Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Opera Mini Not Rejected From iPhone (Yet)

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the fat-lady-sings dept.

Software 202

danaris writes in to inform us that John Gruber has done some digging on the reported rejection from the App Store of Opera Mini, and has written up his findings. Some choice excerpts: "My understanding, based on information from informed sources who do not wish to be identified because they were not authorized by their employers, is that Opera has developed an iPhone version of Opera Mini — but they haven't even submitted it to Apple, let alone had it be rejected. ... If what they've done for the iPhone is [to get] a Java ME runtime running on the iPhone — it's clearly outside the bounds of the iPhone SDK Agreement. ... What Opera would need to do to have a version of Opera Mini they could submit to the App Store would be to port the entire client software to the C and Objective-C APIs officially supported on the iPhone. It could well be that even then, Apple would reject it from the App Store on anti-competitive grounds — but contrary to this week's speculation, that has not happened."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

first post (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25599427)

Fuck Apple and the iPhone, cuz I've got the FP!!!!

PS
OPERA > ALL

Flacid penis? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25599447)

That's nothing to get very excited about, is it?

Re:Flacid penis? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25599573)

That's nothing to get very excited about, is it?

Au contraire. It means the V1@6RA has finally worn off and I won't need to visit the doctor.

Re:first post (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25599459)

Android > iPhone

FUCK APPLE!

Re:first post (0, Offtopic)

Wovel (964431) | more than 5 years ago | (#25599581)

Lol that should have been rated funny.

Why... (2)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#25599451)

...would they port the JavaME version? Doesn't that seem a bit circuitous when Apple provides a sophisticated toolkit to compile their Mac codebase down? It's not like the iPhone is underpowered.

Something doesn't quite seem right here.

Barack Obama is a macintosh user! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25599495)

A couple weeks ago, while browsing around the library downtown, I had to take a piss. As I entered the john, Barack Obama -- the messiah himself -- came out of one of the booths. I stood at the urinal looking at him out of the corner of my eye as he washed his hands. He didn't once look at me. He was busy and in any case I was sure the secret service wouldn't even let me shake his hand.

As soon as he left I darted into the booth he'd vacated, hoping there might be a lingering smell of shit and even a seat still warm from his sturdy ass. I found not only the smell but the shit itself. He'd forgotten to flush. And what a treasure he had left behind. Three or four beautiful specimens floated in the bowl. It apparently had been a fairly dry, constipated shit, for all were fat, stiff, and ruggedly textured. The real prize was a great feast of turd -- a nine inch gastrointestinal triumph as thick as his cock -- or at least as I imagined it!

I knelt before the bowl, inhaling the rich brown fragrance and wondered if I should obey the impulse building up inside me. I'd always been a liberal democrat and had been on the Obama train since last year. Of course I'd had fantasies of meeting him, sucking his cock and balls, not to mention sucking his asshole clean, but I never imagined I would have the chance. Now, here I was, confronted with the most beautiful five-pound turd I'd ever feasted my eyes on, a sausage fit to star in any fantasy and one I knew to have been hatched from the asshole of Barack Obama, the chosen one.

Why not? I plucked it from the bowl, holding it with both hands to keep it from breaking. I lifted it to my nose. It smelled like rich, ripe limburger (horrid, but thrilling), yet had the consistency of cheddar. What is cheese anyway but milk turning to shit without the benefit of a digestive tract?

I gave it a lick and found that it tasted better then it smelled.

I hesitated no longer. I shoved the fucking thing as far into my mouth as I could get it and sucked on it like a big half nigger cock, beating my meat like a madman. I wanted to completely engulf it and bit off a large chunk, flooding my mouth with the intense, bittersweet flavor. To my delight I found that while the water in the bowl had chilled the outside of the turd, it was still warm inside. As I chewed I discovered that it was filled with hard little bits of something I soon identified as peanuts. He hadn't chewed them carefully and they'd passed through his body virtually unchanged. I ate it greedily, sending lump after peanutty lump sliding scratchily down my throat. My only regret was that Barack Obama wasn't there to see my loyalty and wash it down with his piss.

I soon reached a terrific climax. I caught my cum in the cupped palm of my hand and drank it down. Believe me, there is no more delightful combination of flavors than the hot sweetness of cum with the rich bitterness of shit. It's even better than listening to an Obama speech!

Afterwards I was sorry that I hadn't made it last longer. But then I realized that I still had a lot of fun in store for me. There was still a clutch of virile turds left in the bowl. I tenderly fished them out, rolled them into my handkerchief, and stashed them in my briefcase. In the week to come I found all kinds of ways to eat the shit without bolting it right down. Once eaten it's gone forever unless you want to filch it third hand out of your own asshole. Not an unreasonable recourse in moments of desperation or simple boredom.

I stored the turds in the refrigerator when I was not using them but within a week they were all gone. The last one I held in my mouth without chewing, letting it slowly dissolve. I had liquid shit trickling down my throat for nearly four hours. I must have had six orgasms in the process.

I often think of Barack Obama dropping solid gold out of his sweet, pink asshole every day, never knowing what joy it could, and at least once did, bring to a grateful democrat.

Re:Barack Obama is a macintosh user! (1)

GrimLordJesus (1394523) | more than 5 years ago | (#25599541)

Oh lawd!

