Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 For iPhone To Test Apple's Resolve

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the that's-not-gonna-work dept.

Apple 292

Barence writes "Opera is launching a version of its Mini browser for the iPhone in what could prove a landmark decision for Apple's app gatekeepers. Apple has been traditionally hostile to rival browsers, with Mozilla claiming that Apple made it 'too hard' for its rivals to develop a browser for the iPhone. However, Opera remains bullishly confident that its app will be approved. 'We have not submitted Opera Mini to the Apple App store,' an Opera spokesperson told PC Pro. 'However, we hope that Apple will not deny their users a choice in web browsing experience.'" I can't imagine what would motivate them to do that.

cancel ×

292 comments

Forced to include in EU? (2, Insightful)

DarkHorseman (1150085) | more than 4 years ago | (#31084924)

First! (Presumably) I wonder how this will play out in EU where MS was forced to include multiple browsers...

Re:Forced to include in EU? (3, Insightful)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 4 years ago | (#31084976)

First! (Presumably) I wonder how this will play out in EU where MS was forced to include multiple browsers...

Microsoft was forced to do so after being convicted of anti-competitive behaviour. The differences between Apple and Microsoft aside, Apple would be no more forced to apply by the same rules as Microsoft, than you are forced to spent the rest of your days in prison, just because someone else was sentenced that for their crime.

Re:Forced to include in EU? (1, Insightful)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085004)

Apple would be no more forced to apply by the same rules as Microsoft, than you are forced to spent the rest of your days in prison, just because someone else was sentenced that for their crime.

Or rather, because someone else was sentenced for the same crime you've committed.

Re:Forced to include in EU? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31085186)

No - it's not the same. Microsoft is a monopoly, they are not allowed to do that. Apple is not a monopoly, they are.

So it's more akin to walking in to a house: Microsoft is walking into somebody else's house, thus breaking and entering, whereas Apple is walking into their own house, thereby doing noting illegal.

Re:Forced to include in EU? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31085502)

a more correct wording would be: microsoft was convicted of shady business practices, and got a "exit of jail free" card with a "we will watch you" condition attached. and this is exactly what is happening.

no law require interoperability and openness of platforms. some states don't punish reverse engineering in the wake of interoperability, but that is another story.

Re:Forced to include in EU? (4, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085754)

It's not the same thing in practice, though. The actions of a corporation with a near monopoly on the market have different repurcussions than the same actions performed by a minority player. I mean, if Apple's locked down the iPhone browser, they've removed browser developers' ability to compete, and customers' browser choice, but only on the iPhone. They're a minority player in a competitive market, so the remaining 85% of smartphone owners are unaffected, and the 15% with iPhones can switch easily. If Microsoft locks down the Windows browser, they've removed browser developers' ability to reach the overwhelming majority of computer users, and thanks to Windows' near-monopoly, there's precious little to switch to.

Re:Forced to include in EU? (3, Insightful)

Grimbleton (1034446) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085800)

But they didn't do that. In any way. They simply didn't include everyone else's browser by default.

Re:Forced to include in EU? (2)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085858)

Hence "if". I'm pointing out that identical actions do not lead to identical repurcussions and should not necessarily be treated equally, and probably won't be by the courts.

Re:Forced to include in EU? (2, Insightful)

Richthofen80 (412488) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086410)

>It's not the same thing in practice, though. The actions of a corporation with a near monopoly on the market have different repurcussions than the same actions performed by a minority player

That's kind of a horseshit argument. That's like saying that if a poor minority smokes crack, its worse because he makes less money and it has a larger impact on his family; but if a rich white guy does it, it's less of a big deal since he's rich and he's not influencing his neighbors and setting a bad example.

Shouldn't the law be blind to the status of the offender? Shouldn't the action itself be the only arbiter of what is a crime, and not the action biased by WHO is committing it? I think it is a terrible precedent to have two sets of laws, one for the 'little guy' and one for the 'big guy'. Then it becomes a less objective 'which guy am I', not 'what actions can I perform'.

Oh, really? (1)

ThrowAwaySociety (1351793) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086052)

Apple would be no more forced to apply by the same rules as Microsoft, than you are forced to spent the rest of your days in prison, just because someone else was sentenced that for their crime.

