Time since Opera Mini for iPhone was officially submitted to Apple(my.opera.com)
my.opera.com
Time since Opera Mini for iPhone was officially submitted to Apple
http://my.opera.com/community/countup/
122 comments
And this is why it will be denied. Opera mini is not a web browser. It is a viewer for a proxy server. This is a huge security risk because you're not just trusting the remote server, but you also have to trust Opera as well. And when dealing with SSL, the entire thing falls apart.
I think that they only way this could or should be accepted is if it doesn't support HTTPS at all. And even then it should pop up a very large disclaimer stating that everything you browser will be visible to Opera.
All in all, this is just a gimmick. If they wanted to really prove their point, they'd have ported their actual browser to the iPhone. Then they'd have something to complain about. The mini version of Opera has a place on underpowered handsets, but the iPhone is more than capable of running a full browser. But as it is, I don't think that this can be seen as anything more than a publicity stunt.
I think that they only way this could or should be accepted is if it doesn't support HTTPS at all. And even then it should pop up a very large disclaimer stating that everything you browser will be visible to Opera.
All in all, this is just a gimmick. If they wanted to really prove their point, they'd have ported their actual browser to the iPhone. Then they'd have something to complain about. The mini version of Opera has a place on underpowered handsets, but the iPhone is more than capable of running a full browser. But as it is, I don't think that this can be seen as anything more than a publicity stunt.
Of course it's a web browser. It looks like a web browser and you can browse the internet with it. I think those are sufficient conditions. Opera Mini is a good solution when you want to read a few blogs or check up on wikipedia.
Remember we're living in an era where most people read their webmail via an unsecured connection. The risk of using Opera as a middle man pales in comparison to all the security risks people casually take.
I think Opera Mini offers a good trade-off between speed and security, and I don't think it's gimmicky at all.
Remember we're living in an era where most people read their webmail via an unsecured connection. The risk of using Opera as a middle man pales in comparison to all the security risks people casually take.
I think Opera Mini offers a good trade-off between speed and security, and I don't think it's gimmicky at all.
It doesn't actually browse the web. It is a viewer for the Opera servers that are actually browsing the web.
Just because most people take greater risks with their email doesn't mean that Apple should support the endeavor. In my opinion breaking the SSL/TLS security chain is a big no-no. Unless their app doesn't support HTTPS sites, that's enough for me to support Apple denying it.
Just because most people take greater risks with their email doesn't mean that Apple should support the endeavor. In my opinion breaking the SSL/TLS security chain is a big no-no. Unless their app doesn't support HTTPS sites, that's enough for me to support Apple denying it.
Opera do highlight this in their FAQ: http://www.opera.com/mobile/help/faq/#connection
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.
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.
Nobody is going to look there, I should hope it's presented when they try to load up an SSL page.
The whole point of Opera Mini as an app is for them to rearrange your content; complaining that they can see the content seems schizophrenic.
However, Opera needs to be sure to disclose/advertise the app as a proxy and not just a browser. Personally, I will never want to use a "browser" app with a proxy in the middle, but as long as others are fully aware of what they are downloading then they at least knowingly get to assume whatever risk is involved.
The people who actually care (i.e. you and I) already know about it. The people who don't care, have much bigger security concerns, IMO. Most people don't check for SSL when entering credit card information, so I doubt they would care about this if they thought it good speed up their browsing as much as Opera says it can.
edit: Though I do agree - I would trust them a little more if they were a little more outspoken about the security implications of what's going on.
edit: Though I do agree - I would trust them a little more if they were a little more outspoken about the security implications of what's going on.
I didn't know about it. I had Opera Mini on my old ADP1 and had no idea it was acting as a proxy viewer. Or maybe Opera Mini on Android isn't the same as the one currently submitted to Apple?
Huh... where do they say this? I assumed it was a normal browser.
It is not at all the point, the point is to provide a faster browsing experience, Opera servers rearranging the content is just a means to an end.
Indeed, if the iPhone was sufficiently powerful, it would be faster to do do the transformations locally.
edit: this is not a swipe at the iPhone, but support for the statement that using Opera's severs is not a functional requirement.
edit: this is not a swipe at the iPhone, but support for the statement that using Opera's severs is not a functional requirement.
I don't think it's taken as a swipe at the iPhone, more that I think doing it locally would remove any performance/speed gains that it provides. Granted, you could still cache a certain amount of data locally, but browsers do that anyway.
That's rather my point. If the phone was sufficiently powerful, you wouldn't lose any performance gains. I'm implicitly defining sufficiently powerful to be however powerful the iPhone would need to be to see no performance drop.
Once we assume the CPU and memory of the iPhone can handle it, doing it that way would be faster since there would be less latency involved.
Once we assume the CPU and memory of the iPhone can handle it, doing it that way would be faster since there would be less latency involved.
[deleted]
Wow, this is a PERFECT opportunity for iPhone users in China to get through the Great Firewall! (I hope they will encrypt it somehow before sending back)
What a weird platform the iPhone is, when established companies like Opera have to resort to such things.
Hmm. My mouse was on its way to the downvote button when I noticed who made this comment (that I paused is also interesting).
Apple has placed very few restrictions on the iPhone, almost exclusively so that they can control the majority of the user experience. To that end, they have said that applications which can run other applications are not allowed. Reflecting on other industries, this doesn't bother me. Do we expect Barnes and Noble to allow people to run a competing store in their store? Maybe a newspaper giving free ad space to someone who re-sells it at a profit? To me it's strange when people expect Apple to conduct their platform in a wholly different manner than a traditional business.
To put the icing on this cake, it would be a non-issue if Opera-for-iPhone simply augmented the built in browser components instead of shipping something which unnecessarily violates the terms of the store. We could easily see a Firefox, Chrome, or Opera on the iPhone if they used WebKit for their JS and DOM parsing and rendering. Maybe that is too much to expect from a browser company, but I certainly don't expect companies to pout and stomp their feet when Apple doesn't give them what they want.