Re:Barack Obama is a macintosh user! (1)

ClassMyAss (976281) | more than 5 years ago | (#25600513)

Of course this came from livejournal, I don't know why I didn't assume that right off the bat: source [livejournal.com]

Re:Why... (5, Insightful)

farnsworth (558449) | more than 5 years ago | (#25599503)

...would they port the JavaME version? Doesn't that seem a bit circuitous when Apple provides a sophisticated toolkit to compile their Mac codebase down? It's not like the iPhone is underpowered.

Something doesn't quite seem right here.

I know little about Opera, but:

it works like this: You request a URL in Opera Mini. Opera Mini makes the request to a proxy server run by Opera. Operaâ(TM)s proxy server connects to the web server hosting the requested URL, and renders the page into an image. This image is then transmitted (in a proprietary format called OBML â" Opera Binary Markup Language) to the Opera Mini client. Opera Mini displays the rendered image on screen. This may sound convoluted, but apparently the result is very effective â" itâ(TM)s faster to transmit, because only OBML (a compressed binary format) is transmitted to the mobile device over the phone network, and far faster to render on slow mobile processors.

Opera Mini is probably a Java app, so it can run on the most number of phones. Porting a JVM that only needs to support a few select bits is vastly easier than porting a full-blown rendering engine from c/cpp to obj c.

Re:Why... (-1, Flamebait)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#25599559)

See, that's also confusing. When you have a fully featured browser already in the phone, why compete with a substandard browser that's incapable of surfing anything more than static sites? About the only thing that makes sense is that this was all a publicity stunt.

Re:Why... (1)

ciej (868027) | more than 5 years ago | (#25599905)

we wouldn't want competition would we.

Re:Why... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25600383)

In a perfect Apple world, everything apple does is best. Everything else is crap and something we just dont need. I think the grandparent belongs to the class of Apple fanboys, who dont like the iphones for the variety of applications, but just because its from Apple. As long as such fools exist, who arent open to choice, Apple will continue to persist with such draconian, non-open market place where your app can get rejected based on what Apple thinks at that point of time.
Dont get me wrong that I m too critical, but this is words of a developer who also got his app rejected. Apple, you SUCK!

Re:Why... (5, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25600101)

See, that's also confusing. When you have a fully featured browser already in the phone, why compete with a substandard browser that's incapable of surfing anything more than static sites?

I can clearly see that you've never used Opera Mini. I've used Opera Mini to read and post on Slashdot. It works just fine.

Re:Why... (1)

swabeui (1291044) | more than 5 years ago | (#25600159)

The proxy renders the page upon request, so dynamic content is fine. Opera on my phone runs great and I wouldn't swap it for anything out there today.

Quite frankly, who cares if it is a publicity stunt? Apple even suggesting they would block the app is the same as blocking it in my book. Why would anybody spent the time and money for a 'maybe'? If they were not up on their high horses and just allowed competing apps there would be no story.

Re:Why... (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 5 years ago | (#25601381)

If it is a publicity stunt then why the uproar? opera mini is a joke compared to safari mobile that the iphone has. I can tell you this more people use the iphone to browse the web than any other mobile browser. maybe because it isn't a toy browser that limits options. Safari mobile works well on regular web pages not stupid mobile ones.

Re:Why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25600409)

A page that's 200kB on a normal browser will be about 20kB on Opera Mini because it compresses text and reduces the size of the images. This isn't a big deal if you're browsing over WiFi, but data over the mobile network is painfully slow, especially if you're out of the 3G coverage area.

Re:Why... (2, Insightful)

that this is not und (1026860) | more than 5 years ago | (#25600515)

When you have a fully featured browser already in the phone,

When you have a full featured browser (I.E.) already in windows.....

Re:Why... (1)

SleepingWaterBear (1152169) | more than 5 years ago | (#25600721)

To be fair to the GP, IE doesn't really qualify as 'fully featured'. I for one consider things like full support for css and compliance with well established internet standards rather important missing features, and that's not even mentioning the huge range of features IE is missing that appear as add-ons in other browsers.

If IE were actually fully featured (and if I still ran windows) I would probably use it.

Re:Why... (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#25600729)

When you have a full featured browser (I.E.) already in windows.....

For incredibly forgiving definitions of "fully featured". There was a time when IE was the absolute best web browser on the market. I was a huge fan of Netscape at the time, but I told everyone who would listen that IE5 was THE ANSWER. It was a wonderful browser in its time.

However, it hasn't budged an inch. IE7 is IE5 with tabs and a few minor fixes. Basic stuff like DOM constants, DOM2 support, CSS layout, Javascript compliance, etc, etc, etc, are all broken according to the standards that Microsoft helped layout 10 years ago. On top of that, IE is slow, clunky, and a massive security hazard.

The situation with Safari and Opera Mini is quite the opposite. Safari is fast, fully featured, standards compliant, and more than sufficient for surfing the web. Whereas Opera will tell you on their own site that Opera Mini can only do basic AJAX and is useless for anything that requires setTimeout/setInterval. However, Opera has a true competitor in the form of their desktop browser codebase. As the Wii version demonstrates, Opera is very adept at stripping down their browser to a minimal desktop environment. Why don't they put their best foot forward with that solution rather than trying to push a solution they know will be rejected due to the Java requirement?

It doesn't make any sense. Unless it's a publicity stunt. That's the only answer that makes a lick of sense.

Re:Why... (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 5 years ago | (#25601107)

...IE5 was THE ANSWER. It was a wonderful browser in its time.

Unless you were running the Mac version, where... well, let's just say, along with Dr. Erhardt, that to refer to it as wretched would have been an insult to the word "wretched".