Or rather, because someone else was sentenced for the same crime you've committed.

Explain how Apple has engaged in anti-competitive behavior with its tiny OS market share and still-small smartphone market share. (Especially in the EU. Its market share in Europe is even smaller than in the US)

Re:Forced to include in EU? (5, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086176)

Apple would be no more forced to apply by the same rules as Microsoft, than you are forced to spent the rest of your days in prison, just because someone else was sentenced that for their crime.

Or rather, because someone else was sentenced for the same crime you've committed.

It's sad to see comments like yours modded up because they simply indicate how prevalent and popular ignorance is. Your problem and the problem with everyone who modded you up is that you don't know what crime MS was convicted of, or at least what that crime is. MS was convicted of the crime of antitrust abuse, where they undermined the operation of the free market. Apple, not having sufficient influence on any related market, doesn't even have ability to commit this crime with regard to browsers.

Its like someone arguing everyone who goes to the range and fires a pistol should be arrested for murder because they believe murder means "shooting a gun" because someone who shot someone with a gun was convicted of murder. Additionally, they're too willfully ignorant to go educate themselves before spouting off.

Re:Forced to include in EU? (1, Interesting)

Trev311 (1161835) | more than 4 years ago | (#31084984)

Not only that, but I wonder if the SEC/FCC would start breathing down their backs if Opera got denied. Especially after that whole Google Voice thing...

EU/FCC wont do a thing (4, Informative)

mjwx (966435) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085070)

Not only that, but I wonder if the SEC/FCC would start breathing down their backs if Opera got denied. Especially after that whole Google Voice thing...

The EU ruled against Microsoft not because it was a monopoly (that is not illegal in the EU) but because it used its monopoly position against other companies, in other words the EU ruled against Microsoft because Microsoft was an abusive monopoly.

Apple is twice as abusive as Microsoft ever was but they are far from being a monopoly. Apple are permitted to lock down their platform as there are many other platforms to chose from, Apple is not in a position to control the market so the EU wont do a thing (unless Apple have broken another EU law, but if they did the EU would have already made a statement to that effect).

Re:EU/FCC wont do a thing (2, Interesting)

AlizarinCrimson (1548857) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085304)

While I agree that the FCC/EU would do frak all to apple over a denial of another browser. I fairly sure the app store is a market, and that apple is an abusive monopoly there.

Re:EU/FCC wont do a thing (0, Troll)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085408)

By the same kind reasoning my local grocery store is "a market" and thus I can clearly take them to court if they won't allow me to sell my own competing products in their store.

/Mikael

Re:EU/FCC wont do a thing (0, Troll)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085644)

By the same kind reasoning my local grocery store is "a market" and thus I can clearly take them to court if they won't allow me to sell my own competing products in their store.

If there are laws forbidding you to start your own grocery store, you might have a point. But at the time, Microsoft actively thwarted any attempt to make an operating system compatible with the library of applications designed for Windows. (See also the AARD code used against a maker of a competing implementation of DOS.)

Re:EU/FCC wont do a thing (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085710)

What laws exist that prohibit you from designing, building and selling your own cellphone complete with an appstore service?

/Mikael

Re:EU/FCC wont do a thing (1, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086028)

What laws exist that prohibit you from designing, building and selling your own cellphone complete with an appstore service?

GSM patents, FCC's existing exclusive allocations of spectrum, etc.

Re:EU/FCC wont do a thing (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31086468)

GSM patents

These are not laws. You would license them like everyone else.

FCC's existing exclusive allocations of spectrum

Huh? What does this have to do with making a phone?

Your reply is fucking dumb as shit.

Re:EU/FCC wont do a thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31085902)

Dumbest thing I've read all morning, thanks.

Re:EU/FCC wont do a thing (1)

tkelechogi (813782) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085990)

Same in the US ... to be prosecuted under Sherman you must both be a monopoly and use anti-competitive practices to maintain your monopoly.

Re:EU/FCC wont do a thing (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085560)

You don't have to use apple products. However if you use windows you have no choice but to use IE at least once todownload an alternative. And because ofmsft poor coding practices and designs you have to use for the rest of life as explorer.exe, windows update , windows messanger(or this years name), outlook, and word all use parts of the same buggy trident backend.

