×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

314 comments

Meh (2, Interesting)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | about 4 years ago | (#31589404)

I'd give it a try if Apple 'blessed' it (which I doubt they will considering how 'fair' they are) but I don't know if it will ever match the speed of Safari considering they don't have access to the private API's that Apple does (and forbids everyone else from using).

Re:Meh (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31589456)

If Opera figures out how to get flash support into the damn thing, I expect that no amount of reality distortion will be able to protect Jobs from the wrath of the users should they reject the app.

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31589460)

It uses server side rendering via Opera's farm, it's not Opera Mobile, but Opera Mini. It's designed for slow connections, so it should do well on our shit 3G networks.

Re:Meh (1)

MikeFM (12491) | about 4 years ago | (#31589548)

They'd have to offer some reason to choose Opera over Safari. As Safari already does a good job of rendering pages it'd have to be features. Maybe better prediction of what I want in text fields.

Re:Meh (3, Informative)

CxDoo (918501) | about 4 years ago | (#31589646)

Opera Mini is not a browser; it serves images rendered by Opera's servers.
It is significantly faster on mobile platforms than proper browsers, not to mention bandwidth savings.

Re:Meh (4, Insightful)

CxDoo (918501) | about 4 years ago | (#31589694)

Just to clarify my point, it is practically a browser but it contains no rendering engine.

Re:Meh (1)

dotgain (630123) | about 4 years ago | (#31589704)

How is the page rendered? Surely if it's some sort of a bitmap then exponentially more space will be taken. A slashdot discussion page is a particularly large HTML doc on its own, being rendered before passing over the network would surely make it huge. What am I missing here?

Re:Meh (1)

CxDoo (918501) | about 4 years ago | (#31589838)

What am I missing here?

Image compression? I got Slashdot pages at ~ 80k in Opera Mini. In the default browser (Nokia E71) they ran over 1M.

Re:Meh (1)

dotgain (630123) | about 4 years ago | (#31590132)

Fair enough - I guess I vastly underestimated the amount of markup included if compressed bitmaps really are viable.

Re:Meh (2, Insightful)

mike260 (224212) | about 4 years ago | (#31589910)

I don't think they render the page to a bitmap, but rather preprocess the HTML+CSS to generate a fixed layout, which is much simpler (=faster) for the client to render.
But if that is indeed what they're doing, I dunno how they deal with animating elements (which would require the entire layout to be recalculated frame-by-frame).

Re:Meh (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 4 years ago | (#31589856)

They'd have to offer some reason to choose Opera over Safari. As Safari already does a good job of rendering pages it'd have to be features. Maybe better prediction of what I want in text fields.

I don't know about Opera mini, and I know even less about Opera mini for the iPhone, but Opera has the best support of any browser that I know of(iPhone Safari is a close second) for HTML5's specialized input fields in forms, so I wouldn't be surprised.

Re:Meh (5, Informative)

rbb (18825) | about 4 years ago | (#31589566)

I don't know if it will ever match the speed of Safari considering they don't have access to the private API's that Apple does

Actually, there's a video [youtube.com] showing it to be quite a bit faster than Safari in a side-by-side comparison.

Re:Meh (4, Informative)

theaveng (1243528) | about 4 years ago | (#31589714)

I don't know if it will ever match the speed of Safari

Apparently you didn't RTFA or watch the included youtube video. Opera Mini loaded 5 pages in the same time as it took Safari to load 1. Of course it does that using compression.

You can read more about the compression technology here. It's somewhat similar to Opera Turbo for dialup users, but much more efficient:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_mini#Functionality [wikipedia.org]

Re:Meh (5, Informative)

Guspaz (556486) | about 4 years ago | (#31589742)

It more than matches the speed of Safari, it destroys it. Safari is a traditional browser; establish a connection to the web server (some round trips right there), request and download the requested HTML page (another round trip), download any first-tier needed assets (JS, CSS, images, etc) (likely not all done in parallel, more round trips), download any second-tier assets (example, images from CSS, anything dynamically written by the JS, etc), and so on. All in all, you're probably adding in dozens of round trips at the least. The latency on the 3G link alone (ignoring internet latency) is probably 100+ms for a round trip, so you're adding multiple seconds worth of latency just by being on 3G.

