Haavard

Opera Mini for the iPhone exists, but Apple doesn't allow competition

Tuesday, October 28, 2008 2:11:26 PM

There's an interesting article about Opera at the New York Times BITS blog from yesterday. Of particular interest to those who have been asking for Opera Mini for the iPhone is this part:

Mr. von Tetzchner said that Opera’s engineers have developed a version of Opera Mini that can run on an Apple iPhone, but Apple won’t let the company release it because it competes with Apple’s own Safari browser.

It's pretty well known by now that Apple blocks competitors from their store. I'm not sure if we've ever confirmed that we actually had Opera Mini ready for the iPhone, but now you know that it did exist.

And now you know what keeps you from running Opera on your iPhone.

Update: It seems that the New York Times misquoted Jon. However, Apple's terms still block competitors from their App Store.

Flash 10 is out: Fixes YouTube video freeze after 2 seconds in Opera and FirefoxWhy the Nintendo DSi browser doesn't support Flash

Comments

1 2 Next »

Robin_reala # Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:13:55 PM

I was under the impression that Opera Mini was a J2ME app. Did Opera really rewrite the app in ObjC when it was virtually guaranteed that it wouldn’t be accepted? Sounds suspiciously like spin to me.

Remco Lantingremcolanting # Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:23:06 PM

Java is not allowed on the iphone either

Since it's just 100KB of java, it shouldn't be that much trouble to rewrite.

Anonymous # Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:27:09 PM

Anonymous writes: @Robin_reala Spin this, troll: http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/en/2007/12/06/

MyOpera team, please fix this!fearphage # Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:32:02 PM

What is that saying about absolute power?

http://digg.com/software/Opera_Mini_is_ready_for_the_iPhone_but_blocked_by_Apple

Haavardhaavard # Tuesday, October 28, 2008 3:51:34 PM

Robin_reala: Are you accusing me or Jon S. von Tetzchner of lying?

Opera Mini is already available for non-Java devices. Opera Software also specializes in browsers that are easy to port to new platforms. Our business model revolves around making Opera available on as many different devices as possible. Yes, porting a browser is a lot of work, but we've got many years of experience, and it's been written from the ground up with portability in mind.

Robin_reala # Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:25:02 PM

Hah, honestly wasn't trolling

Anonymous proved me wrong, so I'll willingly hold my hands up and admit it.

Having said that, I still don’t understand why Opera put time and effort into the project when it was obvious that Apple would never accept it. Hope for future possibilities?

Anonymous # Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:33:09 PM

Anonymous writes: @Robin_reala Considering that Apple never tells anyone what they criteria are, it's pure trolling to claim that you know what's "obvious" about their app store and blocking competitors. Get a grip.

Robin_reala # Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:56:52 PM

Wow, people, I’m really not trying to troll here. Give me some credit yeah?

I’m basing my ‘obvious’ statement purely on various reported clauses in the SDK agreement (which I haven’t read myself) where Apple has refused to let software onto the App Store because it duplicates existing functionality. For example, see the Podcaster app and Mailwranger, both of which were denied for that reason. I’d also assumed that Opera Mini would fall foul of the ‘no non-default interpreters’ rule, but thinking more about it that might not be the case?

Angelikiellinidata # Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:57:49 PM

@ Robin reala,
"I still don’t understand why Opera put time and effort into the project when it was obvious that Apple would never accept it. Hope for future possibilities?"

When Opera tries to offer more to it's members/customers/friends,
this offer shouldn't be taken as a loss of effort,
it should be seen as going forward !
If some want to stop or delay this progress,
they are the ones to be blamed not Opera.

Robin_reala # Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:06:11 PM

@ellinidata: I’m not standing up for Apple (their actions are pretty ridiculous), but wouldn’t the effort spent in porting have been better spent in improving existing products for existing users? Then again, maybe Opera’s so trivially portable that it was a mere couple of days work. I wouldn’t know - I’m not an Opera employee and it’s not open source so I can’t answer that question.

Anonymous # Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:14:29 PM

[i]Trolling/spam/personal attacks removed.[/i] [whisper]Anonymous writes: Why would anyone use an inferior Opera Mini browser and engine when Safari has full Acid3 pass(including smoothness criteria), http://webkit.org/blog/280/full-pass-of-acid-3/ significantly faster than anything Opera ever released(you can see the comments on Opera Desktop Team blog, Opera is much slower than latest Gecko and Webkit in Javascript heavy websites and it's very noticable even to blind Opera fanboys there and including the blog owner here), http://webkit.org/blog/214/introducing-squirrelfish-extreme/ has very nice developer tools http://webkit.org/blog/197/web-inspector-redesign/ and has far better standard support and websites compatability(Opera 9.5x/9.6x is laughably bad, just read the comments at the Desktop blog, endless complaints about website compatability that works fine in Gecko or Webkit) and runs natively and looks like a native application that follows the OS UI guidelines instead of a ugly non native browser(lol Opera 9.5/9.6 new skin). No wonder Opera had to hire John Hicks just to make the Mac version don't look horrible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3 Look at Opera Mini, what a joke at rendering Acid3 correctly. Once Apple finishes developing Safari 4 development and releases a new firmware for the iPhone with Safari 4, there's no reason to even use inferior, ugly, non native looking app Opera Mini.[/whisper]