Apple also has a tendacy to start lockdown, and open slowly(sometimes never). While msft pretends to be open and tries to lock things down later.

Re:EU/FCC wont do a thing (1)

Evil Shabazz (937088) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085986)

You no more have to use Microsoft products than you do Apple products. In fact, at least with Microsoft Windows you have a much greater choice of what hardware you run it on - OS X is only allowed on Apple hardware. The application restrictions on the iPhone are more accepted because that's the status quo for phones - the iPhone isn't the first phone to be closed the way it is, it's generally more open than most phones have been. Apple is more restrictive and abusive with their software and hardware policies than Microsoft ever was. Apple has just done a much better job of keeping it inside the law, and of selling their fanbois their image.

Re:EU/FCC wont do a thing (3, Interesting)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086026)

Apple introduced DRM-free tracks in iTunes not long after few European countries expressed the possibility of blocking iTunes outright (not saying that was the only possible reason)

One doesn't have to be a monopoly to be reminded of obligations. Abusive is enough; braking law is enough (as you...sort of pointed out). I wonder which iPhone will finally have removable battery...

Re:Forced to include in EU? (0, Troll)

s1lverl0rd (1382241) | more than 4 years ago | (#31084992)

You forgot Yoda Grease.

Re:Forced to include in EU? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31084994)

Apple is not a monopoly (there are many other choices for mobile phones and operating systems), so the same rules would not apply. However, I think competition authorities will be watching this one closely. Most of them (and us) would agree that having more browsers is better.

Re:Forced to include in EU? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31085046)

MicroSoft is not a monopoly either (there are many other choices for PC operating systems), but that didn't help them.

Re:Forced to include in EU? (4, Insightful)

RedK (112790) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085160)

Microsoft is very much a Monopoly. The fact that there are other products on the market doesn't change that. It's about market control and position. If Microsoft tomorrow decides that a particular OEM cannot sell Windows, that OEM is dead. If Microsoft decides that a particular business can't run Windows, that particular business as just lost a lot of its data and many of its applications won't run anymore, leaving them dead in the water.

Re:Forced to include in EU? (1, Troll)

Sinning (1433953) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085088)

Monopolistic behavior does not require a monopoly.

Re:Forced to include in EU? (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086486)

That would be "anti-competitive" behavior does not require a monopoly.

Re:Forced to include in EU? (3, Informative)

Rhaban (987410) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085076)

Difference is, apple does not have the same market-share on smartphone OSes as microsoft has on desktop OSes.

Opera's Motivation (3, Interesting)

buruonbrails (1247370) | more than 4 years ago | (#31084980)

Certainly, Apple will reject the app and Opera knows it. Maybe Opera tries to strengthen Apple's "Evil Empire" image and deal with it with the help of EU (just like they did with Microsoft recently).

Re:Opera's Motivation (3, Interesting)

caffeinemessiah (918089) | more than 4 years ago | (#31084998)

Certainly, Apple will reject the app and Opera knows it. Maybe Opera tries to strengthen Apple's "Evil Empire" image and deal with it with the help of EU (just like they did with Microsoft recently).

My first thought on reading the summary was "where's the leverage?" Either Opera is talking right through their own asses, or they have some serious leverage -- certainly more than just bad PR (which Apple seems immune to anyway). They've invested time and manpower in this project, one can only hope that someone's cojones over at Apple are in a vice grip, and that we will all soon enjoy the big red O on our iPhones.

Re:Opera's Motivation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31085910)

I'm sure some of their employees would be running it on their iPhones privately anyway, so it just takes the extra investment to polish it up for release. Looks like a "worth a try" project.

Opera not submitted (1)

dazedNconfuzed (154242) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085130)

Apple will reject the app

Apple can't reject what hasn't been submitted.

"We have not submitted Opera Mini to the Apple App store".

Re:Opera's Motivation (3, Interesting)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085508)

The thing is, this is a high-profile app that Apple can approve and point to, saying "Look, we're letting our competitors in!" even though it doesn't open the platform in any meaningful way. So I actually think there's a very good chance they will approve it.

Re:Opera's Motivation (2, Interesting)

mac84 (971323) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086058)

Apple may surprise you. Apple only got into the Safari business when Microsoft stopped supporting IE for the Mac. There is no real profit in browsers per se, hence only OS developers and open source projects are doing anything with them. If they are smart Apple will see more popularity for Opera as another blow to IE and MS dominance, both of which are good for to Apple.