Opera, on the other hand, does absolutely everything server-side. Any requests are being made from a connection that isn't sitting on the other side of a 100+ms wireless link, and they probably do a lot of caching on top of that. The actual data is sent to the client browser in the minimum number of round trips; enough to establish the connection and make the request. All content comes back in one single compressed glob. A page that might have taken 10 seconds to load before can suddenly load in half a second.

There are downsides, of course, to having no client-side javascript. Most web apps require connections to the server to do what was before a local operation. You're effectively streaming any changes to the page from the server to the client (presumably keeping the connection open while looking at the page in case any changes need to be sent), and this is not ideal.

Unfortunately, it's mandatory; Apple won't allow javascript execution locally.

Re:Meh (-1, Troll)

jo42 (227475) | about 4 years ago | (#31589792)

Opera, on the other hand, does absolutely everything server-side.

So, in other words, Opera spies on everything you do in Opera Mini.

No thanks.

Re:Meh (2, Informative)

DMKrow (1496055) | about 4 years ago | (#31589872)

Are you sure you want to compare Opera's privacy policy with Apple's? Opera has always been forthcoming about their goals and data usage. They promote Unite as privacy feature since "You own your data" not a social web-site host.

You don't understand what Opera Mini is (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 4 years ago | (#31589830)

I don't know if it will ever match the speed of Safari considering they don't have access to the private API's that Apple does (and forbids everyone else from using).

Private API's are mostly irrelevant - Opera Mini works by rendering your request on a server and returning the results to you. Browsing speed is all about caching on the server plus it being able to get the complete page data faster than you can.

On Edge Opera mini would probably be faster, but on 3G I'm not sure it would really be that much better - I'd prefer having the browser all local in that case.

Re:Meh (1)

shoehornjob (1632387) | about 4 years ago | (#31590030)

Honestly I'm amazed that Apple even allowed them to put it in the app store. I'd trade a decent amount of browser speed for an inefficient browser loaded down with crapware any day.

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31590106)

I don't know if it will ever match the speed of Safari considering they don't have access to the private API's that Apple does (and forbids everyone else from using).

How is this any different from what Microsoft did? MS didn't even forbid developers from using them; it just didn't tell them about it.

Re:Meh (1)

citizenr (871508) | about 4 years ago | (#31590178)

I'd give it a try if Apple 'blessed' it (which I doubt they will considering how 'fair' they are)

They better, or Apple will end up like MS with EU slapping penalties and making demands.

Please let me be the first to say ... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31589412)

Good luck with that.

DOA (4, Insightful)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | about 4 years ago | (#31589436)

Apple will say that it duplicates existing iPhone functions and will refuse to accept it.

But lets all keep saying Microsoft is evil.

Don't discount this so quickly. (1)

pavon (30274) | about 4 years ago | (#31589554)

It's not over till the fat lady sings.

Ok (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31589968)

AAAAAAA OOOOOO UUUUUU

Blah blah blah
Bleh bleh bleh bleh
blah blah blaaaaaaaah


fidgity fidgity fidgity blaaaaaaah
brooom breeeeeaaaadulaaaaam
mooooo heeeee hahaaaaa huuuuuuuu


Thank you

Re:Don't discount this so quickly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31589980)

Listen, Gladys over in the Rejections & Excuses Department may have a bit of a glandular problem and a habit of singing to herself while her lunch is microwaving, but she's really getting tired of everyone bringing that up all the time.

Re:Don't discount this so quickly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31590024)

How appropriate, given the phrase's origin.

Re:Don't discount this so quickly. (3, Funny)

The Fat Lady (1774176) | about 4 years ago | (#31590102)

Oooooooh, Ave Steve Joooobs, oh Steve Jooooobs, oh Steve Joooobs,

I siiing to you right now, don't blooock the neeeew, submiiiiision to the Apple stooooore,

I teeeeel you thiiiiis beeecaaaauuuse, I haaaave to reaaaally make suuuuuuure that you wiiill
dooooo so

becaaaauuuuse I'm The Fat Laaaaaaadyyyyyyyy.

Done.

Re:Don't discount this so quickly. (1)

ryantmer (1748734) | about 4 years ago | (#31590298)

I applaud the amount of effort that went into parent's post.

Well done, Ms. Lady.