Re:Why... (1)

Keeper Of Keys (928206) | more than 5 years ago | (#25601711)

IE 5 for Mac was actually more standards-compliant than its Windows equivalent, having been largely built from the ground up. Sure, it had bugs but what software doesn't? The main problem with IE, on both Mac and Windows, is that development was abandoned - forever on Mac, but for a good long while on Windows, too. This is why Microsoft lost their competitive edge (and then some) in the browser world.

Re:Why... (3, Interesting)

michaelhood (667393) | more than 5 years ago | (#25600875)

See, that's also confusing. When you have a fully featured browser already in the phone, why compete with a substandard browser that's incapable of surfing anything more than static sites?

Are you just making things up as you go along, or..?

Opera Mini supports a great deal of JavaScript / "AJAX" functionality (I frequently use it to access various Google services, including the full Gmail), and for many users might prove more favorable than the iPhone Safari due to its proxy/caching features.

If Apple still refuses Opera's app in native (non-JVM) form, this can't be called anything other than anti-competitive.

Re:Why... (1)

ClassMyAss (976281) | more than 5 years ago | (#25600523)

Porting a JVM that only needs to support a few select bits is vastly easier than porting a full-blown rendering engine from c/cpp to obj c.

Hm? C++/Objective C mixing is pretty straightforward, I've never had any problems at all using pre-existing C++ libraries in iPhone projects, there are just little things like making sure you're using the right forms of standard library calls and stuff like that.

Re:Why... (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 5 years ago | (#25601195)

porting a full-blown rendering engine from c/cpp to obj c.

The point of Opera Mini is that it doesn't have a "full-blown rendering engine" in it - that's why it works on pretty much any J2ME-enabled phone out there, even 5-year old models.

Re:Why... (4, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#25599521)

Having read the article in greater depth, I see that the author has made a few incorrect assumptions. One of them appears to be that if it's not Opera Mini, it is therefore Opera JavaME. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Not only does Opera have their Opera Mobile [wikipedia.org] product that is designed to run on a variety of non-Java smartphones, but they also have products like the Wii Internet Channel [wikipedia.org] . The Internet Channel is a stripped down version of the desktop browser running in an environment that's not too dissimilar to the iPhone.

So take the information in the article with a large grain of salt.

Re:Why... (3, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#25599575)

Correction to myself. I misunderstood what the author was saying. He was saying that Opera Mini is a JavaME browser, not that anything other than Opera Mini is a JavaME browser. My mistake.

Re:Why... (1)

AnonGCB (1398517) | more than 5 years ago | (#25599531)

There's also the fact that Apple would most likely shut down any competition to their iphone's browser. They've been known to do that sort of thing.

Re:Why... (1)

Zathain Sicarius (1398033) | more than 5 years ago | (#25599611)

Wait, but what would be the point of shutting down Opera for making a browser that would cause some people to like their iPhone more? Is Apple selling the browser built into their iPhone or something...? I don't really see any competition that would be detrimental to apple's profits or... anything for that matter.

Re:Why... (0)

Free the Cowards (1280296) | more than 5 years ago | (#25599653)

What would be the point of shutting down Podcaster [nextdayoff.com] for making a podcast listening app that would cause some people to like their iPhone more? Who the hell knows, but that's what they did.

Re:Why... (2, Interesting)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 5 years ago | (#25599693)

The best thing i can come up with would be the duplication factor.

People might waste bandwidth downloading podcasts in podcaster, the forthcoming 2.2 firmware that allows podcast downloads, and then also on the itunes system they manage the thing with.

Thats three downloads the podcast host sees (and therefor also the advertiser) but only one actual listener.

Re:Why... (1, Insightful)

Free the Cowards (1280296) | more than 5 years ago | (#25599735)

There's certainly a lot of speculation, and I'll grant that your idea seems at least vaguely reasonable. (Although I don't really see why Apple would care about the bandwidth bills of podcasters they aren't even affiliated with.)

But it's all just speculation. Apple doesn't believe in communication outside of official events, and true to form they have not commented on their reasons in any way. Maybe it's bandwidth duplication, maybe it's because it does something iTunes does, maybe it's because Steve was having a bad day, we don't know and never will.

In the absence of a firm policy from Apple, it's reasonable to think that other apps which imitate Apple's apps may also be subjected to refusal on similar grounds.

Re:Why... (1)

omeomi (675045) | more than 5 years ago | (#25600235)

People might waste bandwidth downloading podcasts in podcaster, the forthcoming 2.2 firmware that allows podcast downloads, and then also on the itunes system they manage the thing with.

I hadn't heard that 2.2 was going to include podcast downloads. That's fantastic. It also explains why they shut down Podcaster, because Apple doesn't allow you to compete with their apps on the iPhone.

Re:Why... (-1, Redundant)

that this is not und (1026860) | more than 5 years ago | (#25600543)

Apple has never allowed competition on their platforms. They control the vertical. They control the horizontal.

Re:Why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25600595)

Can you imagine how many people would ask for refunds on podcaster if it went up on the store and Apple added equivalent functionality a few weeks later? Just saying.

Re:Why... (1)

ClassMyAss (976281) | more than 5 years ago | (#25600545)

Integrated search in iPhone Safari is through Google, and you only have the option to switch to Yahoo; maybe there's some sort of financial incentive for Apple coming along with each of those?