Apple has placed very few restrictions on the iPhone, almost exclusively so that they can control the majority of the user experience. To that end, they have said that applications which can run other applications are not allowed. Reflecting on other industries, this doesn't bother me. Do we expect Barnes and Noble to allow people to run a competing store in their store? Maybe a newspaper giving free ad space to someone who re-sells it at a profit? To me it's strange when people expect Apple to conduct their platform in a wholly different manner than a traditional business.
To put the icing on this cake, it would be a non-issue if Opera-for-iPhone simply augmented the built in browser components instead of shipping something which unnecessarily violates the terms of the store. We could easily see a Firefox, Chrome, or Opera on the iPhone if they used WebKit for their JS and DOM parsing and rendering. Maybe that is too much to expect from a browser company, but I certainly don't expect companies to pout and stomp their feet when Apple doesn't give them what they want.
You wouldn't expect a competing store in a Barnes and Noble because that's their store; they own it.
However, if Apple is going to sell me a phone, then I own the phone. I should be able to install the apps I want on it, regardless of who wrote them or sold them to me.
If someone sold you a house, but with the restriction that you could never sublet, could only ever use approved furniture from Ikea, and you had to give them regular access to inspect the house to make sure you're not violating their rules, would you buy such a house?
Why are we willing to buy phones with such restrictions, then?
However, if Apple is going to sell me a phone, then I own the phone. I should be able to install the apps I want on it, regardless of who wrote them or sold them to me.
If someone sold you a house, but with the restriction that you could never sublet, could only ever use approved furniture from Ikea, and you had to give them regular access to inspect the house to make sure you're not violating their rules, would you buy such a house?
Why are we willing to buy phones with such restrictions, then?
Plenty of people accept similar restrictions to live in gated communities or in exclusive apartments with tenant associations.
That's what Apple's offering: A gated community. Businesses have to play by its rules to get in there. If you too want the benefits of living in its world you don't get to paint your house pink.
That's what Apple's offering: A gated community. Businesses have to play by its rules to get in there. If you too want the benefits of living in its world you don't get to paint your house pink.
What's wrong with it? Apple (and many others) are using federal criminal laws to enforce their business model. It is very possibly a criminal act to unlock your iPhone. Why should the FBI and our criminal judicial system be used to protect a business model?
The gated community you refer are not using criminal laws; just civil contracts to enforce the position.
The gated community you refer are not using criminal laws; just civil contracts to enforce the position.
IANAL, but I'd suspect it becomes criminal trespass once you're lease is terminated. FWIW, here in the UK there is always the possibility of going to jail if you paint your house pink: http://www.dacorum.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=3118
Why should the FBI and our criminal judicial system be used to protect a business model?
So far as I can tell they haven't. And, yes, the judicial system will get involved if you run afoul of your gated community's regulations: you'll be evicted by an officer of the law, and you'll be arrested and jailed if you attempt to remain in your former home after the eviction.
So far as I can tell they haven't. And, yes, the judicial system will get involved if you run afoul of your gated community's regulations: you'll be evicted by an officer of the law, and you'll be arrested and jailed if you attempt to remain in your former home after the eviction.
"So far as I can tell they haven't."
The threat of imprisonment is not a deterrent for millions of people to have unlocked phones??
Don't confuse the home ownership issue. The actions you are talking about (law officers arresting you) come after a civil process is lost. Such civil processes must be instigated at the cost of the plaintiff, not the government.
Apple, and anyone else locking devices are relying on the threat of criminal penalties. It is enough that the act of unlocking the phones is illegal and closes off competition. If it were not for laws that provide for these penalties, there would be a huge secondary market of unlocked devices, instead of the grey/black market that exists.
The threat of imprisonment is not a deterrent for millions of people to have unlocked phones??
Don't confuse the home ownership issue. The actions you are talking about (law officers arresting you) come after a civil process is lost. Such civil processes must be instigated at the cost of the plaintiff, not the government.
Apple, and anyone else locking devices are relying on the threat of criminal penalties. It is enough that the act of unlocking the phones is illegal and closes off competition. If it were not for laws that provide for these penalties, there would be a huge secondary market of unlocked devices, instead of the grey/black market that exists.
Apple, and anyone else locking devices are relying on the threat of criminal penalties.
As they say on Wikipedia: "citation needed". Last I checked Apple hadn't bothered going after anyone who'd unlocked their phone, or even anyone who'd distributed tools for unlocking phones. Also, it's questionable that the law would even support that -- there's a DMCA exemption for cell-phone unlocking, for example, which means the only likely grounds for going after someone would be civil proceedings based on breach of user agreements.
Which means that, um, you're spouting off a bunch of hyperbole unrelated to actual reality.
As they say on Wikipedia: "citation needed". Last I checked Apple hadn't bothered going after anyone who'd unlocked their phone, or even anyone who'd distributed tools for unlocking phones. Also, it's questionable that the law would even support that -- there's a DMCA exemption for cell-phone unlocking, for example, which means the only likely grounds for going after someone would be civil proceedings based on breach of user agreements.
Which means that, um, you're spouting off a bunch of hyperbole unrelated to actual reality.
I live in a reality where I can read public U.S. documents.
Here's one where Apple requests to keep it a criminal act to unlock an iPhone: "Apple Inc. submits this responsive comment in opposition to proposed Class #1 contained in proposed exemptions labeled 5A and 11A3 submitted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation"
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/responses/apple-inc-31.pd...
To date, it is legal for an "individual" to unlock their phone (an iPhone's additional behavior, not so certain) but it is still a criminal act to provide services or create tools to assist such acts. The fact that the government isn't currently prosecuting does not make the threat any more real. The threat keeps the unlocking market from being legitimate and pervasive. The current Copyright Office exemption only applies to a narrow range of activity leaving wholesale unlocking a gray/black market.
This link has a solid catalog of the current state of the Copyright Office's DMCA position: http://www.eff.org/cases/2009-dmca-rulemaking
You can see the most recent EFF request is September, 2009. It seems pretty clear the status of jailbreaking is still up in the air.