Anonymous # Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:54:56 PM

Anonymous writes: You could always release it on Cydia :-)

Anonymous # Tuesday, October 28, 2008 5:58:49 PM

Anonymous writes: The anonymous guy who commented about Acid3 and Safari 4 is obviously not very up to date on browser tech. Safari and Opera Mini are completely different beasts. Opera Mini is much faster because it uses a proxy server to compress everything. Safari can't do that. Opera is far more compatible than Safari too. Safari fails on far more sites than Opera.

Anonymous # Tuesday, October 28, 2008 6:02:53 PM

Anonymous writes: @Robin_reala "better spent in improving existing products for existing users" Right. Good idea. Stop making new products and reaching new markets. Yeah, that's a smashing business model right there, LOL. Never mind the fact that reaching new markets and getting more users will lead to more income which means that there is more resources available to improve ALL products. Remember, Opera is cross-platform. Improvements on one platform will often benefit other platforms as well.

Hein Torezyph # Tuesday, October 28, 2008 8:23:22 PM

This just pisses me off, and doesn't even make any sense!

How would a competing web browser hurt Apple and/or the iPhone? If OS X was limited to run Safari, and Safari only, how many fewer macs would have been sold? 10%? 20%? I know I never would've bought one.

Mobile Safari is a decent app, but for my usage, Opera Mini would be a far better choice. It's faster, consumes less memory, and synchronizes with my desktop version of Opera. Heck, Mobile Safari doesn't even have a "disable images" preference – it's costing me a fortune to check the latest news!

Maybe you could release Opera Mini for the iPhone through Cydia/Installer, and make it available to those of us who have a jailbroken phone?

Glebgr1b0k # Tuesday, October 28, 2008 8:43:29 PM

http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/en/2007/12/13/
...

Northgrove # Tuesday, October 28, 2008 8:47:52 PM

@Anonymous

"Right. Good idea. Stop making new products and reaching new markets. Yeah, that's a smashing business model right there, LOL."

It's a better idea than trying to get something running on iPhone when Apple won't allow it, or I believe so is Robin's point. But yeah, this effort was (evidently by reading back in this thread) obviously also done for the BREW platform, so it wasn't specifically just for iPhone. Apple's decision shouldn't be surprising though. Unfortunately. I'm not standing up for these jerks either. If Apple was Microsoft here, they'd already be hung by the IT community.

FataL # Tuesday, October 28, 2008 9:50:02 PM

Opera is far more compatible than Safari too. Safari fails on far more sites than Opera.

I would not say so... at least in couple last years. I don't have any statistics but I can say that from my own browsing/web developing experience.

On other note, if you guys would release some video of iPhone Opera Mini browsing that would be great.

Investor # Wednesday, October 29, 2008 4:11:04 AM

> Heck, Mobile Safari doesn't even have a "disable images" preference – it's costing me a fortune to check the latest news! <

Isn't that the iPhone business model, to make deals with carriers, and share traffic revenue

Anonymous # Wednesday, October 29, 2008 6:44:36 AM

Anonymous writes: @FataL Opera is definitely much more compatible with sites than Safari. Just check out the recent test.

Anonymous # Wednesday, October 29, 2008 10:28:06 AM

moosatov writes: I really hope that Opera will strike back and release its' browser on Cydia, Installer or in ipa file.

J. KingMTKnight # Wednesday, October 29, 2008 11:46:36 AM

"Opera is definitely much more compatible with sites than Safari. Just check out the recent test."

What test?

_Grey_ # Wednesday, October 29, 2008 1:33:24 PM

Can someone help me understand why it would be illegal for Opera to release this version of Opera Mini? Is it because Opera used an SDK with an attached license to produce it?

Investor # Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:34:52 PM

Hacker ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_(computer_security)

iPhone users installing Opera Mini, and using it, would undermine Apple's business model, being (as said above) making deals with carriers, and share traffic revenue...

Opera can have no part in that.