Re:Opera's Motivation (1)

toleraen (831634) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086354)

No real profit in browsers, wha? So how is Opera operating as a company, and how did the Mozilla Foundation raise $78 million in revenue in 2008? So Apple doesn't have any deal like those two companies for default browser search?

Confused? I certainly am... (3, Insightful)

Shrike82 (1471633) | more than 4 years ago | (#31084986)

We have not submitted Opera Mini to the Apple App store

Really? Then what the hell is this story about? I read the article through a number of times, but that sentence really doesn''t make any sense. Are they targetiing this at jailbroken phones? Was that quote from some time ago and was unwisely used here?

Perhaps I just need some caffeine, or is my confusion shared by others?

Re:Confused? I certainly am... (1)

gparent (1242548) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085038)

No, I have no damn clue what's going on either.

Re:Confused? I certainly am... (1)

Anonymusing (1450747) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085050)

I've had caffeine today, and I also found this confusing.

It sounds like one schoolkid bully saying to another, "When I see you after school, I'm going to kick your ass." He hasn't yet done the ass-kicking; in fact, the showdown won't happen until some time in the future. But he's showing off his swagger to prove his bravado, intimidate the opposition, and/or try to impress his buddies.

Re:Confused? I certainly am... (1)

srothroc (733160) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085102)

The sentence in question would probably make more sense if it ended with a "yet."

Re:Confused? I certainly am... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31085104)

They haven't submitted it yet.

You see, there's this concept called "time". Things that have already happened in "time" are what we refer to as "past events". Apparently scientists have recently discovered that things can be said to happen beyond the current point in time, in a concept they are calling "the future". I think Sesame Street covered it.

Re:Confused? I certainly am... (1)

ectoraige (123390) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085238)

I think the implied missing word is 'yet'.

They intend to submit it, and are making it very clear that they will stand up to Apple if, when they *do* submit it, it gets rejected. It's a shot across the bows.

Re:Confused? I certainly am... (1)

Zedekiah (1103333) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085252)

I remember in the past one fellow at opera saying "The only way I can see opera on the iphone is through cydia" (sorry, can't find the link). Maybe Opera plan to get onto the iphone whether apple approve them or not.

Re:Confused? I certainly am... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31085462)

Opera is publicly announcing their intention to submit their browser to Apple before actually committing to the process, because they know they stand a good chance of summary rejection for trying to break into the Safari monopoly. Opera hopes to preempt Apple's choice in the matter by raising public support in advance of the submission and raising in conjunction with that support awareness of Apple's monopolistic methodologies, preparing the public to view Apple's coming rejection as the act of an Evil Fascist Corporate Overlord (whether it is or not is irrelevant; we're talking about Opera's intentions here, not Apple's). Their hopes are that, should Apple realize the public has been thus prepared, Opera might be more likely to pass the submission process to avoid the storm of negative publicity that would fall out of a realization and fulfillment of that media preparation. In other words, this is manufactured opinion, and Slashdot is the medium of manufacturing outrage on behalf of one corporation against another (regardless of your feelings towards either company) because Slashdot is a public forum where corporate media services can advertise against one another.

Opera suffers from a kind of hubris, though: they don't realize that the audience who will listen to them is smaller than they need to generate sufficient public outrage to press Apple on any decision and far smaller than needed to drown out the Apple supporters who will regurgitate or themselves even generate, given sufficient creativity, reasons why Apple Is Right And You Are Wrong. The Opera FanBois are fewer than the Apple FanBois and by a sufficient margin that Opera is not going to win this PR turf war. But Slashdot is a cheap place to advertise, so it doesn't hurt to try.

Re:Confused? I certainly am... (3, Informative)

Terrasque (796014) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085476)

from a different source I read earlier (norwegian, interviewing a norwegian person from opera), it's not submitted yet, because it's still in beta.

Re:Confused? I certainly am... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31085646)

I read the article through a number of times

Me too. And that number was zero.

For as much as I like Apple (1)

bigd873 (1742192) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085002)

I really dont think that they are about choice. If they were, we would have gotten the iPad we all wanted. Additionally they have a history of not being open in situations like this. I really hope they do, Opera makes a killer mobile browser. would be nice but I think it's doubtful it gets approved.