It took me one Google search to find dozens of quality sources of information on this topic. Next time, please do your own search before publicly accusing someone of being disconnected from reality.
Here's one where Apple requests to keep it a criminal act to unlock an iPhone: "Apple Inc. submits this responsive comment in opposition to proposed Class #1 contained in proposed exemptions labeled 5A and 11A3 submitted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation"
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2008/responses/apple-inc-31.pd...
To date, it is legal for an "individual" to unlock their phone (an iPhone's additional behavior, not so certain) but it is still a criminal act to provide services or create tools to assist such acts. The fact that the government isn't currently prosecuting does not make the threat any more real. The threat keeps the unlocking market from being legitimate and pervasive. The current Copyright Office exemption only applies to a narrow range of activity leaving wholesale unlocking a gray/black market.
This link has a solid catalog of the current state of the Copyright Office's DMCA position: http://www.eff.org/cases/2009-dmca-rulemaking
You can see the most recent EFF request is September, 2009. It seems pretty clear the status of jailbreaking is still up in the air.
It took me one Google search to find dozens of quality sources of information on this topic. Next time, please do your own search before publicly accusing someone of being disconnected from reality.
the restriction that you could never sublet, could only ever use approved furniture from Ikea, and you had to give them regular access to inspect the house to make sure you're not violating their rules, would you buy such a house?
Those are common restrictions for renters (except for the Ikea part).
Why are we willing to buy phones with such restrictions, then?
You purchase a complicated package. Many people have decided that Apple's is more appealing than the others. You certainly can't fault Apple for making something that people like, so why are people so upset over small things that don't seem to bother most people?
Those are common restrictions for renters (except for the Ikea part).
Why are we willing to buy phones with such restrictions, then?
You purchase a complicated package. Many people have decided that Apple's is more appealing than the others. You certainly can't fault Apple for making something that people like, so why are people so upset over small things that don't seem to bother most people?
"Why are we willing to buy phones with such restrictions, then?"
To use the house analogy the alternative in SmartPhones seems to be a house with an ugly paint job, the floors aren't quite level, the doors squeak, the roof leaks, and sometimes the locks on the doors don't work and you come home to a house full of shady individuals peeking around in your underwear drawer. We're almost 4 generations into the iPhone and arguably Android 2.x is the first real good "open" alternative -- even though it's not nearly as open as people like to think. I'm all for open platforms and freedom but delivering wonky products is a great way to push the mainstream market towards walled gardens. No one wants to run anti-virus and anti-spyware on their phone, or deal with a task manager, or deal with apps that crash a lot. Those days are over with. People just won't put up with it anymore. The open platforms gotta deliver a good experience or they're doomed.
To use the house analogy the alternative in SmartPhones seems to be a house with an ugly paint job, the floors aren't quite level, the doors squeak, the roof leaks, and sometimes the locks on the doors don't work and you come home to a house full of shady individuals peeking around in your underwear drawer. We're almost 4 generations into the iPhone and arguably Android 2.x is the first real good "open" alternative -- even though it's not nearly as open as people like to think. I'm all for open platforms and freedom but delivering wonky products is a great way to push the mainstream market towards walled gardens. No one wants to run anti-virus and anti-spyware on their phone, or deal with a task manager, or deal with apps that crash a lot. Those days are over with. People just won't put up with it anymore. The open platforms gotta deliver a good experience or they're doomed.
arguably Android 2.x is the first real good "open" alternative -- even though it's not nearly as open as people like to think
I'm not sure what you mean by that. My Nexus One is rooted, unlocked, and runs any software I tell it to, including custom ROMs based off of the Android open source code. Yes some carriers lock down their Android phones, but that doesn't make Android itself not open any more than TiVo makes Linux not open.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. My Nexus One is rooted, unlocked, and runs any software I tell it to, including custom ROMs based off of the Android open source code. Yes some carriers lock down their Android phones, but that doesn't make Android itself not open any more than TiVo makes Linux not open.
Just in the sense the phone the average customer buys off the shelf may be just as locked down as an iPhone and that Google does allow carriers/handset makers a lot of power over users. (stuck with Android 1.5 on my HTC Hero for example)
However, if Apple is going to sell me a phone, then I own the phone.
You do own the phone. You do not own the software that runs on the phone.
You do own the phone. You do not own the software that runs on the phone.
It's still feasible to jailbreak an iPhone as long as you don't just directly apply Apple's firmware updates, right?
Its an interesting problem. From the software developer's perspective, I see this as a free speech issue, in much the same way that an artist would feel harmed if his/her work was forced out of circulation. The iPhone platform is the quintessential place to be for mobile applications, and to not have access to the platform is certainly a huge disadvantage with reaching an audience. Disregarding the technical issues at play, as a developer, I would feel violated if my application, that I poured hundreds of hours into, was summarily denied access to the market.
On the other hand, I understand Apple's perspective. They are product zealots who want to control the user experience much more-so than most other companies. They built the product, and should reap the rewards of their innovation. They see the user as their customer, and they are ultimately responsible for the complete user experience. That is their right. Also, its a dog-eat-dog market, as the various players maneuver to either protect their established markets (Adobe), stay relevant (Opera), or try to gain market share at Apple's expense (Google). I would not expect Apple to invite something like a Chrome runtime onto the iPhone. That would be tantamount to Google providing a version of Chrome that disabled all Google ads and tracking. In Apple's case, allowing completely open access would go against everything that Apple stands for as a product focused company.
As a developer, as painful as it is, those are the ground rules. The only ways the rules will change are either via competitive forces or government regulation, the latter of which I hope we stay away from.
On the other hand, I understand Apple's perspective. They are product zealots who want to control the user experience much more-so than most other companies. They built the product, and should reap the rewards of their innovation. They see the user as their customer, and they are ultimately responsible for the complete user experience. That is their right. Also, its a dog-eat-dog market, as the various players maneuver to either protect their established markets (Adobe), stay relevant (Opera), or try to gain market share at Apple's expense (Google). I would not expect Apple to invite something like a Chrome runtime onto the iPhone. That would be tantamount to Google providing a version of Chrome that disabled all Google ads and tracking. In Apple's case, allowing completely open access would go against everything that Apple stands for as a product focused company.