Re:DOA (1, Interesting)

ukyoCE (106879) | about 4 years ago | (#31589590)

Apple has made that rule clear, and it's their platform (and they don't have a monopoly) so it's not really evil.

The obvious question though is did anyone at Opera ask Apple before putting all the effort into creating the browser on the iPhone?

If Opera asked and Apple said "make it and find out the hard way", that would be evil.

If Opera asked and Apple said "We'll reject it. We don't want to support multiple browsers on our proprietary platform", then so be it. It's Opera's own fault if it gets rejected.

If they asked and Apple refused to answer, I'd file that under the first category of "make it and find out the hard way" evilness.

Re:DOA (3, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 4 years ago | (#31589836)

Apple will say that it duplicates existing iPhone functions and will refuse to accept it.

But lets all keep saying Microsoft is evil.

Apple has made that rule clear [...]

They've stated it lots of times as a reason for rejecting things, sure, but often while allowing other things that are just as duplicative of the same core functionality as the the thing rejected with that stated reason.

So, either they are just extremely inconsistent in enforcing the rule, or the "rule" is just an excuse.

Re:DOA (1)

ukyoCE (106879) | about 4 years ago | (#31589982)

I'm not familiar with the duplicate-functionality they've allowed on the App store, any good examples?

One of the biggest problems with the closed App store is that developers run a huge risk of having their app rejected and "losing" all the development time that went into it. I'd never do something like a web browser (even in the Opera Mini way) without getting approval from Apple before starting development.

If enough toes are stubbed by apple closing the door they may start having problems getting developers to make apps, especially complex ones, for the iPhone.

Re:DOA (1)

twidarkling (1537077) | about 4 years ago | (#31589864)

"It's not evil because they said upfront what the rules are!"

So, evil is only evil when it's a surprise. Do I have to explain what a moronic statement that is? Apple is all about trying to maintain a vertical monopoly, which is still a type of monopoly, and just as bad as a horizontal one, even if slightly less common.

Re:DOA (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about 4 years ago | (#31590034)

or Opera have prepped some Norweigien MEP's to ask some pointed Questions / Refer apple to the competition commission. Dont forget that Opera comes out of Telenor.

Re:DOA (1)

cgenman (325138) | about 4 years ago | (#31590176)

Apple has made that rule clear, and it's their platform (and they don't have a monopoly) so it's not really evil.

Just because a rule is a rule, doesn't mean it can't be an evil rule. There has been repeated abuses of this rule in the past, including banning apps for duplicating functionality that Apple hadn't yet implemented or told anyone about, and banning apps for duplicating functionality that doesn't exist, etc.

Also, apple is notoriously unreachable about prior approval or feedback in any form. Build the app, submit it, and be approved or not.

In this case Opera already has Opera Mini running on multiple platforms, with the backend handling the heavy lifting. They mostly needed to create an interpreter for their markup language, which their existing back end engine creates. Being the first non-safari browser on the iPhone would be a significant coup. Even then, the publicity of a rejection might be worth significantly more than the cost of creating the interpreter.

Re:DOA (2, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | about 4 years ago | (#31589594)

You keep using this word evil but I don't think you know what it means.

Creating a "walled garden" for an app store is _NOT_ evil. Deal with it. In case you hadn't noticed, virtually every store on the planet practices that every day. They don't just stock products because they exist - they only stock products that match their store's motif if they think they can sell it. Sorry. Not evil. Totally, utterly, not evil.

Just because you don't like it doesn't make it "evil".

Re:DOA (3, Interesting)

EvanED (569694) | about 4 years ago | (#31589850)

The app store not carrying things isn't evil. That's fine.

Apple making it so that the only way you can load programs onto your iPhone is, however, somewhat evil. (At least in combination with the above fact.)

Wal-Mart doesn't make you sign a contract saying you'll never shop at Target before they let you into the store.

Re:DOA (1)

Draek (916851) | about 4 years ago | (#31590288)

I don't think *you* know what "evil" means. "Evil" is a moral qualifier, and morality being entirely subjective, you *cannot* state "this practice is not evil" without suffixing it with an "in my opinion".

Apple's control-obsessed tendencies may not be evil for *you*, but that does not mean they aren't for anybody else. Stop trying to push your own opinion onto everybody else.