Post to Cydia (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085016)

If Apple rejects it please post it on Cydia

Well, Opera Mini isn't strictly a browser... (3, Interesting)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085052)

At least not in the strictest technical sense. It doesn't understand html, etc. ..."just" it's own, highly compressed format; sent to it from Opera servers.

Not that it'll make a difference to Apple.

Re:Well, Opera Mini isn't strictly a browser... (3, Interesting)

arethuza (737069) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085124)

Indeed, and guess where the encrypted connection terminates when you access your bank website?

Re:Well, Opera Mini isn't strictly a browser... (4, Informative)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085272)

It doesn't terminate in the sense that you suggest - connection between Opera servers and mobile phone is always encrypted, on every webpage.

Yes, when accessing encrypted websites, the pages and data are in an unencrypted form on Opera servers (only there!)...which isn't that big of a problem. You need to only ask yourself whether you trust Opera Software ASA.

If not...you can still use the advantages of Opera Mini on most of webpages; unless you really limit yourself to visiting your bank website on a mobile device, for some reason.

Re:Well, Opera Mini isn't strictly a browser... (0, Redundant)

arethuza (737069) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085382)

But it's not an end-to-end encrypted connection - there are two, one from the server to Opera's servers and another one from their servers to the browser. Would I trust Opera Software to be an intermediary in all transactions I did online with visibility of all of my secrets? In all honest, probably not. But that might not stop me using Opera - it would just stop me from doing anything that I want to keep reasonably secret on it.

Re:Well, Opera Mini isn't strictly a browser... (5, Funny)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085548)

But...I just said all of that.

Re:Well, Opera Mini isn't strictly a browser... (3, Insightful)

darthflo (1095225) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085774)

By using any of their binaries on the same system you do whatever it is you do on encrypted web pages, you trust whomever compiled that binary implicitly. The end-to-"end" encryption of Opera Mini terminates at an Opera, ASA server. The end-to-end encryption of Opera (Desktop) terminates at the control of just that closed-source browser. If they were in it to fuck you over, well, they can.
The same applies to MSIE and Safari (even more, since they're distributed by the OS manufacturers), Chrome (a lot; seeing how much data is exchanged between a typical computer and Google's servers, a lot could be hidden somewhere in there), Firefox (slightly less because development is more visible and done by Mozilla, Google only bankrolls it), for binary-distributions.

Re:Well, Opera Mini isn't strictly a browser... (1)

arethuza (737069) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086050)

I don't think that Opera the company would ever intentionally abuse this situation - but what about if their servers are compromised, digruntled employees etc. Would I check my personal email this way? Yes. Would I recommend to someone that they confirm multi million pounds transactions through this route (and I do know people who do this daily) - probably not.

Re:Well, Opera Mini isn't strictly a browser... (1)

lurch_mojoff (867210) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085440)

You need to only ask yourself whether you trust Opera Software ASA.

Or any individual one of their employees, who have access to said servers. And when it comes to financial information, my position is no on both counts. I sure hope most people share my position.

Re:Well, Opera Mini isn't strictly a browser... (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085518)

So why do you trust employees of your bank?

(not saying that not trusting Opera is not a valid choice; just be carefull how you justify it; also, when running mobile phone with at least some software you haven't written yourself; and taking into account that Opera is a Nordic company...)

Re:Well, Opera Mini isn't strictly a browser... (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085704)

Because the bank is (presumably) chartered in the country you live in and heavily regulated, and you have recourse if they screw something up. Good luck going after Opera if they mess up.

Re:Well, Opera Mini isn't strictly a browser... (1)

porneL (674499) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085822)

> Because the bank is (presumably) chartered in the country you live in and heavily regulated, and you have recourse if they screw something up.

Indeed, Opera won't get trillion dollar bonus if they screw something up ;)

Opera is publicly traded company regulated in civilised country. They're technologically very competent, which I can't say about my bank which has JavaScript-laden IE-optimized website in 640x480 popup window.

Re:Well, Opera Mini isn't strictly a browser... (1)

Ma8thew (861741) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085866)

The EU has extremely strict data protection regulations [wikipedia.org] . Transferring data to American companies can be an issue because the USA doesn't have the same protections.

