Opera wanted this to happen just to get in. If they were to show a perfect app - Apple may have not approved it. Now that they are "in" They can improve on those features in future updates.
Is Firefox, Chrome and IE going to offer apps???
C-
IE doesn't even have a Mac version there will never been an iPhone one
Have you used Opera on the iPhone? its freaking terrible.
Yes.
The browsing experience is not freaking terrible. It's not fantastic. But it's useful in certain situations.
AFAIC, the Acid 3 test is really only of academic concern for most users. It's a pissing contest between browser makers. I couldn't give a fig what Acid score it gets as long as the content is rendered. For instance, a 5/100 the IE gets really means nothing. It doesn't mean the software fails browsing. The entire www can be rendered by it (at least the entire www that doesn't do something stupid like sniff out user agents and turf a particular class of users). You can go on and on about standards and what not, but to most people it means nothing.
For those that believe having a "choice" should trump functionality. I had a strong feeling that the Opera browser would be utter garbage, I'm sure there will be those vocal supporters that will spin this into something else.
The supporters want to apply the PC-paradigm to the iPhone platform and turn it into the ADHD mess that the PC platform is. So much choice that nothing works well.
If you want to design a great iPhone web-platform, stick with Safari. Eventually the other players will figure that out and either get their apps properly standardized or get out of the field.
Opera wanted this to happen just to get in. If they were to show a perfect app - Apple may have not approved it. Now that they are "in" They can improve on those features in future updates.
Is Firefox, Chrome and IE going to offer apps???
C-
Because Apple's position on the App Store is to only release shitty apps? That doesn't make any sense. Neither does Firefox, Chrome and IE now offering iPhone browser apps. Opera was approved because it doesn't break any of the SDK rules. Namely, there is no local Presto layout engine, all rendering is done server-side.
And this is significant news why? So we can all pad ourselves on the back saying we don't need alternative browsers because they suck anyway? Please. This doesn't deserve an article, it deserves a two line note, if anything.
Because Apple's position on the App Store is to only release shitty apps? That doesn't make any sense. Neither does Firefox, Chrome and IE now offering iPhone browser apps. Opera was approved because it doesn't break any of the SDK rules. Namely, there is no local Presto layout engine, all rendering is done server-side.
I wonder whether the new data gathering exclusions in the new SDK agreement is going to trap apps like this?
Of course Opera Mini isn't going to pass Acid3. The way it works prevents it from doing that. Rendering on a server, remember?
If the server is doing the rendering then it stands to reason that it is the server failing the Acid3 test then doesn't it. Therefore your argument falls over very quickly.
For instance, a 5/100 the IE gets really means nothing. It doesn't mean the software fails browsing. The entire www can be rendered by it (at least the entire www that doesn't do something stupid like sniff out user agents and turf a particular class of users). You can go on and on about standards and what not, but to most people it means nothing.
Is that because it renders the same code as Presto, Gecko, and WebKit, or because these sites are using modern HTML, CSS and JS that require it to first look at which browser is being used and then pushing older code for IE browsers?
The browsing experience is not freaking terrible. It's not fantastic. But it's useful in certain situations.
AFAIC, the Acid 3 test is really only of academic concern for most users. It's a pissing contest between browser makers. I couldn't give a fig what Acid score it gets as long as the content is rendered. For instance, a 5/100 the IE gets really means nothing. It doesn't mean the software fails browsing. The entire www can be rendered by it (at least the entire www that doesn't do something stupid like sniff out user agents and turf a particular class of users). You can go on and on about standards and what not, but to most people it means nothing.
The Acid3 test is an indication of the support for HTML standards not just how a browser displays the page.
As was noted there's a lot of tests that are performed which cover the entire range of HTML support.
Acid3 largely tests HTML5 compatibility and with Apple pushing for HTML5 support it seems logical that their browsers will score highly.
By passing the Acid3 test completely it means Safari - at least desktop Safari - 100% supports HTML5 and so is the best browser for pushing support of the new standard. Desktop Opera is very close behind. FireFox is some way behind and Internet Explorer... well the less said about that the better.
Browsers can browse fine without passing Acid3 only because not many sites are using HTML5 yet but when more come along (something tells me iWeb is going to be instrumental in this for some reason) then browsers that fail Acid3 are not going to display anything properly.
Opera never thought that their browser would be accepted by Apple. Thus, the version they submitted was pretty shitty. Why waste resources on such a big gamble?
Let's wait until version 2 before passing judgement.
Opera never thought that their browser would be accepted by Apple. Thus, the version they submitted was pretty shitty. Why waste resources on such a big gamble?
Let's wait until version 2 before passing judgement.