Re:DOA (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 4 years ago | (#31589598)

Bah Microsoft is evil, as is Apple, and even Google sometimes. I will let the fact that Google is stopping there censoring of Chinese search results speak for it's self.
The difference is that Microsoft is Super BIG and Evil. Google and Apple are just big and evil.
The other difference is at least we are Microsoft and Apple's customers. We are Google's product.

Re:DOA (1, Informative)

v1 (525388) | about 4 years ago | (#31589614)

Apple will say that it duplicates existing iPhone functions and will refuse to accept it.

yepyep. that's their favorite rejection reason. "it competes with us". Most businesses can't just tell someone else entering their market "nope, that would compete with us, you can't do that."

Re:DOA (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | about 4 years ago | (#31589802)

Aren't there like laws and stuff against intentionally limiting competition?

Re:DOA (1)

ThrowAwaySociety (1351793) | about 4 years ago | (#31590126)

Aren't there like laws and stuff against intentionally limiting competition?

Nope. Not unless you're the only game in town already, or you conspire with your "competitors" to freeze others out.

Apple is only one of many players in the smartphone market, so consumers have plenty of alternatives. No harm done.

Re:DOA (1)

v1 (525388) | about 4 years ago | (#31590218)

If they were doing it some other way it would probably be illegal. But since it's their product and their store, within those bounds, they can make their own rules.

At least that's how the law is set up atm. If you want a piece of their action, you have to play by their rules. If you don't like it, sell your own product and make your own store and you can do whatever you want, is what they will say.

Re:DOA (1)

Em Emalb (452530) | about 4 years ago | (#31589824)

As an Apple shareholder, I'm absolutely fine with that. It's their phone, their applications. Let's force them to open it up to competition.

I'm all for that.... :-/

Sometimes I feel like people think they're forced to buy Apple's products or something.

Re:DOA (2, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | about 4 years ago | (#31590206)

Most businesses can't just tell someone else entering their market "nope, that would compete with us, you can't do that."

Uh yes most businesses can say "nope" to a competitor who wants to sell their product through the businesses' own store.

Lowes doesn't sell Home Depot's brand of power tools; Best Buy doesn't sell computers using Fry's brand of motherboards. The brick-and-mortar Apple store doesn't sell Windows-based PCs. All shocking instances of anti-competitive behavior, I know. :P

Think they will allow it (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 4 years ago | (#31589748)

Opera mini is a curious thing that does no parsing on the device, it does it all on the Opera server...

Apple will not disallow it, as it does not do anything like add an alternate Javascript parser on the phone - nor does it really duplicate Safari much, as the rendering is not really the same.

Re:DOA (1)

Omnifarious (11933) | about 4 years ago | (#31589760)

Yeah, I had the same thought. This has about as much chance of making it to the iPhone as Microsoft has of officially declaring that Linux doesn't infringe any of its patents tomorrow.

And Apple and Microsoft are both evil. Years ago, when I didn't consider Apple evil I knew they had the potential to become so, and they have fulfilled that potential, though not in quite the way I would've guessed they would years ago.

Re:DOA (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | about 4 years ago | (#31590138)

Why not though? If the App costs money - wouldn't Apple take its cut, make money off of it? It's not like they make money selling Safari, a product that comes free on every Apple Product.

Re:DOA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31590148)

Apple will say that it duplicates existing iPhone functions and will refuse to accept it.

Actually, that's a popular misconception. There are plenty of browsers already in the Store. A more truthful reason as to why some browsers have been rejected is the long-standing rule against virtual machines and language interpreters (i.e. no Javascript), and that's understandable.

It's fine to jump on the bandwagon of the growing anti-Apple sentiment, but let's at least try to stick with actual truth.

Re:DOA (0, Flamebait)

fermion (181285) | about 4 years ago | (#31590226)

If this was a gecko based browser I might care. I still recall when Opera had no credible version for the Mac. Now everyone is saying how great they are because the have a browser that no one has seen for the iPhone. Opera does not even seem to have a built in flash blocker(not content blocking, I don't care about that), not useful for iPhone, but if I want a new browser I want it to do something different, not just be faster. My browser experience is just not that slow. /. opens in a few seconds.

I have nearly all 11 screens full of relatively useful apps on my iPhone. Pretty soon I am going to have pick and choose. I certainly would not sub a browser.