Robin_reala # Wednesday, October 29, 2008 3:05:58 PM

@_Grey_: it wouldn’t be illegal, but for Opera to reach the vast majority of user who haven’t jail-broken their iPhones they’d need to go through Apple’s App Store, and therefore through Apple. That’s a problem for the reasons I wrote above.

_Grey_ # Wednesday, October 29, 2008 3:08:50 PM

What about hackers?

Anyway, so users have to agree to a license to use the iPhone that prevents them from using anything that's not in the "store"? Would seem probable, given Apple's reputation for being a lame-ass monopolist and DRM enthusiast.

edit re robin_reala: Ok, I think I get it. Apps need to be signed by Apple to run on the iPhone. Why didn't I think about that.

Anonymous # Wednesday, October 29, 2008 5:02:04 PM

Anonymous writes: @Investor Wouldn't it be in the carrier's interest to minimize data traffic on their network (use Opera Mini) if the data plan is unlimited?

Idan AdarYtseJam # Wednesday, October 29, 2008 5:07:00 PM

Of course, we all find it easy to forget that Opera Software can release Mini via Cydia or Installer...... It's quite a legimate way, many respectable sofrware companies do this. There is absolutly no reason why Opera Sofware should not. There isn't even a technical one. Just the WILL to do so.

Investor # Wednesday, October 29, 2008 5:16:32 PM

> @ Robin_reala : it wouldn’t be illegal, but for Opera to reach the vast majority of user who haven’t jail-broken their iPhones they’d need to go through Apple’s App Store, and therefore through Apple.<

Going through Apple Store is the legal way, but is closed. Leaving jailbreak as only option...

A jailbreak is bypassing digital rights management (DRM). Sounds like hacking to me...

What is not illegal for a iPhone owner, can still be illegal for a competing software vendor. Apple could sue Opera for stealing their revenues, by making Opera Mini available to hackers.

Investor # Wednesday, October 29, 2008 5:33:35 PM

>Anonymous writes: @Investor Wouldn't it be in the carrier's interest to minimize data traffic on their network (use Opera Mini) if the data plan is unlimited?<

Maybe, but irrelevant. Apple was first out, made the deals with the selected carriers...

Next time around, there is more competition, thus Opera Mini got a better chance, becomming second browser onboard (IMO Opera Mini is a must have when phone is used abroad, due to extremely high roaming rates). First browser onboard needs to do flash, video, etc. the stuff OM can't do.

Idan AdarYtseJam # Wednesday, October 29, 2008 5:42:59 PM

Investor, Opera is not jailbreaking anything - the user does - and it's not illegal, but it does cancel the device warranty.

It's got nothing to do with Opera IMO.

Investor # Wednesday, October 29, 2008 6:09:50 PM

If it got nothing to do with Opera, how come Opera needs to be involved, to make it happen...

Opera delievers the tool needed for users to undermine Apples deals with carriers.

What's the law in US, when outside a jewellry store, at night, a masked man asks you to lend him your sledgehammer to break the window. Will you be held responsible ?

Anonymous # Wednesday, October 29, 2008 11:33:04 PM

Olly writes: "Heck, Mobile Safari doesn't even have a "disable images" preference – it's costing me a fortune to check the latest news!" O RLY? Even though the iPhone comes with unlimited* data as part of the contract? * Subject to terms, conditions, fair use clauses etc...

Robin_reala # Thursday, October 30, 2008 8:23:16 AM

@Anonymous: the iPhone has lots of different phone companies around the world, and not all of them provide an unlimited data package.

Idan AdarYtseJam # Thursday, October 30, 2008 8:51:43 AM

Investor, please inform yourself about the iPhone community.
Opera is not providing ANY tools to undermine ANYTHING. What does this has to do with carriers? Your analogy is irrelevent because this is simply not the case.

The "tools" for jailbreaking are not illegal and the user is responsible for them. Opera, does not provide any such tools.

Again, just look around and see just how many legitamate companies are providing their software via Cydia, because Apple blocks them due to "competition".

Anonymous # Thursday, October 30, 2008 9:44:19 AM

Anonymous writes: What legitimate companies are providing their softare via Cydia?

Investor # Thursday, October 30, 2008 10:14:18 AM

@YtseJam,

I read you, now read me..

Apple's deal with carriers :

> Among other things, Apple wanted a percentage of the monthly cellphone fees, say over how and where iPhones could be sold and control of the relationship with iPhone customers, said Jim Gerace, a Verizon Wireless vice president. "We said no <http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2007-01-28-verizon-iphone_x.htmAnumberofcarrierssaidyes...WhathappenswithApple%27sshareofthecarriers>monthly cellphone fees< when iPhone owners use Opera Mini, instead of Safari ?..