As a developer, as painful as it is, those are the ground rules. The only ways the rules will change are either via competitive forces or government regulation, the latter of which I hope we stay away from.
It's entirely a free speech issue, just not at all for the developer.
The freedom of speech lies with the publisher (the final actor in the chain), not the author unless they are one and the same. The right of a newspaper to print whatever stories they want is concomitant with their right to not publish any particular story -- the right to be censors themselves.
The freedom of speech lies with the publisher (the final actor in the chain), not the author unless they are one and the same. The right of a newspaper to print whatever stories they want is concomitant with their right to not publish any particular story -- the right to be censors themselves.
That's a flawed analogy. There aren't artificial limitations preventing you from then publishing your own newspaper. You have no such opportunity to compete with the App Store.
Pre-emptive note: countering with a response similar to "I wasn't referring to the App Store; I was referring to the iPhone itself, which you are certainly free to compete with." doesn't just betray your analogy as incongruous. It would reveal that your analogy was helplessly broken from the start.
Pre-emptive note: countering with a response similar to "I wasn't referring to the App Store; I was referring to the iPhone itself, which you are certainly free to compete with." doesn't just betray your analogy as incongruous. It would reveal that your analogy was helplessly broken from the start.
I think the argument to your point is that the Appstore and the iPhone device are two components of one product. Following that analogy, the other outlets would be the Android marketplace, Blackberry AppWorld, or Microsoft upcoming app market.
> the Appstore and the iPhone device are two components of one product
Disagreement with this is the source of the uproar.
Disagreement with this is the source of the uproar.
Thinking about it further, it's also horseshit even if you wanted to entertain the notion of "oneness". The App Store has been around only a fraction of the time that the iPhone has.
I mostly agree with your point, but my comment about free speech was in regards to the perspective of the developer. You may not consider it relevant, but I think its important to gain a complete understanding of the issue.
Regardless of who owns the publishing channel, some developers are being shut out of the primary outlet for their creative expression. Again, I am not arguing that everybody should have unfettered access to the Appstore. Apple built it into the success that it is today. Kudos to them! However, its important to understand why some developers feel constrained and limited by the system
I do wonder about viewing Apple as a publisher. How much responsibility does Apple have for the content, and does this responsibility differ from that of a newspaper?
Regardless of who owns the publishing channel, some developers are being shut out of the primary outlet for their creative expression. Again, I am not arguing that everybody should have unfettered access to the Appstore. Apple built it into the success that it is today. Kudos to them! However, its important to understand why some developers feel constrained and limited by the system
I do wonder about viewing Apple as a publisher. How much responsibility does Apple have for the content, and does this responsibility differ from that of a newspaper?
You should not care about who made a comment but the quality of the comment itself.
Of course. The commenter did not affect my vote, but did cause me to spend more time reflecting on it and to post a comment. I mentioned that it was interesting that I paused at all because it shows that the commenter does matter, particularly when (s)he is a prominent figure.
You know there was a time when slavery was a "traditional business" too. There was a time when democracy was considered a weird and new thing that would destroy society (mostly by the rich established aristocracy) I bet United Fruit Company totally agrees with you that corporations should be allowed to do whatever they want in order to maximize profits.
I think it comes down to, are you a baby or an adult? Because the baby doesn't know much about the world, and wants a strong authority figure to guide and protect. The adult needs independence and the ability to make his own decisions.
I think it comes down to, are you a baby or an adult? Because the baby doesn't know much about the world, and wants a strong authority figure to guide and protect. The adult needs independence and the ability to make his own decisions.
I've yet to hear a good reason for Apple's strict restrictions on what can/can't run on the iPhone.
Initially a lot of people said the App store restrictions were to ensure the safety of the cell phone network from viruses, misbehaved apps, etc. But clearly that's hogwash. Phone's running Symbian, WinMo, BB-OS, Palm, etc. have been allowing the user to run apps without a nanny/gatekeeper for ages with no ill effects. I won't even mention the lack of problems with the Android Market to date..
Then there are folks who claim its "to control the user experience". That's also clearly hogwash. Is it O.K. if the RIAA decides that "to control the user experience" you're not allowed to rip CD's to your iPod? And of course, there is the easy counterexample that allowing users to freely choose their applications (that whole free market thing) hasn't seemed to have hurt the legendary user experience of OSX.
What particularly bothers me is the combination of the strict restrictions in the iPhone App store and the App store being the only way to load an app on the phone. To say nothing of the vigor with which Apple has attempted to thwart users with "jailbroken" iPhones. It's almost pathological.
Initially a lot of people said the App store restrictions were to ensure the safety of the cell phone network from viruses, misbehaved apps, etc. But clearly that's hogwash. Phone's running Symbian, WinMo, BB-OS, Palm, etc. have been allowing the user to run apps without a nanny/gatekeeper for ages with no ill effects. I won't even mention the lack of problems with the Android Market to date..
Then there are folks who claim its "to control the user experience". That's also clearly hogwash. Is it O.K. if the RIAA decides that "to control the user experience" you're not allowed to rip CD's to your iPod? And of course, there is the easy counterexample that allowing users to freely choose their applications (that whole free market thing) hasn't seemed to have hurt the legendary user experience of OSX.
What particularly bothers me is the combination of the strict restrictions in the iPhone App store and the App store being the only way to load an app on the phone. To say nothing of the vigor with which Apple has attempted to thwart users with "jailbroken" iPhones. It's almost pathological.
That's some lazy vigor -- they fix the software exploits after they're published. Sure it's nice to be able to root your own phone, but it'd be pretty obnoxious if other people could root my phone!
It's entirely about "controlling the user experience" as you say. They don't really mind the jailbreakers all that much (it provides an outlet for the fiddlers) as long as it doesn't become mainstream.