Re:Why... (1)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 5 years ago | (#25600065)

I'm confused as to why this is accepted behavior from Apple when Microsoft got raked over the coals for merely bundling a browser in the first place.

Re:Why... (1)

omeomi (675045) | more than 5 years ago | (#25600221)

I think it's because Microsoft has, or at least had, a near monopoly on the OS market. That changes things.

Re:Why... (2, Informative)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 5 years ago | (#25600941)

Even if you view this as anti-competitive, it's perfectly ok for Apple to be anti-competitive unless they have a monopoly in the relevant market (ie: phones).

They don't, so it's fine. Microsoft did, so it was a problem.

Hope that clears things up...

Different shit, same smell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25599469)

So for now the only issue is that Apple's closed system and iron-fisted grip means that the arbitrary rule that Java mustn't be allowed to run on iPhone is the stupid close-minded thing holding developers back this week.

Wonderful.

Re:Different shit, same smell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25600137)

Apple's closed system and iron-fisted grip

You just described Steve Jobs' sex with the other MacFags. Being able to take a whole fist in the ass a proud rite of passage in the MacFag's life.

Why? (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#25599539)

Why exactly is Apple worried about people making different browsers/media players for the iPhone/iPod touch? They already paid the ~$250 for Safari/iPod player so why does it matter if they want to use VLC instead and use Opera to browse? They bought the hardware. I could understand them rejecting such projects as an Amazon MP3 store or something, but media players and browsers? Come on Apple, we already gave you our $$$ for that.

Re:Why? (1)

MBCook (132727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25599603)

I'm not sure about media players (could be iTunes related), but remember that Mozilla gets quite a bit of revenue due to the Google search in Firefox. Ignoring how Apple likes to control things in general, it's a fair assumption they get a little bit of money when someone searches for something and then clicks an ad, just like Mozilla does.

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#25599617)

Because Opera / VLC provides a different user experience than Safari / iTunes.

And Apple cares about apps attempting to allow the user to change their usage experience.

This isn't about what the end user wants, it's about what Apple wants.

If VLC users have to get used to iTunes, and Opera users have to get used to Safari to use the iPhone...

They will be more likely to get rid of their PCs, get Macs, get iPods, and buy all their music from the iTunes store.

Apple is selling a package, and they want all their users to buy into that package.

Anyone pushing a different media player, browser, or alternative to a base Apple product (even a free Apple product) is a threat to the Apple vision and... sales in the future.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25601053)

'Because Opera / VLC provides a different user experience than Safari / iTunes. '

Yes a better experience, Safari is quite unstable on the iPhone!

No the problem with apple is not the bad excuse you say, it is they want to have ABSOLUTLY control over their users, with an Apple piece of hardware you are so vendor locked, that even Microsoft seems like open source,

Apple knows that people out there can make a lot better browsers, and music players than apple can, and therefore they stopped it via a very very user/owner unfriendly NDA.

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 5 years ago | (#25599635)

Why exactly is Apple worried about people making different browsers/media players for the iPhone/iPod touch? They already paid the ~$250 for Safari/iPod player so why does it matter if they want to use VLC instead and use Opera to browse? They bought the hardware. I could understand them rejecting such projects as an Amazon MP3 store or something, but media players and browsers? Come on Apple, we already gave you our $$$ for that.

The point of the article is that we don't know whether Opera will be accepted or not. I'm inclined to think that Opera will be accepted (or at least the concept has been previously approved by Apple), so this is probably a pointless conversation.

What I mean is, I hope the Opera people aren't stupid enough to put resources toward developing an iPhone version of their browser without getting pre-approval from Apple that such a thing would be accepted. To my knowledge, nobody has yet tried to submit a browser to Apple, so it seems premature to thrown Apple under the bus until we really have a clue.

Re:Why? (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 5 years ago | (#25599701)

It won't be accepted if the program downloads and runs code on its own. That might even apply to interpreted languages like javascript, which would seriously screw a browsers chances of being useful if it couldn't do JS.

Re:Why? (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 5 years ago | (#25599803)

And that specifically is why it's plausible that it's Opera Mini, not Mobile.

Opera Mini has no support for client-side JavaScript - to do anything using JS, Opera Mini has to make a round trip to the Opera servers in Norway, and the JavaScript code runs on those servers.

On Palm OS, there's basically two legal choices for browsers (and one of them is only semi-legal.) Blazer, which sucks ass, but is a native Palm OS app, and can handle JavaScript without round trips, and Opera Mini, which requires the rather unstable IBM J9 JVM (which isn't legally available in any form, for any price, any more - I had to pirate a copy of it for my Centro,) has to make a round trip for every single JavaScript action, has trouble with loading images on Palm OS, but is fast when it's working, and can work with more pages.

So, I get to choose my browser based on which one sucks less... god, I can't wait for Palm to release Nova... hopefully they release a ROM update for the Centro so I can get away from this frankengarnet shit that nobody wants to develop for... oh, wait, this is Palm, they'll never do that.

Bricked phone repair? Who pays support? (1)

Eganicus (1374269) | more than 5 years ago | (#25599809)

Apple is paid over 2 years, for the phone. It has to support AT&T (or other worldwide service) If they have a bricked phone, Apple & AT&T have to give them another.... If you want to buy the $700 unlocked phone, and have no support, have at it. No java, no flash, no way - wait until you see why...