And there can be more than one evil company. One can have MS, Google, and Apple all be evil.

Duplicate Functionality? (1)

Xanavi (1197431) | about 4 years ago | (#31589448)

The problem here is this should not have to be a story. Apple could have just competed on their own platform rather than hold it by its neck.

Re:Duplicate Functionality? (1)

MikeFM (12491) | about 4 years ago | (#31589604)

I think it's less about competing than about the customer experience. Not as if they make money from their built-in apps whereas they do if a 'competitor' sells an app. Studies have shown that most consumers prefer fewer choices.

  If anything I think they should block more from the App Store as it's got to much crap making it hard to find the good content. Not nearly as bad as Android but still a lot of noise in the system. At least they should have a feature to only show apps with a good rating by a considerable number of users.

Re:Duplicate Functionality? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31589660)

Can you run Firefox on your Nintendo Wii? No, only Opera.

This is a non-story because it's a closed platform and there's nothing surprising about it. Not because "OMG THERES A PLATFORM THAT ISNT OPEN TO EVERYTHING Q.Q"

Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it. (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | about 4 years ago | (#31589450)

Yeah, and Apple is going to remove it "fast as a rocket" too.

Steve doesn't compete. He tells you what you can have, and you either accept it or you don't. If you don't like it, go buy a Droid.

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31589490)

Talking shit again I see. Go and look at the difference between Opera Mini and how other browsers work, twat.

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31589654)

Sounds kind of like Obama.

Isn't it funny that the health care law forces restaurants to post nutritional information right on the menu but we still can't get transparency from his administration like he promised he would? I thought that he wasn't going to push legislation like this without transparency?

Obama lied. America died.

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it. (0, Offtopic)

Beelzebud (1361137) | about 4 years ago | (#31589828)

Oh go cry a river you conservative cry-baby.

I don't remember conservatives giving two shits about transparency during the Bush years. Hell the VP back then had Enron in on private energy meetings that just so happened to coincide with California's manufactured 'energy crisis'.

In fact, if you gave one ounce of care about transparency you'd know that the entire health bill is online, and has been for months. Look up H.R. 3590 on thomas.loc.gov

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31589978)

uh, fucktard, obama claimed that there will be full documentation of anyone he met with, anyone congress met with and any meetings that happened. if you're so fast to forget they had closed door meetings and i have yet to see a single list of industry representatives obama or the legislature met with during this process. so the op is correct, obama lied.

even the eff is bitching about his lie: http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obamas-transparency- [eff.org]

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it. (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | about 4 years ago | (#31590230)

Fucktard? I expect nothing less from conservatives, these days. I stopped reading at "fucktard".

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31589774)

I didn't properly test drive my iphone and stupidly made too many assumptions about what it could do, or I'd never have bought it, so yes, I'm going to buy a Droid when my contract's up. The whole closed thing is just too annoying, and although the physical design and parts of the UI of the iphone are nice it's just a shiny toy with ridiculously limited functionality if you want to use it for business purposes. For one example: Calendar alarms that you can't snooze? Pathetic! I never thought I'd miss a Microsoft product but the Windows Mobile phone I had before the iphone did simple and obvious things that the iphone simply cannot.

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31589820)

Steve is selling a device, not a browser. If opera wants to compete, they can do it by making their own phone, or by trying to sell Opera on any open devices out there. Nothing new here.

It's like saying "Whirlpool doesn't compete" because I can't load my own software onto my dishwasher. Yeah, no duh dumbass.

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it. (1)

Ossifer (703813) | about 4 years ago | (#31589902)

Nah, this is more like "Whirlpool doesn't allow competition" because it prevent unapproved detergents from being used whereas people are expecting that they should have this choice, as they do with other brands' dishwashers.

My apologies to Whirlpool/Electrolux for this hypothetical discussion.

Re:Apple isn't an open platform. Deal with it. (1)

grumpyman (849537) | about 4 years ago | (#31589962)

I'll be a bit surprised if the Opera guys didn't communicate with Apple about their plan. I can't imagine they just code away the whole way and now just hold their breath and cross their fingers...

Force Their Hand (4, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | about 4 years ago | (#31589454)

from the thats-not-gonna-work dept.