Re:Well, Opera Mini isn't strictly a browser... (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085874)

Naturally. And yet...look at quite recent state of banking mess. Wasn't there also a story not that long ago how most bank security breaches are inside jobs?

Being not that far from Scandinavia I can also assure you that there's something to be said about their ethics all around (well, at least in comparison to the one I'm used to, in post-Soviet colony...); plus I would be really surprised if access to Opera proxy servers wasn't appropriately limited.

That said, I agree it still doesn't render not trusting them unreasonable. But my junk account with "floating password" authorisation and requring SMS code confirmation for every operation - good enough.

Well, if my bank would let one use Opera Mini, and they don't. Problem solved.

Re:Well, Opera Mini isn't strictly a browser... (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086020)

You've never had a bank lose your money on you have you?

Re:Well, Opera Mini isn't strictly a browser... (0)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085954)

Not that big a deal???? That a commercial 3rd-party company has access to your passwords, bank account info, browsing habits, webmail accounts...???? Will the average user even understand that this is happening?

Re:Well, Opera Mini isn't strictly a browser... (3, Insightful)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086238)

You are running a software built by said commercial 3rd-party company. They don't need that server in the middle to see all of those things.

So there's no increase in capability if they are malicious. There is an increase in risk if they are incompetent - and do something like cache requests/responses containing that data.

Re:Well, Opera Mini isn't strictly a browser... (5, Informative)

Zebedeu (739988) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086126)

It's not like it's some big secret. From Opera Mini FAQ (http://www.opera.com/mini/help/faq/#security):

Is there any end-to-end security between my handset and — for example — paypal.com or my bank?
No. If you need full end-to-end encryption, you should use a full Web browser such as Opera Mobile.

Opera Mini uses a transcoder server to translate HTML/CSS/JavaScript into a more compact format. It will also shrink any images to fit the screen of your handset. This translation step makes Opera Mini fast, small, and also very cheap to use. To be able to do this translation, the Opera Mini server needs to have access to the unencrypted version of the Web page. Therefore no end-to-end encryption between the client and the remote Web server is possible.

And

Can Opera Software see my passwords and credit card numbers in clear text? What is the encryption good for then?
The encryption is introduced to protect the communication from any third party between the client (the browser on your handset) and the Opera Mini transcoder server. If you do not trust Opera Software, make sure you do not use our application to enter any kind of sensitive information.

Re:Well, Opera Mini isn't strictly a browser... (1)

duguk (589689) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085466)

At least not in the strictest technical sense. It doesn't understand html, etc. ..."just" it's own, highly compressed format; sent to it from Opera servers.

Not that it'll make a difference to Apple.

At least it should support File Uploading [faqs.org] , unlike the cut-down browser from Apple.

I honestly can't see any logic behind disabling this really simple feature - other than it forces developers to write stupid applications which could be better written in a web-browser.

bitch (1)

node808 (1620443) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085054)

Yeah Right....when hell phreezes over

Go jailbreak! (1)

Charybdis3 (1362369) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085060)

Even if (or, when) Apple rejects it, they can put it on a Cydia repository. When Google Voice came to the iPhone many people jailbroke for it. I'm sure Apple is weighing in these consequences, but I'd almost like to see them reject it just so more people jailbreak.

It does not violate SDK terms (5, Insightful)

porneL (674499) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085096)

It could be accepted.

Apple forbids code interpreters other than Apple's own, BUT this is Opera Mini, not full Opera Mobile. Mini executes JavaScript server-side and only sends rendered result to the phone. There's likely no (turing-complete) interpreter on iPhone side, so it should be fine within terms of SDK.

Apple has already accepted number of WebKit-based browsers, so browsers in general aren't forbidden.

And for iPhone users, especially on EDGE, there is very good reason to use Opera Mini: it's going to be faster. iPhones before 3GS are also very low on RAM, and Safari only uses RAM for caching. Presumably Opera Mini would be able to keep many more tabs open and fully cached.

Re:It does not violate SDK terms (2, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085214)

Big question for me is whether or not you can turn off image loading. If so it would become my favorite app ever. Nothing more frustrating than wanting to load a page full of mainly text and having it take 5 minutes because Apple doesn't want you to ruin your browsing experience...