Re:Bricked phone repair? Who pays support? (1)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25600301)

how would a web browser brick the iPhone when none of the applications on App Store can? does Opera Mini require modifying the iPhone's firmware? just because an application duplicates the functionality of an Apple application it'll cause the iPhone to break down?

that's a rather pathetic attempt to justify anti-competitive practices, don't you think?

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25600551)

I could understand them rejecting such projects as an Amazon MP3 store

Really? What would you say if Microsoft banned Firefox/Openoffice/Java on Windows? Because I do NOT understand them rejecting ANYTHING and await expectant to see EU's reaction/fine for this (it is abusive and anticompetitive practice)

Re:Why? (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 5 years ago | (#25600863)

Well, the one that I've heard they ACTUALLY rejected (as opposed to haven't gotten a chance to reject yet) was that podcast manager. Apple had already built something similar to put in the new firmware.

Perhaps Apple remembers the flak they took when they released Dashboard and doesn't want that to happen again?

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

mpcooke3 (306161) | more than 5 years ago | (#25601317)

If current trends continue then more and more developers will develop apps to run on a browser instead of directly on the Operating System.

If Apple don't ban a browser like Opera or Chrome, then opera or google could keep adding features to their browsers until any app could be developed to run within the browser thereby bypassing the need to get "permission" to run apps on the phone through the app store.

To ensure they can keep making money from the app store and maintain their agreements with the phone companies apple could always ban the browser later. But if the browser was already very popular people might consider it was unfair or anti-competitive to ban it, therefore it's much easier to ban it up front.

In simple language (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25599561)

Before a non-official non-rejection can be replaced by an official rejection or non-rejection, non-official, non-rejected applications must be ported from any possible non-official, non-rejected application frameworks to the official API of non-rejected, non-official but potentially officially rejected applications: C and Objective-C APIs officially supported by the iPhone App Store.

Non-official, non-rejected applications written in official non-rejected APIs but officially submitted to the iPhone App Store may be officially rejected at the discretion of Apple.

Vapor (2, Interesting)

Henriok (6762) | more than 5 years ago | (#25599565)

Or.. It _could_ be that the Opera rep is just stating something which no one can verify. In the end Opera gets goodwill and great press while Apple gets the opposite. Opera has allegedly built cool stuff which and Apple probably would have rejected. Either way.. FUD and vapor all over.

Re:Vapor (4, Insightful)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25600353)

if it's FUD it's all based on Apple's already accrued bad reputation.

first, they lock down the iPhone and prevent 3rd-party apps from being run on it. then when they finally open it up they require all applications to be approved by them and distributed through the App Store. then they reject 3rd-party applications that might compete with their own software. and finally, then they make all developers sign an NDA that prevents developers from speaking about App Store rejections.

but if you want to assume that this is all an elaborate Opera PR stunt designed to spread FUD about Apple then go right on ahead. it's not like this so-called FUD isn't based on what people already think about Apple as a result of their own recent actions.

Re:Vapor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25600969)

If so, Opera has been hit by Steve Jobs' FUD before, so that would make it even.

2007-01-09 "it's the internet in your pocket for the first time ever"

Wonder what Opera thought of that statement.

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/iphone_macworld07_keynote.php

Anti-Competitive Apple (5, Insightful)

BBCWatcher (900486) | more than 5 years ago | (#25599567)

There's no question that Apple's iPhone/iPod touch behavior is anti-competitive. As Apple gains market power, rising toward #1 in the smartphone market, such behavior might also be illegal in at least some jurisdictions. Apple needs to tread very carefully here.

Re:Anti-Competitive Apple (1)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 5 years ago | (#25599643)

Good thing for Apple they are not even close to dominating the smartphone market.

Re:Anti-Competitive Apple (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 5 years ago | (#25600149)

No, but I'd bet they put a lot of smartphones in the hands of people who wouldn't have otherwise purchased them thanks to their marketing.

Re:Anti-Competitive Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25601713)

Does Apple make smartphones now?

Last I heard they were calling the iPhone a "smartphone" but they were using an entirely different definition from the rest of the industry. The iPhone is functionally distinct from, say, the Nokia 9xxx series, the Blackberry, the Treo, et al.

Re:Anti-Competitive Apple (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#25599647)

#1 in the smart phone market still only gets you a few percent market share... they needn't worry anytime soon about anti-trust.

Re:Anti-Competitive Apple (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25599871)

#1 in the smart phone market still only gets you a few percent market share... they needn't worry anytime soon about anti-trust.

That's like saying that search related advertising is only a small portion of the overall ad industry and therefore Google need not worry about making a deal with Yahoo.

Re:Anti-Competitive Apple (1)

MooUK (905450) | more than 5 years ago | (#25601565)

Or saying that operating systems are only a small part of the entire software industry and therefore MS is not a monopolistic company.

Re:Anti-Competitive Apple (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#25601671)

Not my argument at all. Symbian owns over 50% of the smart phone market share, Apple has about 3%.

Microsoft has 90% of the desktop OS market.

See the difference between 3% and 90%?

Re:Anti-Competitive Apple (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#25601667)

Nope. The web ad market is a specific market, just like the smartphone market. The difference is that Google is not only the #1 player, they (combined with Yahoo) would almost completely monopolize that market. Apple might come away with a double-digit percent if they are lucky - certainly nowhere near 100%.

Re:Anti-Competitive Apple (1, Insightful)

earlymon (1116185) | more than 5 years ago | (#25599901)

There's no question that Apple's iPhone/iPod touch behavior is anti-competitive.