The way they see it, the problem with allowing people to install packages from elsewhere is that unsophisticated users would use it; fuck themselves; and blame Apple. They don't want the platform to grow out of their control -- Jobs would have a heart attack if it became perfectly normal to install customizations, themes, haxies, etc. There's nothing inherent about the platform that would restrain any of that, the gate at the App Store does it all.
They want to keep it so that every iPhone works and behaves like an iPhone. In their opinion, you should go to another vendor if you want a different user experience, much less a self-created one.
It's entirely about "controlling the user experience" as you say. They don't really mind the jailbreakers all that much (it provides an outlet for the fiddlers) as long as it doesn't become mainstream.
The way they see it, the problem with allowing people to install packages from elsewhere is that unsophisticated users would use it; fuck themselves; and blame Apple. They don't want the platform to grow out of their control -- Jobs would have a heart attack if it became perfectly normal to install customizations, themes, haxies, etc. There's nothing inherent about the platform that would restrain any of that, the gate at the App Store does it all.
They want to keep it so that every iPhone works and behaves like an iPhone. In their opinion, you should go to another vendor if you want a different user experience, much less a self-created one.
Hogwash. Unsophisticated users installing third party packages and "fucking themselves" doesn't seem to be a big problem in OSX. Nor does it seem to be a big problem for Symbian, WinMob, BB, Android, etc.
Allowing Opera, as an example, to be installed on an iPhone isn't going to stop it from working and behaving like an iPhone. It'll just be an iPhone with 1 additional application installed on it. Hardly world changing.
Allowing Opera, as an example, to be installed on an iPhone isn't going to stop it from working and behaving like an iPhone. It'll just be an iPhone with 1 additional application installed on it. Hardly world changing.
Unsophisticated users "fucking themselves" was a huge problem in OS X's early years (and only petered out with the horde of switchers 3-4 years ago), mostly thanks to the aggressive efforts of these folks: http://unsanity.com/
It was an extraordinarily similar situation: tons of expected features were left out of the new OS, and large parts of the UI changed substantially from what old users were habituated to. The most popular 'Haxie' by far was Windowshade, which restored the old window minimization metaphor of collapsing into the titlebar, and was installed by millions of mostly elderly people. Unfortunately, that whole class of extensions worked by means of a kernel extension that diddled with the address spaces of every binary and interposed itself in core GUI library code. They fucked over not just the users, but anyone who had to support any application on their systems.
If they allowed you to easily install apps from other sources, they'd be right back in that boat immediately and they know it.
A fringe group of users (and handset manufacturers) have been fucking themselves for years on Windows Mobile: http://www.xda-developers.com/ -- and they've had an exodus to Android, where they have access to a lot more consumer users that would think of installing their stuff.
It was an extraordinarily similar situation: tons of expected features were left out of the new OS, and large parts of the UI changed substantially from what old users were habituated to. The most popular 'Haxie' by far was Windowshade, which restored the old window minimization metaphor of collapsing into the titlebar, and was installed by millions of mostly elderly people. Unfortunately, that whole class of extensions worked by means of a kernel extension that diddled with the address spaces of every binary and interposed itself in core GUI library code. They fucked over not just the users, but anyone who had to support any application on their systems.
If they allowed you to easily install apps from other sources, they'd be right back in that boat immediately and they know it.
A fringe group of users (and handset manufacturers) have been fucking themselves for years on Windows Mobile: http://www.xda-developers.com/ -- and they've had an exodus to Android, where they have access to a lot more consumer users that would think of installing their stuff.
The positions that Apple wants to be able to control the entire experience and that Apple would approve an augmented Safari experience provided by a third-party are at odds.
Control does not necessarily mean total control. For the record, there are other iPhone browsers. Here are some examples: http://www.macworld.com/appguide/article.html?article=138409
They are, but those are the terms we have been given. Opera could have complied with them, but instead they have decided to make a scene.
Apple allows, where "allows" means both "by the terms of service" and "exposes APIs to make that possible", apps that modify the way Safari works and the Safari web browser experience on the iPhone? (I'm asking, I honestly don't know).
No, you can build a new application using the engine that powers "Safari". This includes page rendering, and more importantly JavaScript execution. The latter is important simply because the terms of service only allow 3rd party code execution using Apple's "interpreter".
[ http://www.macworld.com/appguide/article.html?article=138409 ]
[ http://www.macworld.com/appguide/article.html?article=138409 ]
You wouldn't expect Microsoft to allow a competing browser to run on their platform now, would you ?
I'd rewrite the title as "Time since Opera officially submitted to Apple". Well. OK. Not really. But still, it's quite strange to see such an announcement not sayng "hey, we have a new product, try it!", but "we sent a plea, now waiting for the answer" (when it will come? will it come at all?). Quite ugly.
Might be just a theater by both Opera and Apple. Of course.
Might be just a theater by both Opera and Apple. Of course.
It is the Mac OS vs Win 3.1 history all over again.
But this time there are Google and not Microsoft the ones who steal the thunder from the Jobs god.
But this time there are Google and not Microsoft the ones who steal the thunder from the Jobs god.
To me it seems more the Lotus Notes and Win 3.1.
Ie: a company is deliberately not allowing someone else's software to run on their OS even though it would benefit their users.
Ie: a company is deliberately not allowing someone else's software to run on their OS even though it would benefit their users.
He meant Android vs iPhone OS.
To me it was clear ever since iPhone OS 1.0 that AAPL wants full control of everything the same way it did with early Mac OS, and in my opinion they will repeat the same mistake again and it's going to cost them dearly in the long term.
To me it was clear ever since iPhone OS 1.0 that AAPL wants full control of everything the same way it did with early Mac OS, and in my opinion they will repeat the same mistake again and it's going to cost them dearly in the long term.
If Opera had gone through difficulties getting their browser approved for the Wii, would you have made the same comment?
If not, why?
If not, why?
My favorite "gang mentality" moment is Jobs' refusal to implement Flash in favor of a "non-proprietary" method, such as HTML5.
Killing a proprietary product with a MORE proprietary product is somehow a great moment in our technological revolution.
