First look: Opera Mini for iPhone

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 85
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,757member
    Doesn't sound good at all.
  • Reply 22 of 85
    What about the speed of navigating back? Safari on iPhone is hopelessly slow when you go to the previous page (cache nowhere to be seen). Safari could be improved a lot when looking at what speed Opera Mini can go to previous pages.
  • Reply 23 of 85
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Some of you folks are waaaay too picky with your points.



    YouTube




    As the video shows here, Opera clearly has a purpose and that is usage on 2G networks or in instances where the network is slow. There are times when having the "real internet" sucks because you are downloading it at 5-10k per second. Safari is great most of the time but if I'm driving with the wife from Los Angeles to Salt Lake City and I'm stuck in the passenger seat for hundreds of miles of 2G coverage, I'm pulling out Opera.
  • Reply 24 of 85
    I noticed Opera Mini kicks you out of its browser and into Safari to show video.
  • Reply 25 of 85
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Glockpop View Post


    WebKit is pretty much the only mobile browser engine anyone uses.



    Sorry, but you are wrong. First graphic is for desktop, second for mobile:



    Opera Hits 100 Million Users, Leads in Mobile, Lags on Desktop





    RT.
  • Reply 26 of 85
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    I disagree. From the perspective of a consumer, it is good only when it inspires positive changes for the consumer in the form of lower prices and/or better performance. Allowing Opera onto Safari will not inspire any changes to Apple's Safari that Apple doesn't already have in mind itself.



    Opera's biggest feature is it's speed. It achieves the speed in a way that Apple isn't going to implement because of the aforementioned downsides. For instance, you can't do banking on Opera [it doesn't allow encryption] and it ignores sites that have special mobile set ups.









    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacTel View Post


    Competition is always good. Apple could use the inspiration for the next release of the mobile Safari browser.



  • Reply 27 of 85
    kotatsukotatsu Posts: 1,010member
    I am stunned (and very pleased) Apple have allowed this into the app store.



    I assume then we'll be seeing Fennec later this year then? The sky would be the limit then, adblock, x-marks, invisible hand, Adobe Flash...



    Now I just need a nice new iPhone 4G/HD to replace my slow as treacle iPhone 3G.
  • Reply 28 of 85
    nasdarqnasdarq Posts: 137member
    Just downloaded it; indeed works much faster than Safari, and I like the real tabs that don't require reloading ...



    The extremely small text of the default versions of most websites is annoying though. And the click-to-zoom option is a bit brusque. The scroll also lacks fluency ...
  • Reply 29 of 85
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,757member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TBell View Post


    I disagree. From the perspective of a consumer, it is good only when it inspires positive changes for the consumer in the form of lower prices and/or better performance. Allowing Opera onto Safari will not inspire any changes to Apple's Safari that Apple doesn't already have in mind itself.



    How do you know this? You have insider knowledge as to what Apple's future plans are or might be? It is too simple to write of any contributions Opera (or anyone else) might make by saying Apple already has it in mind.



    As for the primary feature of page caching, who knows, maybe that is something Apple will adopt for non-secure site only. Gotta make use of that gigantic new data centre. (though unlikely)
  • Reply 30 of 85
    djrumpydjrumpy Posts: 1,116member
    Did anyone else find the zoom (all or nothing) extremely irritating? Some of my favorite sites were impossible to view due to all of the scrolling required. I'll stick with Safari unless something better comes along.
  • Reply 31 of 85
    sensisensi Posts: 346member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Glockpop View Post


    WebKit is pretty much the only mobile browser engine anyone uses. Firefox has Fennec, but its pretty scarce.



    Firefox's engine is gecko, Fennec is/was just a codename for firefox mobile version.
  • Reply 32 of 85
    schmidm77schmidm77 Posts: 223member
    Pages load fast, but text is rendered horribly. Zooming "works" but is not nearly as fluid as you would expect on the iPhone.



    This software illustrates the case for using native toolkits for development.
  • Reply 33 of 85
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    This is one app that sucks horribly. Nothing about it is good, at all. I liked the idea of web browser competition, IF it has some identifiable purpose or benefit. This pathetic excuse for an iPhone app has none of the above?



    Speed? There is no speed. This is, at best, half as fast as Safari.



    The web? Its not the web. I went to 5 websites and not one was recognizable as the page I go to everyday.



    Tabs? They're not tabs. They're other windows, that take up less screen space than they should. And for the sake of memory usage, best practice is still to keep only one active window, or risk crashing.



    Worthless. It's a damn good thing that this app is free, because its not worth 5 cents.



    Important Note: I like how everyone makes a big a deal about this coming to the iPhone for no reason other than the recognizable brand name. It's pathetic. Guess what? There have been other (useful!) web browsers in the App Store since July 08. Ones that actually serve a purpose, show the entire web, and WORK. Ever hear of Full Screen Web Browser? No? Sorry its not called Firefox, but its a fast web browser that's been in the app store for two years, and features ultra simple navigation. It auto hides the address bar for full screen browsing...shake to reveal browser controls. This is what you call innovative and competitive. Not ones that slap a recognizable brand name on a rotten app, just to drive downloads. Notice all the advertising on Operas "app support" page? I doubt this app serves any purpose other than those ads.
  • Reply 34 of 85
    sensisensi Posts: 346member
    .removed.
  • Reply 35 of 85
    zindakozindako Posts: 468member
    Not sure if anyone else truly tried out the new Opera browser for the iPhone, but I found it terrible, its not very clean, the flick scrolling was horrid, the web page layouts were not formatted well, the tab browsing was not very smooth. I just find Safari on the iPhone to be a way superior product right now, and I will continue to use it. Sorry, but Opera missed the bullseye on this one by a mile.
  • Reply 36 of 85
    mariomario Posts: 348member
    Ridiculously slow. I tried navigating to BBC news in Opera. It took more than 2 minutes to render the page.



    It took only 10 seconds in Safari.



    This is in iPhone 3G.
  • Reply 37 of 85
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    ... which compress the content photos and other data before relaying it to your brewer.



    'brewer'? Now there's a killer app!
  • Reply 38 of 85
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by insike View Post


    Huh? So WebKit is the standard engine on the web? Wow.



    No, but it is the most standards-compliant engine on the web. For a while it was Gecko but those days are past. Opera is at least ahead of Trident/Internet Explorer.
  • Reply 39 of 85
    bobrkbobrk Posts: 36member
    You guys knew that there is a "mobile" FB site and a "Touch" FB site, right?
  • Reply 40 of 85
    Keep in mind that the price you pay for the increased speed by compression is that all your internet browsing goes through Opera servers. The question you have to ask is do you trust them? I am sure they use the statistics from all that data to make money somehow.
Sign In or Register to comment.