Educate me, please. I question that - in fact, I'm not sure what you're referring to. I'm not baiting you, I am assuming that you know what you're referring to - so please help by way of explanation.

I'm trying to decide if it's the patented (not sure if that went through or not) side of their touch interface or not.

Apple never promised a netbook - they promised what they promised and they delivered on it. They are very competitive w.r.t. Blackberries, et al.

Stretching my imagination further, iPods are anti-competitive in that they don't run Zune software (so far as I know) and vice versa. My Ocean is anti-competitive because they'll do nothing to support Safari - by my imagination of your use of the term anti-competitive.

I'd rather admit my ignorance and remove all doubt - I'm really confused. What are you talking about?

Re:Anti-Competitive Apple (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#25600351)

ipods don't need to run zune software, it's not their purpose. can you copy fair play encoded music from your ipod to your soon though? no? THAT is anti competitive and apple have been busted in the EU for it.

i wish people would stop buying junk from such freedom hating companies like apple. MS are far far less restrictive yet you all seem to love apple. the mind boggles.

Re:Anti-Competitive Apple (3, Interesting)

earlymon (1116185) | more than 5 years ago | (#25600443)

OK. I thought this was about Opera Mini, but if it's Fair Play, boookay.

AFAIR, it wasn't the EU that busted them, it was one country that tried - and failed as the case was without foundation.

I guess as an iPod nano user - that doesn't direct connect via wifi like an iPod Touch or iPhone - I'm not on the right wavelength. To answer your question, I can copy Fair Play protected music from my computer iTunes to my iPod, but not other players.

The way I get around this is to avoid all Fair Play music. Enough codecs work just peachy on an iPod that I needed add DRM to the fray.

I've posted many times from the fossil record that Apple is clearly on the record recommending people to challenge the record companies to end DRM once and for all. I'll leave you to google that for yourself. As there is a clear historical record of Apple denouncing DRM and MS doing the opposite, my mind would boggle at the idea that MS is far less restrictive were it not so late and this not a sandwich break during the director's cut of Blade Runner on TV tonight.

You might want to research your facts. Your mind might become less boggled.

Re:Anti-Competitive Apple (1)

earlymon (1116185) | more than 5 years ago | (#25600447)

that I needed add

that I needn't add

Hey, I'm late for more Blade Runner....

Re:Anti-Competitive Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25601265)

Are you sure your not just late for your date with Steve? Got your turtleneck ready and that jug of kool aid, fanboi?

Re:Anti-Competitive Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25600461)

ok fine, i'll bite, maybe you really are that clueless...

the anti-competitive behaviour referred to is surely the fact that if apple doesn't want to compete with your app they will simply remove it from the store. this has happened already with some applications and there is nothing to indicate that apple wouldn't act the same way if opera released a competitive browser on the iphone/ipod platform.

these anti-competitive rules are in their SDK license agreements. they are not speculation.

Re:Anti-Competitive Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25600259)

After using Windows mobile on a PDA, I went out and got an iPhone. I'd argue it's some of those other products that ought to be illegal. Or at least they ought to force some of the people who made those products actually use them. I love the iPhone. It doesn't make me want to throw it against a wall and smash it too bits when I'm trying to use it. It might not be perfect, but the interface is elegant, pretty usable, and most of what is important to me is present.

Not Allowed (2, Informative)

hax0r_this (1073148) | more than 5 years ago | (#25599571)

The SDK Agreement fairly explicitly disallows third party web rendering engines:

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

On an unrelated note, I wish Apple would spend less time making absurd rules like that and more time making their developer site actually work. It took me nearly 20 minutes just to manage to log in to view the SDK Agreement.

Re:Not Allowed (0, Troll)

Wovel (964431) | more than 5 years ago | (#25599605)

Just did it, took me 14 seconds from the time I read your post.

I hate that. (1)

glitch23 (557124) | more than 5 years ago | (#25599589)

"My understanding, based on information from informed sources who do not wish to be identified because they were not authorized by their employers,

Big surprise. More cowards who are too afraid to state their names but want to talk to act like big shots even though they aren't authorized to talk to anyone. I'd love to find people like that to fire them if I was a manager at a company like that. It was probably loose lips like that which caused this rumor to get out in the first place.

Re:I hate that. (1)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25600411)

you're absolutely right. they're complete cowards for risking their jobs to share information with the public. i mean, how dare they try to preserve their anonymity, not like you of course Mr. glitch23--i assume that's your surname?

btw, why do you have your e-mail address hidden? trying to act like a big shot on /. even though you don't have the guts to let people know how to contact you?

Re:I hate that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25601753)

Somewhat off topic, but why do you expect the "amero" to be launched? I read through their site and couldn't really see what they were on about - plenty of anti-internationalist rhetoric but no explanation of why a new currency is desirable. Since I assume you know, care to enlighten me?

FUD (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25599655)

Slashdot is getting more FUD and hate-articles lately, might that be? First announcing something bad about a company, practically begging for hating/dissociating posts, then clearing it with articles like this? At least we discussed ... very insightful. I used to like posts that point out the FUD about companies and poke at flaws and inaccuracy in articles, evidence and arguments.

This topic earlier [slashdot.org]
In between: Have we discussed how awesome the new Ubuntu is often enough?

Mod this troll.