That's really the lamest defense of crappy software I've ever read, and it's been given twice. Well, most users won't even bother to take a look at v2, so I guess they were too clever for their own good.
Opera never thought that their browser would be accepted by Apple. Thus, the version they submitted was pretty shitty. Why waste resources on such a big gamble?
Let's wait until version 2 before passing judgement.
what an amusing thought: apple approved it to shut them up.
You are kidding, right? You are comparing a mini-browser with the engine on a server to full browsers with the engine locally? If this isn't a joke, this site really needs to start laying off staff... Of course Opera Mini isn't going to pass Acid3. The way it works prevents it from doing that. Rendering on a server, remember? ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike
... It does exactly what it was designed to do. And it isn't supposed to replace full browsers like Opera Mobile or Safari.
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike
... Safari displays pages incorrectly too ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by insike
Not terrible, just different. ...
I guess you are the one man Opera mini defence team today but you really go a bit overboard here.
The reason Acid 3 is important and the reason this article is justified for it's (minimal) taking of Opera to task for failing it, is that Opera itself uses Acid 3 to tout it's superiority in it's own promotional materials and has or a long time. Opera has a history of throwing their Acid scores in everyone's face and making claims about how fantastically compatible they are with web standards.
It seems to me then that it's completely relevant, and quite proper for someone to take them to task for putting out a browser that not only *doesn't* pass Acid 3, but is forever incapable of passing Acid 3. This browser will literally *never* be standards compliant (by design!) as you yourself mention.
Secondly, you try to equate Safari with Opera by saying that Safari doesn't render pages properly either, but it's strictly Apples and Oranges and you know it. There are huge, noticeable, visual differences between pages rendered with Opera mini and the same page rendered on a standards compliant browser that the end user can see and have commented on. People have been posting all over the web about it as well as in the comments for the app in the store. That's completely a different order of "error" than Safari getting a 100/100 score and rendering a couple of minor page elements slightly differently.
Finally, you several times use the defence that Opera "isn't supposed to replace full browsers," but there is nothing about that on the app store page they sell it from. I've never heard anyone from Opera make this claim before either.
You are just twisting things around and making stuff up to suit your argument and are clearly biased.
Comments
Opera wanted this to happen just to get in. If they were to show a perfect app - Apple may have not approved it. Now that they are "in" They can improve on those features in future updates.
Is Firefox, Chrome and IE going to offer apps???
C-
IE doesn't even have a Mac version there will never been an iPhone one
What is the point of rendering (term used loosely) a page more quickly if one has to decipher its legibility?
Pass for now..cya in a couple months, Opera.
Have you used Opera on the iPhone? its freaking terrible.
Yes.
The browsing experience is not freaking terrible. It's not fantastic. But it's useful in certain situations.
AFAIC, the Acid 3 test is really only of academic concern for most users. It's a pissing contest between browser makers. I couldn't give a fig what Acid score it gets as long as the content is rendered. For instance, a 5/100 the IE gets really means nothing. It doesn't mean the software fails browsing. The entire www can be rendered by it (at least the entire www that doesn't do something stupid like sniff out user agents and turf a particular class of users). You can go on and on about standards and what not, but to most people it means nothing.
What's the point of this browser? Really.
For those that believe having a "choice" should trump functionality. I had a strong feeling that the Opera browser would be utter garbage, I'm sure there will be those vocal supporters that will spin this into something else.
The supporters want to apply the PC-paradigm to the iPhone platform and turn it into the ADHD mess that the PC platform is. So much choice that nothing works well.
If you want to design a great iPhone web-platform, stick with Safari. Eventually the other players will figure that out and either get their apps properly standardized or get out of the field.
Opera wanted this to happen just to get in. If they were to show a perfect app - Apple may have not approved it. Now that they are "in" They can improve on those features in future updates.
Is Firefox, Chrome and IE going to offer apps???
C-
Because Apple's position on the App Store is to only release shitty apps? That doesn't make any sense. Neither does Firefox, Chrome and IE now offering iPhone browser apps. Opera was approved because it doesn't break any of the SDK rules. Namely, there is no local Presto layout engine, all rendering is done server-side.
Because Apple's position on the App Store is to only release shitty apps? That doesn't make any sense. Neither does Firefox, Chrome and IE now offering iPhone browser apps. Opera was approved because it doesn't break any of the SDK rules. Namely, there is no local Presto layout engine, all rendering is done server-side.
I wonder whether the new data gathering exclusions in the new SDK agreement is going to trap apps like this?
After over a million downloads in this short period of time, I think it's clear to Jobs that people DO want choice in their browsers.
