated.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #107 of 123
I will try to make this easier for you (again). Here are Anonymouse's points, using his own words but refactored to perhaps help you to read them clearly.

Quote:
I'd be completely and utterly shocked if it were approved because a) it is in fact a browser, regardless of how that functionality is implemented, that violates the terms of the developer agreement.

I'd be completely and utterly shocked if it were approved because b) it is, as you point out, "dangerous" because it, "doesn't provide any of the standard protections people expect to be there," and

I'd be completely and utterly shocked if it were approved because c) Opera are clearly baiting Apple

Now I will ask you two simple things, that you should be able to handle.
1) Which of those did I 'rephrase' and change the meaning of in order to counter?
2) which of those three actually make sense? I have given clear reason why each fails to stand. You see that as blather because you want to agree with Anonymouse and, I think, because you don't actually understand the discussion.

It is only two questions. You ought to be able to come up with some sort of answer. I expect another dodge. Perhaps more name calling. I guess I really don't expect too much from you. I certainly don't expect a well thought out response. Please surprise me.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #108 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

So if I use the Documented APIs to open a socket to a remote server, then issue commands over that socket, which causes an external executable to interpret that command, return a result and then display the result on the screen, that's fine. Because that's all within the scope of the Documented APIs.

[...]

DUPLICATES CORE FUNCTIONALITY. That's the only provision that Apple needs to lean on.

Good points, which more or less shoot down my interpretation of the text from the developers agreement that was quoted earlier. Well done.

But, yes, duplicates core functionality (of WebKit, not just of Mobile Safari) is reason enough to not accept it. Along with the fact that such duplication is likely to have an adverse affect on the iPhone user experience. (For example, sites hosting web apps, or iPhone optimized web sites, may not work as expected, confusion resulting from links not opening in the expected browser, etc.) There is also of course the concern related to SSL sessions not being encrypted end-to-end, which violates user trust and expectations, not to mention actual privacy and security of user information.

I would still be very surprised if Opera Mini ever appeared in the App Store, nor do I think it serves any real purpose for it to. I also don't think Opera expect it to be approved, nor that they have much, if anything, to gain by an approval. I think that upwards of 99.9% of iPhone users will have no interest in using Opera on the iPhone. I do think they are using the entire process mainly as a publicity stunt and, perhaps, given the way they have gone about it, a childish opportunity to tweak Apple's nose.
post #109 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

Now I will ask you two simple things, that you should be able to handle.
1) Which of those did I 'rephrase' and change the meaning of in order to counter?

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

... a) it is in fact a browser, regardless of how that functionality is implemented, that violates the terms of the developer agreement...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

a) Bullshit. Please provide the SDK clause the expressly forbids all browsers...

Perhaps it's a language issue, but nowhere in that quoted text (or anywhere else) did I say that, there is an, "SDK clause the expressly forbids all browsers," as implied by your response.

Stripping that quote from me down to it's most basic meaning, without changing it, it becomes: "... it is in fact a browser that violates the terms of the developer agreement..." To rephrase correctly in even simpler terms: "Opera violates the terms of the developer agreement."
post #110 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Perhaps it's a language issue, but nowhere in that quoted text (or anywhere else) did I say that, there is an, "SDK clause the expressly forbids all browsers," as implied by your response.

Stripping that quote from me down to it's most basic meaning, without changing it, it becomes: "... it is in fact a browser that violates the terms of the developer agreement..." To rephrase correctly in even simpler terms: "Opera violates the terms of the developer agreement."

[edit to remove repeated and repeated arguments-t.]

The only fact, as you state, in your reason for it not being approved, is that it is actually a browser. That was the fact given as the argument. The rest, that it violates the SDK, is at best an opinion. So, if you present a fact as the argument, one has to take that as the argument. That fact being that it is a browser. Opinions are not facts.

If you feel it violates the SDK in some other way, please explain. The fact that it results in remote code being executed is not good enough. All browsers, all network applications result in remote code being executed. If it is because their servers interpret code, explain how that is a violation of the SDK for native apps.

[edit again:I see it is a language issue. I took your usage of the word 'that' as referring to your statement that Opera is a browser. You used it to refer to Opera only. My mistake. But they question still stands. How does it violate the SDK?

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro. 

...sometimes it's both
Reply
post #111 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rankzero View Post

I would easy pay 10 USD or more for this tech on the iPhone! If Steve does not accept this app then he has lost it. Is there any reason not to accept this outstanding app? If it is rejected I would support any legal case against Apple and convince all I know to do the same.

soooo.... did you buy opera for your computer before it was free?
post #112 of 123
Prediction - Apple will reject Opera by claiming it can be used to view porn.
post #113 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

THIS PRODUCT IS NOT GOOD FOR SECURE COMMUNICATION!