Re:FUD (3, Insightful)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 5 years ago | (#25600043)

Slashdot is getting more FUD and hate-articles lately, might that be? First announcing something bad about a company, practically begging for hating/dissociating posts, then clearing it with articles like this? At least we discussed ... very insightful. I used to like posts that point out the FUD about companies and poke at flaws and inaccuracy in articles, evidence and arguments.

This topic earlier
In between: Have we discussed how awesome the new Ubuntu is often enough?

Mod this troll.

Granted, he did ask that his post be modded troll, but it really isn't. Perhaps he picked a poor example. Here's another [slashdot.org] .

From the summary:

The folks at O'Reilly Media aren't immune, so they set out to discover just what is it about iPhones that makes them such bad RF citizens.

Cute. Lots of phones are 'bad RF citizens', but gee, this sounds like the iPhone is special in this regard, right?
More from the summary:

The iPhones aren't the only bad apples in the cell phone basket and there's not much you can do about the problem.

So... lots of cell phones create RF interference in some devices. Did that make article make it to Slashdot because of the interesting topic of RF interferrence, or did the line about the iPhone not being a good RF citizen cause it to be approved? Did both of the Opera stories make it without the words "Apple rejected..."?

It's fashionable to smack Apple around, but seriously, it's not like the AC was wrong.

Re:FUD (1)

Si-UCP (1359205) | more than 5 years ago | (#25600343)

Or case in point, the article itself. Already I'm seeing the "applesucks" tag, even though it has nothing to do with the subject matter of even the summary. Really, it's fashionable on Slashdot to smack anything that isn't related to Linux or Free Software (this isn't really surprising, though).

Re:FUD (1)

that this is not und (1026860) | more than 5 years ago | (#25600629)

It's been fashionable to smack Apple around almost since the launch of the Macintosh. When Jobs gloated that the Mac was 'hacker proof' at a press conference at the product release, a lot of us made up our minds. The FSF had a rather active anti-Apple campaign coming out of Apple's look-and-feel litigation** for many years. Apple has been seen as a bad operator for years and never, ever done more than partially redeem themselves for their past practices.

(**Apple essentially tried to lock up the GUI and prevent any other software from using a graphical interface. They ran most competitors out of the market, clearing the way for Microsoft to eventually be the only GUI vendor on the PC.)

Re:FUD (1)

chartreuse (16508) | more than 5 years ago | (#25601373)

It's been fashionable to smack Apple around almost since the launch of the Macintosh. When Jobs gloated that the Mac was 'hacker proof' at a press conference at the product release, a lot of us made up our minds. The FSF had a rather active anti-Apple campaign coming out of Apple's look-and-feel litigation** for many years.

Gee, when was that? The Mac was launched in 1984, and hardly anyone in the mainstream even knew what a "hacker" was -- in fact the Mac predates the FSF, which was founded in 1985. You and your putative cohorts seem to have kept your minds rigid since the mid 80s. Congratulations, I guess, at staying fashionable.

Opera Mini = Google ad$ense? Weird... (1)

Eganicus (1374269) | more than 5 years ago | (#25599839)

I thinkwebkit is the fastest, most efficient code for HTML. Google agrees, but Opera selling a service - if it breaks down AT&T would have to do support/replacement/repair? Let's see if they do submit it, what happens. Though no JAVA is clearly going to take some work.

Re:Opera Mini = Google ad$ense? Weird... (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25600147)

WTF are you talking about? What does any of this have to do with Google or AdSense? The only thing I can think of is that Google's browser is based on WebKit and Safari is at least partially based on WebKit. But this fact has nothing whatsoever to do with Opera Mini.

Webkit is fine and there are several fine browsers available based on Webkit in various stages of maturity and development. Opera's proprietary renderer is also very good. However, as far as being the most efficient, the most recent benchmarks show Firefox 3 clearly beating both in terms of performance.

One minor point is that Google's browser isn't based solely on Webkit. They've brought in a faster, more advanced JavaScript engine that isn't part of Webkit.

Re:Opera Mini = Google ad$ense? Weird... (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 5 years ago | (#25600319)

The only thing I can think of is that Google's browser is based on WebKit and Safari is at least partially based on WebKit.

You've got that a bit backwards. Safari relies upon Webkit for rendering. Chrome uses Webkit for some rendering and their homegrown javascript engine for javascript (instead of JavaScriptCore which is part of Webkit). If you're going to refer to one of them as partially based on Webkit, it should be Chrome.

But this fact has nothing whatsoever to do with Opera Mini.

Apple's licensing requires iPhone browsers to use the built in rendering engine in the iPhone SDK (which happens to be Webkit).

Webkit is fine and there are several fine browsers available based on Webkit in various stages of maturity and development. Opera's proprietary renderer is also very good. However, as far as being the most efficient, the most recent benchmarks show Firefox 3 clearly beating both in terms of performance.

What benchmarks are those? For javascript at least the Safari/Webkit nightlies seem to be beating the Firefox nightlies by a significant margin, or were last few times I ran them.

Better news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25599855)

F**k Apple and the dimwits that run it - give me some real news. Enough BS.

Fudge packers. I don't care what those b*ds do and don't.

I'm speechless (1, Offtopic)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#25599887)

Except I'm not. Is this how we're going to keep Apple on the front page like, forever? Stop the presses! OMG! Apple doesn't reject an app! Think about this, and try to see how silly you people are. What's tomorrow's headline? "Sun doesn't submit an app. Apple doesn't notice"...That's worth at least two write ups right there. Jeeze! Even idle isn't this absurd.