Publicize it like they (and you) are doing and actually it just might work. Dare Apple look any more evil than their dictatorship at the app store has made them out to be?

Re:Force Their Hand (3, Informative)

idontgno (624372) | about 4 years ago | (#31589586)

Dare Apple look any more evil than their dictatorship at the app store has made them out to be?

Oh, they dare. They dare.

They already have their core addicts ^w market, fashionistas and fanbois. The point of their iron control is not to enhance market share; the point of their market share is to enhance their iron control.

To paraphrase Ernestine as an Appstore administrator: "We don't care. We're Apple. We don't have to."

Re:Force Their Hand (1)

ukyoCE (106879) | about 4 years ago | (#31589926)

The point of their "iron control" is to make a good device, instead of making a sloppy device where they have to support other devs' software as part of the core experience. It's a very different approach from open devices, but it has its advantages.

Their browser is tightly integrated into the phone experience. Allowing other browsers would mean creating an API, limiting functionality of their browser to published functionality any browser can interoperate with, and so on. It's a lot of effort to dilute their own device. Clearly not a good idea from their perspective.

It's the exact same thing Microsoft did on Windows. The only problem then was that Microsoft had a monopoly on desktop OSes. Controlling the browser market on Windows would have effectively extinguished the internet as an open platform. I don't think there's any risk of that happening from the iPhone having a tightly integrated 1st-party browser on their phone.

Re:Force Their Hand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31589658)

from the thats-not-gonna-work dept.

Publicize it like they (and you) are doing and actually it just might work. Dare Apple look any more evil than their dictatorship at the app store has made them out to be?

You give most Apple users too much credit. Outside of the techies who are Apple fanbois and know what Apple is doing, the rest of them, don't care. I'll paraphrase the line that will come from Apple, "The Opera application doesn't follow Apple's experience and usability guidelines and therefore doesn't offer the experience that people expect form Apple."

The non-tech fonbois will accept it and forget about it.

Re:Force Their Hand (1)

MBCook (132727) | about 4 years ago | (#31589688)

This whole this is pretty passive-agressive. The count-up clock of how long they've been waiting for approval is really passive-agressive.

I don't really care about Opera myself, but this is going to be so much fun to watch. Opera has been doing a good job setting up their case that they are being unfairly denied when it happens.

So does Apple deny, look bad, and get hit with a lawsuit, or cave in? I can't see Steve caving.

FIGHT!

Re:Force Their Hand (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about 4 years ago | (#31589954)

I was going to post the exact same thing, this is one of the most passive-aggressive things I've seen a company do. I love the competition to guess when Apple is going to approve it (and win a free iPhone!). Bonus points for anyone who can find the URL of the page which probably already exists which explains that it was denied.

Aside from Flash.... (1, Funny)

787style (816008) | about 4 years ago | (#31589508)

What major deficiency is there in the Safari browser? It works quite well, performance is good, tight integration with all internal and third party apps. And scores 100 on Acid 3. Unless you have a 2G iPhone or live in an area with really bad service, I fail to see what this offers.

And I'm quite happy without Flash, TYVM.

Re:Aside from Flash.... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31589682)

Things like "Find" maybe?

Re:Aside from Flash.... (1)

Arty2 (1742112) | about 4 years ago | (#31590232)

"It works quite well, performance is good, tight integration with all internal and third party apps" Isn't that IE6 all over again?

Re:Aside from Flash.... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31590296)

Considering that Safari the only app that has ever caused my phone to hard lock to the point of needing a hard reset, and as far as I understand all non-Apple apps aren't allowed to dive deep enough into the OS to even hope to cause anything other than the app itself to crash, a browser that doesn't kill my phone constantly is good enough reason for me.

Not to mention that while roaming in the US I get billed at the wonderful rate of 3 cents per 1KB (Yes you read that right, $30.72 per 1MB) Opera stands to save me a LOT of money if I have to use my data in a pinch.

Opera Marketing Win (4, Insightful)

VoxMagis (1036530) | about 4 years ago | (#31589560)

Whether accepted or not, Opera has gained a lot of basically free publicity with this. That's what it is about, and good for them.

I am not absolutely sure that Apple will reject it. If I was Apple though, I would make them change the name to, for example, 'Opera Web Viewer', and not allow it to access https pages at all. Then they get to claim user-security and still let this thing in.