Re:It does not violate SDK terms (2, Informative)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085348)

Yes, you can turn off image loading in the settings. As well as selecting quality level.

Re:It does not violate SDK terms (4, Informative)

zombie_monkey (1036404) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085352)

Not only can you turn off image loading altogether, you have two levels of image compression (with the corresponding reduction in image quality) that the proxy can do for you, or you could it set no compression.

Re:It does not violate SDK terms (2, Informative)

ClaraBow (212734) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085524)

There are several browsers in the App Store that can turn off images! Perfect Browser for example turns off images, has Firefox style tabs, and full screen browsing. It even has a compressed pages option for slower networks!

Re:It does not violate SDK terms (2, Insightful)

cerberusss (660701) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086414)

Big question for me is whether or not you can turn off image loading.

My feeling is that the network speed is not the problem, but rather the iPhone rendering speed is. Safari on the iPhone, plus a heavy JavaScript page, means waiting for me. Graphics, not so much.

Re:It does not violate SDK terms (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085912)

It's rather amazing to think that this situation might even be considered by a court of law. The founding fathers would have to have been the equivalent of Mentor of Arisia to have known something like this was coming when they put the Interstate Commerce Clause and copyright clause into the Constitution.

Opera Mini? (1)

Dan East (318230) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085108)

Really? Why not Opera Mobile? That doesn't make sense to me. Opera Mini is java based and is for smartphones. Web pages are processed by Opera's proxy servers and stripped down for mobile viewing on underpowered devices. Opera Mobile 10 is an actual web browser, on par with Safari on the iPhone.

Re:Opera Mini? (4, Interesting)

Dan East (318230) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085210)

Hmm. Maybe I can answer my own question. It would be much easier to roll out Opera Mini for iPhone, since it is already implemented in Java (making it OS / hardware independent). If Apple approves Opera Mini, then Opera can begin investing the resources into porting Opera Mobile to the iPhone platform. So perhaps Opera is testing Apple with a low-risk, low-investment browser first. If Apple approves mini, then Opera could perhaps have some legal ground to challenge Apple should they later deny Opera Mobile.

If I had mod points .... (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085346)

If I had mod points I'd mod this insightful. I think you've hit the nail on the head, this is a cheap "toe in the water".

Re:Opera Mini? (5, Insightful)

quadelirus (694946) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085372)

Apple does not allow developers to develop in Java. You can use a cross compiler to compile from java to Objective-C, but I doubt this is why Opera went with Mini. As I understand it, Opera Mini executes JavaScript on Opera's servers, renders the page and sends a rendered version to the browser. If this is true, it sheds light on why Opera is doing Mini. It does it because Opera Mobile would require a full-fledged javascript interpreter and Apple will not allow an app to provide a platform for scripting or arbitrary code execution. Opera Mobile will not be on the iPhone until this policy changes, but Opera Mini might just be able to get around this restriction.

Re:Opera Mini? (1)

aduzik (705453) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085680)

Apple's developer agreement specifically says that they will not accept an application that contains a code interpreter. So that means they will not accept a web browser because it would necessarily have its own JavaScript engine.Opera Mini may get by because the script execution happens on the server side, not the device.

Re:Opera Mini? (5, Insightful)

Infiniti2000 (1720222) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085412)

Web pages are processed by Opera's proxy servers and stripped down for mobile viewing on underpowered devices.

If Opera reduces the bandwidth to the iPhone, then AT&T [slashdot.org] should be on the front line encouraging Apple to accept the app!

What about opera mobile? (2, Interesting)

Rhaban (987410) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085150)

Instead of porting opera mini on every existing platform, why not assign more resources to do the same for opera mobile, or at least make opera mini as good as opera mobile?

I paid to use opera mobile on my windows mobile phone (htc tytn II), and would gladly pay again to be able to use it on my android phone. I have opera mini on it, it is not usable at all.

Re:What about opera mobile? (2, Informative)

quadelirus (694946) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085386)

I think the problem is that Opera Mobile violates the SDK agreements and Opera Mini does not. Opera Mobile requires a full fledged JavaScript engine and Apple will not allow scripting engines to be included with apps.