He never said it was "rejected" ! ! ! (5, Insightful)

AardvarkCelery (600124) | more than 5 years ago | (#25600053)

The article says...

... Apple won't let the company release it because it competes with Apple's own Safari browser.

That's totally different from saying it was rejected. It may well be the case that they read Apple's agreement and understood that Apple would not allow them to release it... and thus they didn't need to submit it.

In the same way, I already know that the US Government will not allow me to sell marijuana-laced brownies. I don't need to apply to the FDA to find that out, since it's already well understood from the law.

I'm surprised nobody pointed this out earlier.

Opera mini on native c (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25600243)

Actually opera mini team has ported opera to C before : http://operawatch.com/news/2007/12/opera-mini-ported-to-brew-platform.html [operawatch.com]

so they have done it before and they have done it on iphone too i think

Hard To Care -- Opera Isn't As Good, Anyway (1)

Udigs (1072138) | more than 5 years ago | (#25600307)

Don't get me wrong: Opera makes a great desktop browser, but having suffered with Opera Mini on several different smartphones, I am not eagerly awaiting its arrival on the iPhone.

Safari was probably 80% of the reason I *GOT* an iPhone. Finally, a web browser that shows me pages like they *should* look---not horribly degraded pages that are nearly impossible to navigate.

Granted, it's a little silly to not allow the browser, but if I were Apple I'd reject it on the grounds of being a substandard alternative to a great product.

Homebrew (1)

Anthony_Cargile (1336739) | more than 5 years ago | (#25600385)

lol, they should release it as a homebrew app to be run on custom iPhone firmware. I doubt Sun would take kindly to it, but it would give more users incentive to get custom firmware in the first place, despite the fact I would prefer safari over opera as far as web rendering goes, but opera's extra features would make it worthwhile.

Nothing to see here (1)

srh2o (442608) | more than 5 years ago | (#25600423)

Speculative story with no facts shoots down throw away quote in blog. yawn

Gruber will come up with a justification (1)

melted (227442) | more than 5 years ago | (#25600741)

Gruber will come up with a justification even if Steve Jobs urinates in his face and shits on his head. Among all fanbois, John is fanboi par excellence.

Re:Gruber will come up with a justification (2, Informative)

ubernostrum (219442) | more than 5 years ago | (#25601687)

Gruber will come up with a justification even if Steve Jobs urinates in his face and shits on his head.

Hmm... this would be the same Gruber who wrote that the App Store's exclusion of applications which "compete with" Apple's own offerings is "seriously wrong [daringfireball.net] "? The one who said (same link) that "[i]f this is truly Apple's policy, it's a disaster for the platform"? The same Gruber who said, of Apple's policies, "they shouldn't be doing this [daringfireball.net] "? The same Gruber who said of Apple's inscrutable rejections of applications which violate no SDK guidelines that "[r]ules you disagree with are frustrating. Rules you don't know about are scary [daringfireball.net] "?

Is that the Gruber you're talking about here?

I don't want Steve Jobs in my pocket (1)

leighklotz (192300) | more than 5 years ago | (#25600817)

Get a G1 and run android [google.com] . You get Linux, an open source implementation of Java called Dalvik [wikipedia.org] , and source code to the base applications, plus access to registering your app in their application market, and freedom to publish your own app and let people download it.

And it has a keyboard.

It's not about Apple being silly (2, Interesting)

bytesex (112972) | more than 5 years ago | (#25600851)

It's about Opera having thought of a innovative way to get a browsing-experience into a phone where (apart from the screensize) the network is a bottleneck. Doing the browsing at the server-end, transferring images to a phone instead of HTML is kind of elegant and, given that you trust the provider to anonimize you, can even have nice privacy implications; you can parse text from HTML, but you can't parse text from an image easily.

guys, *please* study John Gruber's history (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25601339)

Much of John Gruber's site is an apology journal for Apple's less reasonable activity. When he doesn't have a concrete argument, he resorts to specious hand-waving; when his hands are tired out, he resorts to whispers from "sources". He's the worst sort of evangelist - he's on full warp not when he's giving praise for Apple, but when he's insulting some individual or group he disagrees with.

I am typing this from my primary workstation, an iMac. I think OS X is a fine mainstream operating system. But I don't think Apple are a particularly stellar corporation. I heartily recommend people actually read a few articles from Gruber's daringfireball.net [daringfireball.net] to analyse the fallacies in his reasoning otherwise. Frustrated by his words, you may wish to respond on his site, but be warned: like any zealot, he sees opposition as justification for his mission. At best, you'll be ignored; at worst, something you say will be the subject of a mocking article.

An practitioner earns his reputation in some field - as genius, mediocre, or buffoon - and Gruber has, by his site, earnt the third label.

Not just Java, already ported (2, Informative)

iZarKe (1398625) | more than 5 years ago | (#25601363)

If what they've done for the iPhone is [to get] a Java ME runtime running on the iPhone

Opera Mini has already been ported to non-Java version(s), stated by haavard here [opera.com] , referring to a Opera press release [opera.com] from as far back as 2007. Gruber speculates [daringfireball.net] that it's because a JavaScript intepreter would clearly break with the SDK Agreement, however as seen in this interview [linuxdevices.com] , Opera Mini doesn't have to interpret JavaScript at all, nor render web pages - this can all be done on the servers.

Look out! (1)

dkf (304284) | more than 5 years ago | (#25601727)

It's Darth Jobs all over again.
"I find your lack of Objective-C... disturbing."

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?