Killing a proprietary product with a MORE proprietary product is somehow a great moment in our technological revolution.
How exactly is HTML5 "proprietary", or even "more proprietary" than Flash?
He means the iPad.
Great move by opera.
- (Try to) Force apple to act quickly (When do you think Opera Mini will be approved by Apple?).
- Create something viral to promote it (669 tweets at the moment).
- Involve customers, convert new users through voting (Upcoming guesses)
Costs an iPhone and some developer time. Brilliant.
Costs an iPhone and some developer time. Brilliant.
669 tweets
Not to rain on your parade, but do you think Steve Jobs is scared by 669 tweets? He has taken much more heat (think FCC letters about monopoly behavior) and still didn't move.
Not to rain on your parade, but do you think Steve Jobs is scared by 669 tweets? He has taken much more heat (think FCC letters about monopoly behavior) and still didn't move.
669 tweets are 669 mentions of opera and have nothing to do with steve jobs. this is marketing, not trying to scare steve jobs or apple into anything.
"some developer time"? That may be the understatement of the year. Opera has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of developer time in the app, and they want it to be used. The PR circus is a nice benefit, not the goal. It doesn't come close to compensating for the financial investment and opportunity-cost of developing Opera for iPhone.
I think the GP was referring to the countdown timer, not the entire Opera Mini for iPhone project.
So when does someone take the logical step and make an "App Countdown" app?
This is totally a marketing move. There is no doubt it will be approved. My company's approved iPhone app is not only a Firefox browser but also has Flash and Java support.
That's not a browser, just VNC to an Xvnc session with a minimal window manager and a maximized Firefox.
Also kind of unusual to advertise that your app is approved, before launching the service or releasing the app for sale.
Also kind of unusual to advertise that your app is approved, before launching the service or releasing the app for sale.
Nope, wrong guess. And Opera Mini is not a browser, it is just an HTML renderer to a compressed proxy.
Well, call me a pessimist but they should ask people to estimate when it would be rejected.
Apple will use the standard response that it replicates functionality already present in the iPhone, i.e. Safari, and could/would confuse users.
I'd be extremely happy if I'm provided wrong.
A request to Apple fanboys: Kindly reply with why before you downvote me.
Apple will use the standard response that it replicates functionality already present in the iPhone, i.e. Safari, and could/would confuse users.
I'd be extremely happy if I'm provided wrong.
A request to Apple fanboys: Kindly reply with why before you downvote me.
downvoted because there are already browsers in the app store that "replicate functionality already present in the iPhone"
Do those browsers ship with and use their own rendering engines? Or do they simply delegate the rendering to webkit?
I ask because every iPhone app I've ever seen which offers any form of web-browsing ability does the latter; offering the ability to browse is fine, shipping a complete stack including rendering engine violates the app store terms.
I ask because every iPhone app I've ever seen which offers any form of web-browsing ability does the latter; offering the ability to browse is fine, shipping a complete stack including rendering engine violates the app store terms.
Call bullshit on the idea in those words, sure. But don't downvote the comment that describes it. That's the actual rationale developers have received for app rejections in the past.
when was the last account of this happening? i haven't read much about a rejection of that kind for ages.
This is a very clever move, and I think Apple will either approve or reject the app asap.
If they reject it I guess it will be under 'security' concerns, and not duplication of iphone functionality, followed by two months of blog posts and tweets about how Apple is evil and how Opera Mini is insecure and a CPU-hog in the other hand
If they reject it I guess it will be under 'security' concerns, and not duplication of iphone functionality, followed by two months of blog posts and tweets about how Apple is evil and how Opera Mini is insecure and a CPU-hog in the other hand
Why should Apple treat them any differently than any other company? I assume they'll have to wait in line, just like everyone else. And when they deny it for security reasons, there will be a long laundry list of changes that would have to be made.
I do think you are right though about how there will be the inevitable onslaught of Opera vs. Apple posts (similar to the Apple vs. Adobe posts). But, I think that this will be a little more cut and dry. Opera would have had a better argument if they had actually submitted a browser, as opposed to a proxy.
I do think you are right though about how there will be the inevitable onslaught of Opera vs. Apple posts (similar to the Apple vs. Adobe posts). But, I think that this will be a little more cut and dry. Opera would have had a better argument if they had actually submitted a browser, as opposed to a proxy.
When do you think Opera Mini will be approved by Apple?
Never, and it's a pity. Opera looks really impressive, judging by their video.
Never, and it's a pity. Opera looks really impressive, judging by their video.
I don't get this. Why submit an iPhone app that is (apparently) without iPad functionality, during the time window when Apple has started accepting "universal" iPhone/iPad apps? Why not get it right, do it as a universal app, and then submit it?
Maybe it's because they hope to avoid the duplication of functionality trap. On iPhone, at least on the current OS for iPhones, you don't get multiple content panels on the same screen except as part of a horizontal scroll. On iPad, I believe you do, so in that case there would be duplication.
Maybe it's because they hope to avoid the duplication of functionality trap. On iPhone, at least on the current OS for iPhones, you don't get multiple content panels on the same screen except as part of a horizontal scroll. On iPad, I believe you do, so in that case there would be duplication.
That's pretty basic software development. There is always a new feature you can add, but if you keep pushing back the release due to new features you might never get to a release.
Opera Mini for the iPhone is ready now. That is why they are submitting it now.
Opera Mini for the iPhone is ready now. That is why they are submitting it now.
The iPad has no cell connectivity, so the main selling point of opera mini, reduced cell bandwidth usage, is useless on the iPad.
Some Ipads will be 3G enabled http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/
It would tick some iPhone developers off if these guys got faster service because of a stunt.
Do I smell the start of an anti-trust suit brewing???
Assuming there's no slight of hands trickery in the demo, the performance is very impressive. I was under the assumption that the bulk of the performance issues on Safari were network and cpu related...
Assuming there's no slight of hands trickery in the demo, the performance is very impressive. I was under the assumption that the bulk of the performance issues on Safari were network and cpu related...