Re:What about opera mobile? (3, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085426)

Uhm, Opera Mini is primarily an app for more then a billion or so "feature phones" out there, the ones with j2me; it gives them rather nice browsing experience (especially since many have slow data access and/or data costs are very high)

So of course it will be less featured, that's the point - having a sensible browser on devices which were thought uncapable of running one at all.

That said, latest Opera Mini 5 beta releases show great progress.

Re:What about opera mobile? (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085814)

They're not wasting valuable Opera Mobile time on porting Mini, because Mini doesn't need to be ported. It's a Java app, it goes where the virtual machines are.

The current Mini beta is in many respects as good as Mobile (the interfaces are indistinguishable for starters), you should give it a shot.

Re:What about opera mobile? (1)

Rhaban (987410) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085868)

Last time I checked the beta was not available for android phones (my wm phone was stolen a year ago).

You can't imagine because... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31085154)

I can't imagine what would motivate them to do that.

Because they are a monopoly. Sorry that you idealistic iSlupers don't see this.

Re:You can't imagine because... (1)

quadelirus (694946) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085460)

How are they a monopoly? They don't have the majority market share in smartphones or laptops or desktops. There is no such thing as a monopoly over your own products, so you can't say "well they get to control everything that happens on their apple devices." That is not a monopoly, because you can accomplish very nearly the same tasks with devices from other players. A monopoly exists when a company is the only player. This is not the case with apple. You can buy a Nexus. You can buy a windows PC. So what exactly do you think a monopoly is?

Opera is lousy from my experience, please go away (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31085228)

I really wish Opera would just go away already. I'm quite happy with IE8/Safari4/Firefox3 lineage no more players needed thank you.

Re:Opera is lousy from my experience, please go aw (1, Interesting)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085366)

I really wish Opera would just go away already. I'm quite happy with IE8/Safari4/Firefox3 lineage no more players needed thank you.

Have you tried Chrome yet?

Re:Opera is lousy from my experience, please go aw (1)

3.14159265 (644043) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086004)

The question here seems to be "have you tried Opera yet?"...

Re:Opera is lousy from my experience, please go aw (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31085378)

That's odd, Opera runs better than Firefox and Safari for me.

Re:Opera is lousy from my experience, please go aw (4, Insightful)

Rhaban (987410) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085756)

I really wish Opera would just go away already. I'm quite happy with IE8/Safari4/Firefox3 lineage no more players needed thank you.

Opera has the source of most big innovations in browsers for quite some years now. If it disappeared, where would firefox addons developpers find ideas of new features to implement?

There are already a ton of alternative browsers (-1, Redundant)

iamflimflam1 (1369141) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085384)

Do a search for browser on the app store and you'll find 2 pages of results. I counted ten that were web browser before I got bored.

This is a complete non-story and is just Opera trying to drum up some publicity for the release.

Re:There are already a ton of alternative browsers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31085526)

they're all just modded safari clones which all give an even poorer user experience than safari itself

I don't really care, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31085664)

I just hope Opera Mini has Flash and Java!

Can't imagine what would motivate them to do that? (1)

Chas (5144) | more than 4 years ago | (#31085880)

Gomez Addams said it best.

GREED!

But if Apple does it, then it's okay (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#31086294)

It always amazes me how many MS-bashers still bring up the case of MS supposedly unfairly using its monopoly to push IE back in the 90's, yet ignore the fact that Apple and others engage in MUCH more egregious anti-competitive behavior today than MS ever dreamed of doing. MS's big sin was to include IE in their default Windows installation (the same as notepad, media player, and dozens of other standard apps). Never once did they block competing software from being installed on Windows. The whole case is a relic from a time when browsers were still a new toy (today pretty much every operating system comes standard with a browser, and no one considers that unfair).

But here we have Apple, actively BANNING any competing software from even being installed on their devices, and the EU and all the others who raised holy hell about MS just turn the other way and say nothing. MS gets huge fines for just including their browser in their software, yet Apple gets nothing for not only including their browser, but banning any competing browsers too. And it's not just browsers, Apple does the same thing with iTunes and other apps too. "We don't allow competition" should become Apple's new motto, especially as they move more and more away from their traditionally more open products (PC's) and focus more and more on their locked down products (iPad, iPhone, iTouch, etc.). They should name their next product the iMonopoly.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...