MAGIC you've just foiled thousands of dollars of gatekeeper software and subscription services without so much as lifting a finger.

That's a double security whammy - one with the bypassing of encryption, then with the bypassing of gatekeeper controls and firewalls.

It's starting to look quite unlikely that the Opera browser will pass muster, without serious effort on their part to allay these security concerns at the very least for Corporate use.

In short, almost certain FAIL.
post #114 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenRoethig View Post

There's been speculation that Opera is trying to bait Apple into a trap here.



The small print under the "Express" reads: "50 million rides and counting... Transportation pick-up"

One picture being worth a thousand words, I rest my case with the above in favour of Ben's assertion...
post #115 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

The only fact, as you state, in your reason for it not being approved, is that it is actually a browser. That was the fact given as the argument. The rest, that it violates the SDK, is at best an opinion. So, if you present a fact as the argument, one has to take that as the argument. That fact being that it is a browser.

I assure you, you may simply use the rules of English grammar, which has no notion of facts and opinions, to parse my sentences for meaning.
post #116 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post

... Gazoobee, being unable to post sensible posts doesn't mean you have to resort to personal attacks. In fact, it is a violation of the posting rules here. Perhaps a quick reread through would help you to understand that. ..., just because you fail to understand the positions presented. .... I guess if you have nothing intelligent to say, name calling is the next best thing?... I will try to make this easier for you (again).

Here are Anonymouse's points, using his own words but refactored to perhaps help you to read them clearly.

... Now I will ask you two simple things, that you should be able to handle.... It is only two questions. You ought to be able to come up with some sort of answer. I expect another dodge. Perhaps more name calling. I guess I really don't expect too much from you. I certainly don't expect a well thought out response. Please surprise me.

I'm probably making the same mistake as Gazoobee here by jumping in to defend someone, but he is 100% right in his assessment of your character IMO.

Taking a few comments from the last three posts you made, it seems to me that you are basically an angry bully. I can say that without it being an ad hominem attack because the evidence is right above. There isn't another way to interpret your constant peppering of your posts with derogatory remarks about the people you are arguing with.

They very cleverly don't cross the line into ad hominem, but as with most writing it's really about the meaning being imparted, not the technical details. You are meaner, and more insulting to everyone on the forum than Gazoobee ever is.

While you've technically escaped being in the position for anyone to ban you, there are three or four personal attacks and insults in every post you make. You are calling Gazoobee an idiot or a fool over and over again above, but because he called you an a-hole in one post, he is the bad one? If you were even a quarter as smart as you maintain you are, you would see that he is right about his assessment of you even if you disagree on the substance of what you were arguing about.

You seem to actually relish insulting people.

One argument you make is that you are not rephrasing, or misinterpreting anonymouse's remarks yet there are examples in almost every post you make. Above, you admit to "refactoring" anonymouse's remarks yourself. How is that different from "rephrasing?"

The other thing you say over and over again is how people are simply repeating their remarks but that's all you ever do yourself. You completely dominate the thread. The majority of all the posts are either from you or someone responding to you, but the content is pretty much nil. Therefore Gazoobee's comment about you "blathering" or just enjoying the sound of your own voice also seems accurate to me.
post #117 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

It can't get clearer than that.

Except Opera Mini does not interpret code on the phone. It's more like an image viewer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lightstriker View Post

This is the reason it will get rejected.

Except it's just FUD. It works fine for secure communication. The communication between the server and the client is encrypted.
post #118 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by airmanchairman View Post

The small print under the "Express" reads: "50 million rides and counting... Transportation pick-up"

One picture being worth a thousand words, I rest my case with the above in favour of Ben's assertion...

How does a silly marketing stunt equal "baiting Apple into a trap"?

What is the trap exactly?

Also, the 50 million number is referring to the current number of active Opera Mini users.
post #119 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by airmanchairman View Post

That's a double security whammy - one with the bypassing of encryption, then with the bypassing of gatekeeper controls and firewalls.

It doesn't bypass encryption. It supports HTTPS, and the communication between the phone and the proxy is encrypted.

Quote:
It's starting to look quite unlikely that the Opera browser will pass muster, without serious effort on their part to allay these security concerns at the very least for Corporate use.

What security concerns?
post #120 of 123
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike View Post

What security concerns?

Being disingenuous about the security problems of Opera's man-in-the-middle attack style proxying doesn't make them go away.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Opera submits iPhone browser to Apple for App Store review