Problems with this line of thinking:
1. Anti-trust implies monopoly. No monopoly on phones here. Plus it's Apple's store, you can't have a "monopoly" on your own product.
2. Apple haven't exhibited a consistent pattern of app rejections to imply any particular competitive bias. (They host many applications from their traditional competitors.)
3. Point 2 is moot, as it's still not a monopoly to begin with.
If you'd like to see what real monopolistic-competitor crunching behaviour is, then read up on the halloween documents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Halloween_documents_l...
Compare Apple to Microsoft and IBM... Apple don't have the slightest on these mammoths.
2. Apple haven't exhibited a consistent pattern of app rejections to imply any particular competitive bias. (They host many applications from their traditional competitors.)
3. Point 2 is moot, as it's still not a monopoly to begin with.
If you'd like to see what real monopolistic-competitor crunching behaviour is, then read up on the halloween documents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Halloween_documents_l...
Compare Apple to Microsoft and IBM... Apple don't have the slightest on these mammoths.
Compare Apple to Microsoft and IBM... Apple don't have the slightest on these mammoths.
Microsoft indirectly funded legal attacks on Linux; Apple is seeking to destroy Android entirely by abusing the patent system. Microsoft made it slightly more inconvenient to run competing browsers; Apple bans them altogether. Apple may not have the market share of that MS or IBM did, but they certainly have the attitude.
Microsoft indirectly funded legal attacks on Linux; Apple is seeking to destroy Android entirely by abusing the patent system. Microsoft made it slightly more inconvenient to run competing browsers; Apple bans them altogether. Apple may not have the market share of that MS or IBM did, but they certainly have the attitude.
This statement is remarkably light on fact and heavy on sensationalism. Apple have received numerous patent disputes for technologies included in the iPhone. They hardly "threw the first punch."
I also wouldn't call this an abuse on the patent system - apple's current action is -precisely- what the patent system is useful for. Abuse would be similar behaviour to IBM in the 80s where they would racket money from start ups threatening them with the weight of their patent portfolio.
Also numerous browsers are available for the iPhone.
I'd really be more swayed into believing apple were this big evil company - if the other companies weren't as bad, if not worse.
I'd say they are all a little rotten, however by far I recognise that Apple is reasonably clean for a company that has had more than 30 years to make big public mistakes.
Also numerous browsers are available for the iPhone.
I'd really be more swayed into believing apple were this big evil company - if the other companies weren't as bad, if not worse.
I'd say they are all a little rotten, however by far I recognise that Apple is reasonably clean for a company that has had more than 30 years to make big public mistakes.
Potential monopolies must be handled with care. By the time a company becomes a monopoly, there's hardly any competition left. Seems like we didn't learn our lesson from when Microsoft crushed everyone else to swallow most of the x86 OS market, which it still dominates today, by a wide margin.
"you can't have a "monopoly" on your own product." Of course, you can only have monopoly on a market.
"you can't have a "monopoly" on your own product." Of course, you can only have monopoly on a market.
I honestly believe that you don't have a firm understanding of what a monopoly is, nor how they are expressed in the market. A large market share does not automatically make a monopoly. (However a large market share can be a key competitive advantage in establishing a monopoly.)
For example, the iPod makes up a large market share of MP3 players sold to date - but this doesn't prevent a consumer from purchasing a music player, music or other services from another company. This is because the iPod(in terms of music) is not a console device. There is nothing apple can do to their iPod product that would prevent (for example) Amazon from being able to sell music. This is why Apple spend much money advertising - their lead is established by brand marketing. There are numerous other devices of various qualities/prices/capabilities which could replace the iPod.
Like the Amazon example - there is nothing Apple can do to their app store to prevent a developer from developing software for the Android platform. Apple's strict "quality" policies actually force many developers onto the Android platform. In that example Apple's policies have sponsored increased competition which is the exact opposite of monopolistic behaviour.
Just because the only way you get new software onto the iPhone is via the app store does not mean that Apple has a monopoly over their app store. This is simply a closed system - identical to any "console" market. The misconception mostly occurs because the iPhone is almost entirely unique in using this approach for smart phones, versus other manufacturers which allow software to be run in a fashion similar to modern PCs.
Microsoft on the other hand forced manufacturers to not support/purchase a competitors operating system software or face grossly increased wholesale prices on their windows OS product. Additionally they were able to abuse their operating system monopoly by leveraging this against competitor's software from unrelated categories. The IE vs Netscape saga is a good example of this. (However MS was found guilty of enacting this behaviour on numerous other companies, including Apple.)
For example, the iPod makes up a large market share of MP3 players sold to date - but this doesn't prevent a consumer from purchasing a music player, music or other services from another company. This is because the iPod(in terms of music) is not a console device. There is nothing apple can do to their iPod product that would prevent (for example) Amazon from being able to sell music. This is why Apple spend much money advertising - their lead is established by brand marketing. There are numerous other devices of various qualities/prices/capabilities which could replace the iPod.
Like the Amazon example - there is nothing Apple can do to their app store to prevent a developer from developing software for the Android platform. Apple's strict "quality" policies actually force many developers onto the Android platform. In that example Apple's policies have sponsored increased competition which is the exact opposite of monopolistic behaviour.
Just because the only way you get new software onto the iPhone is via the app store does not mean that Apple has a monopoly over their app store. This is simply a closed system - identical to any "console" market. The misconception mostly occurs because the iPhone is almost entirely unique in using this approach for smart phones, versus other manufacturers which allow software to be run in a fashion similar to modern PCs.
Microsoft on the other hand forced manufacturers to not support/purchase a competitors operating system software or face grossly increased wholesale prices on their windows OS product. Additionally they were able to abuse their operating system monopoly by leveraging this against competitor's software from unrelated categories. The IE vs Netscape saga is a good example of this. (However MS was found guilty of enacting this behaviour on numerous other companies, including Apple.)
"I honestly believe that you don't have a firm understanding of what a monopoly is, nor how they are expressed in the market. A large market share does not automatically make a monopoly."