I love Opera and all, but I'm not sure I would use it myself. I'll look at it when it's available, no reason to worry until then.

Re:Opera Marketing Win (1)

michael1221988 (1613671) | about 4 years ago | (#31589752)

For those who don't know Opera mini makes everything blazing fast by acting as a proxy and compresses all of your html pages. However, it should probably not be used for logging into sites, because they can intercept everything.

Re:Opera Marketing Win (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31589890)

Next up: all the users start noticing their data comes via a proxy... wow... there goes my bankaccount... :)

or is https:// excluded?

Droid does... (1)

michael1221988 (1613671) | about 4 years ago | (#31589624)

Opera mini is blazing on android. Too bad this will fail just like google failed. Apple is a rotten company.

Re:Droid does... (1)

konohitowa (220547) | about 4 years ago | (#31589700)

So trade in your iPhone for something else then. I mean, given how upset you seem to be about this, you obviously are an iPhone user, right?

Re:Droid does... (1)

idontgno (624372) | about 4 years ago | (#31589912)

Maybe he's just a concerned slashdotter, worried about his fellow geeks.

Freedom is indivisible, and when one man is enslaved, all are not free.

-- John F. Kennedy

Re:Droid does... (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about 4 years ago | (#31590014)

Maybe you're just projecting, but I don't see an indication that the OP is upset. He's saying that Opera mini runs fast on Android (so, apparently, he's an Android owner), that he expects Opera to get denied by Apple, and that he doesn't like Apple. I don't like Apple either, in fact I dislike Apple more than any other company at this point, but I'm not "upset" about anything they do. Surprised maybe, possibly a little confused, maybe empathetic towards people who choose to develop for the Apple platform, but not upset.

Re:Droid does... (1)

fredrik70 (161208) | about 4 years ago | (#31589886)

indeed, this version is the dogs bollocks. The old Opera was quite crap and I mostly used the built in browser on my G1, now, Opera is *the* browser, so fast... only niggle I found is that it doesn't seem to direct youtube videos to the youtube app, just showing the youtube page itself with an non working video on it Oh well, I can live with that! :-)

Free iPhone for Release Date! (1)

Ksevio (865461) | about 4 years ago | (#31589644)

Looks like they're giving out a free iPhone if you guess closest to the release time on the link in the summary. Looks like "Never" isn't an option so they're optimistic.

Re:Free iPhone for Release Date! (1)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | about 4 years ago | (#31590028)

That's not optimism, that's a challenge to Apple. I'll give you 10 to 1 odds that they've already got a "submission rejected" page on their server ready to go.

They put Apple between a rock and a hard place (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31589716)

If Apple rejects there will be an uproar from everyone, if they accept everyone well say it was because of all the publicity Opera did before they submitted the app.

Engadget'sideo comparison (1)

jigamo (1554711) | about 4 years ago | (#31589726)

Engadget has an interesting write-up [engadget.com] on this with a video comparing page-load times on an Edge connection between Safari and Opera Mini. The article also links to a page Opera has up with a timer showing how long it's been since the app was submitted. If the video is legitimate, I could see this getting a lot of people to move to Opera Mini (if Apple accepts this app).

Another anti-competitive suit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31590040)

Was it not Opera who kick started Microsoft into offering users a choice when it comes to browsers? Perhaps a similar suit is in Apple's future...

Apple, please reject this quickly (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#31590140)

I really hope Apple rejects it quickly so Opera tosses it up on the jailbroken software distribution channels (Cydia/Rock). All the more stuff to show my friends to get them interested in breaking Apple's chokehold on their hardware.

It's not like I'd refuse to use it if it was on the Apple Store, I'd actually be rather happy if it was for all the people who choose not to jailbreak, but I imagine that Opera is waiting to see if they get Apple's blessing before rolling it out by other means. And I bet that Apple will likely delay their "decision" as long as possible (indefinitely?) until people/media forget about it, then quietly deny it if pushed to a decision.

This is probably legal manoeuvering (4, Interesting)

obarthelemy (160321) | about 4 years ago | (#31590228)

My guess is Opera have no hope of getting it approved, buyt are starting to build a case to force the iGarden open the same way they forced the Wintel one. Will take a while, though.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...