I suggest the fees drop, due to Opera Mini compression technology. Apple gets less $. I also suggest Opera gets $ due to search deal with Google...

If the carrier lets Opera Mini in, it may be in breach with term Apple controls > relationship with iPhone customers< . Apple may sue carrier...

Opera Mini would be a Trojan Horse, led into the Apple camp by hackers, to attack Apple's revenue stream, and profit from iPhone's customer base and popularity...

Is it illegal ?.. Ask US lawyers..
Is it good business practice ?.. No

A better strategy is to wait, put pressure on Apple. The word is out there, and must be repeated time and again, that Apple blocks Opera Mini, thus is not respecting the wishes of millions of iPhone users...

This makes Opera the good guy, and Apple the bad guy. Opera image benefits from that, which translates into $ too.

Idan AdarYtseJam # Thursday, October 30, 2008 11:28:07 AM

Apple is already bad guy, blocking numerous applications because they are similar or duplicate "existing functionality" and yet it doesn't seem to bother not Apple nor the consumers (as is clearly stated by the number of iphones sold - people don't care enough). IMO Opera won't recieve any such benefits...

Anonymous # Thursday, October 30, 2008 12:32:26 PM

Anonymous writes: @YtseJam What legitimate companies are providing their softare via Cydia? Stop yapping and come up with some proper answers please!

Idan AdarYtseJam # Thursday, October 30, 2008 12:50:44 PM

Fring in the 1.0 days of the iPhone was offered via Installer.
Fring is not only an IM application, but one is that capable of performing calls via SIP or VOIP and such - clearly working againsts any such deals Apple strike with companies.

Now Fring is offered via the AppStore, while still being in direct competition, yet, Apple allows it...

Fring exists for many years now and is quite successful, yet it was offered via Installer and doesn't appear that the sky have fallen.

Also, small-size companies offer their games applications and such via Cydia, for pay, because Apple won't allow it for the reasons I stated in my previous comment.

I am not avoiding.

Anonymous # Thursday, October 30, 2008 3:30:07 PM

Anonymous writes: Fring? LOL. Opera is a multinational corporation which deals with huge and important customers. Fring can afford to look like amateurs who don't care about rules. Opera, not so much.

Paulo Fierropaulo.fierro # Thursday, October 30, 2008 7:55:06 PM

Anonymous: What about Qik?

Anonymous # Thursday, October 30, 2008 8:33:59 PM

Anonymous writes: What about Qik? Can it be compared to a multinational corporation like Opera with dozens of huge and important customers?

Anonymous # Friday, October 31, 2008 8:55:05 AM

Anonymous writes: "Apple has refused to let software onto the App Store because it duplicates existing functionality" If that is the case, why did they allow Google Earth to replace Maps?

Idan AdarYtseJam # Friday, October 31, 2008 10:12:38 AM

They allow only what suits their purposes and agendas obviously, they're not stupid.

kriko # Friday, October 31, 2008 2:01:44 PM

One of many things iWont do

Another reason why iPhone is crap - you can install what they think is good.

Anonymous # Saturday, November 1, 2008 5:44:12 AM

Anonymous writes: http://www.milw0rm.com/exploits/6884 "Opera 9.62 (opera:allinone) Remote Code Execution Exploit PoC" Another security vulnerability for the update thats suppose to fix vulnerabilities. Why don't Opera fix their browser codebase instead wasting time trying to do things which the IPhone EULA doesn't allow in the first place?

Haavardhaavard # Saturday, November 1, 2008 9:00:26 AM

Opera 9.62 is not affected by that, as far as I know. The reporter apparently forgot to clean his Opera installation after testing it in 9.61.

Maybe this is an unknown concept to angry anonymous posters, but it's actually possible to do several things at once in a company. We have a desktop team dedicated to working on the desktop browser, a core team dedicated to the core, a mobile team dedicated to the mobile version, etc.

Opera Mini and the desktop version have different development teams, so Opera Mini for iPhone is unrelated to the 9.62 security release.

Perhaps the angry anonymous should count to ten before posting in the future. Time to stop posting off-topic comments, I think.

Anonymous # Sunday, November 2, 2008 7:54:52 PM

Anonymous writes: Gotta love those "anonymous people" as sources. Always reliable, and very easy to find. The only emarassing thing here is trolls like YtseJam who refuse to answer questions when asked because he knows he's wrong.

Anonymous # Monday, November 3, 2008 12:35:49 PM

zx writes: what a joke. so apple is afraid of you now? you guys are living in la-la land...it's a phone, not a trash can! and Apple wont let it be one. *nice publicity stunt btw.

1 2 Next »

Showing comments 1 - 50 of 96.