Of course Opera Mini isn't going to pass Acid3. The way it works prevents it from doing that. Rendering on a server, remember?
If the server is doing the rendering then it stands to reason that it is the server failing the Acid3 test then doesn't it. Therefore your argument falls over very quickly.
For instance, a 5/100 the IE gets really means nothing. It doesn't mean the software fails browsing. The entire www can be rendered by it (at least the entire www that doesn't do something stupid like sniff out user agents and turf a particular class of users). You can go on and on about standards and what not, but to most people it means nothing.
Is that because it renders the same code as Presto, Gecko, and WebKit, or because these sites are using modern HTML, CSS and JS that require it to first look at which browser is being used and then pushing older code for IE browsers?
Guys, this browser is not meant to replace safari. If something doesn't render correctly in opera, open safari and get. over. it.
After over a million downloads in this short period of time, I think it's clear to Jobs that people DO want choice in their browsers.
I think it's more of a curiosity than anything. The real test would be how much traffic this generates and how long it continues to generate.
Yes.
The browsing experience is not freaking terrible. It's not fantastic. But it's useful in certain situations.
AFAIC, the Acid 3 test is really only of academic concern for most users. It's a pissing contest between browser makers. I couldn't give a fig what Acid score it gets as long as the content is rendered. For instance, a 5/100 the IE gets really means nothing. It doesn't mean the software fails browsing. The entire www can be rendered by it (at least the entire www that doesn't do something stupid like sniff out user agents and turf a particular class of users). You can go on and on about standards and what not, but to most people it means nothing.
The Acid3 test is an indication of the support for HTML standards not just how a browser displays the page.
As was noted there's a lot of tests that are performed which cover the entire range of HTML support.
Acid3 largely tests HTML5 compatibility and with Apple pushing for HTML5 support it seems logical that their browsers will score highly.
By passing the Acid3 test completely it means Safari - at least desktop Safari - 100% supports HTML5 and so is the best browser for pushing support of the new standard. Desktop Opera is very close behind. FireFox is some way behind and Internet Explorer... well the less said about that the better.
Browsers can browse fine without passing Acid3 only because not many sites are using HTML5 yet but when more come along (something tells me iWeb is going to be instrumental in this for some reason) then browsers that fail Acid3 are not going to display anything properly.
Let's wait until version 2 before passing judgement.
Opera never thought that their browser would be accepted by Apple. Thus, the version they submitted was pretty shitty. Why waste resources on such a big gamble?
Let's wait until version 2 before passing judgement.
That's really the lamest defense of crappy software I've ever read, and it's been given twice. Well, most users won't even bother to take a look at v2, so I guess they were too clever for their own good.
Opera never thought that their browser would be accepted by Apple. Thus, the version they submitted was pretty shitty. Why waste resources on such a big gamble?
Let's wait until version 2 before passing judgement.
what an amusing thought: apple approved it to shut them up.
You are kidding, right? You are comparing a mini-browser with the engine on a server to full browsers with the engine locally? If this isn't a joke, this site really needs to start laying off staff... Of course Opera Mini isn't going to pass Acid3. The way it works prevents it from doing that. Rendering on a server, remember? ...
... It does exactly what it was designed to do. And it isn't supposed to replace full browsers like Opera Mobile or Safari.
... Safari displays pages incorrectly too ...
Not terrible, just different. ...
I guess you are the one man Opera mini defence team today but you really go a bit overboard here.
The reason Acid 3 is important and the reason this article is justified for it's (minimal) taking of Opera to task for failing it, is that Opera itself uses Acid 3 to tout it's superiority in it's own promotional materials and has or a long time. Opera has a history of throwing their Acid scores in everyone's face and making claims about how fantastically compatible they are with web standards.
It seems to me then that it's completely relevant, and quite proper for someone to take them to task for putting out a browser that not only *doesn't* pass Acid 3, but is forever incapable of passing Acid 3. This browser will literally *never* be standards compliant (by design!) as you yourself mention.
Secondly, you try to equate Safari with Opera by saying that Safari doesn't render pages properly either, but it's strictly Apples and Oranges and you know it. There are huge, noticeable, visual differences between pages rendered with Opera mini and the same page rendered on a standards compliant browser that the end user can see and have commented on. People have been posting all over the web about it as well as in the comments for the app in the store. That's completely a different order of "error" than Safari getting a 100/100 score and rendering a couple of minor page elements slightly differently.
Finally, you several times use the defence that Opera "isn't supposed to replace full browsers," but there is nothing about that on the app store page they sell it from. I've never heard anyone from Opera make this claim before either.
You are just twisting things around and making stuff up to suit your argument and are clearly biased.