I love this kind of argument - the straw man argument - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man. "You don't know what you're talking about. A doesn't automatically follow from B" - usually following a comment where nothing was said about inferring A from B. I only asserted that monopoly destroys competition, which I'm sure you can agree with, and that in Microsoft's case the anti-trust lawsuit came too late, at a time when Microsoft had already abused their monopoly to bully hardware vendors/destroy the competition by any means necessary.
I love this kind of argument - the straw man argument - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man. "You don't know what you're talking about. A doesn't automatically follow from B" - usually following a comment where nothing was said about inferring A from B. I only asserted that monopoly destroys competition, which I'm sure you can agree with, and that in Microsoft's case the anti-trust lawsuit came too late, at a time when Microsoft had already abused their monopoly to bully hardware vendors/destroy the competition by any means necessary.
I thoroughly enjoyed the hypocrisy of this reply.
The difference is that Opera Mini uses Opera's servers as some caching and compressing proxy server, it doesn't actually connect to nytimes.com like Mobile Safari in the demo.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Mini and especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Mini#Privacy_and_security
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Mini and especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opera_Mini#Privacy_and_security
The eye opener for me is the lack of end to end security. I generally avoid doing anything requiring https on my iPhone, but now I know to NEVER do anything that requires security on Opera Mini. Of course, this assumes that it actually gets approved...
Opera Mini is a great product, but they could (and should) make it perform direct connections when in https mode.
anti-trust for what?
Android, WinMo, and other smart phone platforms allow the installation of arbitrary software, including browsers that compete with the vendors.
iPhone OS does not. This hurts consumers by removing choice and the economy by removing competition.
iPhone OS does not. This hurts consumers by removing choice and the economy by removing competition.
Here's a just-as-oversimplified claim: "Mac OS X allows the installation of arbitrary software. This hurts consumers by allowing viruses, spyware, and other (including non-malicious) causes of degradation of enjoyment."
Everything's a tradeoff. Tens of millions of people, including a large number of which are tech-savvy and completely aware of competing phones, are very happy with the iPhone as a complete product and specifically choose it, often in part because of what they perceive as a better overall experience because of the limitations.
Everything's a tradeoff. Tens of millions of people, including a large number of which are tech-savvy and completely aware of competing phones, are very happy with the iPhone as a complete product and specifically choose it, often in part because of what they perceive as a better overall experience because of the limitations.
Uh oh. If running a closed platform is grounds for anti-trust action, then Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo all had better watch out. Even One Laptop Per Child is in on this--Oh my! I thought they were good guys but it turns out they are evil monopolists!:
If you don't have a developer key, and your laptop has firmware security enabled, it will not let you do anything except boot an OLPC-signed operating system, and use the OLPC-provided software. If you insert a USB flash drive or SD card, the boot firmware will only boot from it if the files are tested and cryptographically signed by OLPC. -- http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Activation_and_developer_keys
...or maybe what you're saying has more to do with your opinion than the law.
If you don't have a developer key, and your laptop has firmware security enabled, it will not let you do anything except boot an OLPC-signed operating system, and use the OLPC-provided software. If you insert a USB flash drive or SD card, the boot firmware will only boot from it if the files are tested and cryptographically signed by OLPC. -- http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Activation_and_developer_keys
...or maybe what you're saying has more to do with your opinion than the law.
I agree with you - I was just trying to answer the parents question.
I also would have modded you up until I read the last sentence. Relax, there's no need to be so aggressive.
I also would have modded you up until I read the last sentence. Relax, there's no need to be so aggressive.
Yeah, I cut and repasted that last bit a couple times before posting, but ultimately decided the point would be too easily missed without it. In the process I didn't catch the now-obvious implication that I should have found a better way to make that point.
I appreciate you calling me on it.
I appreciate you calling me on it.
I could have been a bit clearer there... I understood what you were getting at but was looking for a more thorough explanation of how it qualified as "anti-trust" since it seems like a very simplistic interpretation of the law and the situation.
It duplicates functionality the iPhone already has, does that mean they'll reject it to be consistent or will they approve a bunch of other apps that have been rejected for that reason ?
Well it can't be rejected for consistency because there's a bunch of browser apps already.
All of the existing browsers ultimately use Safari's DOM/JS engine. What would be really interesting is if there were a Gecko or a full Opera engine based browser. Opera mini isn't really a browser, it's a proxy, so I'm not sure this would fall under the same category anyway.
It should also be noted that Apple's approval team doesn't seem especially concerned with consistency. Case in point their inscrutable "explicit/adult" content critera.
Hmm, you can guess when the app will be approved.
I'd like to see some stats on those guesses, i bet that the results will make clear that the average user has no idea of how long the approval process is (i expect that the majority of votes should fall in the 1-3 weeks range).
What happens if Apple approves Opera Mini within 24 to 36 hours and then uses Opera Mini as an example to direct attention away from the app store's flaws?
Is there a way to bypass Opera servers in Opera mini (in settings) even if it makes your web browsing experience a bit slower?
No. Opera Mini only understands what they call OBML, which is what the Opera Mini servers give the handsets.
Opera also produces Opera Mobile for mobile devices, which is a full-fledged browser. This is a separate product.
Opera also produces Opera Mobile for mobile devices, which is a full-fledged browser. This is a separate product.
soon in an european counrty near you: the iphone browser ballot!
And in other news: opera should leave the iphone and fix the zillion bugs on the other platforms that lacks a decent native browser.
Posted from a nokia with Opera mini.
And in other news: opera should leave the iphone and fix the zillion bugs on the other platforms that lacks a decent native browser.
Posted from a nokia with Opera mini.
I laughed - but there are already plenty of other web browsers on the iPhone platform.
Different chrome but all the same engine.
I wish one day without news about Apple.
How is this not a massive privacy/security issue? You are trusting Opera to not look at your content, and as mentioned later on: Opera Mini has received some criticism because it does not offer true, end-to-end security when visiting encrypted sites such as paypal.com.[49] When visiting an encrypted web page, the Opera Software company's servers decrypt the page, then re-encrypt it themselves, breaking end-to-end security