Never miss an update Follow AppleInsider
Thursday, October 30, 2008, 07:10 pm
Opera Mini for iPhone sits on sidelines due to App Store rules
A professionally-developed alternative to Apple's Safari web browser for iPhone already exists in Opera Software's labs; Apple's guidelines for App Store submissions, however, are allegedly keeping it from seeing the light of day.Opera chief Jon Stephenson von Tetzchner recently told the New York Times (by way of MacNN) that Opera Mini, one of the company's mobile web browsers for smartphones, has already been ported to the iPhone but can't be released as Apple's rules for the App Store preclude software that replicate the core functionality of the iPhone or iPod touch.
The revelation is an unusual one given Apple's official stance on third-party apps as early as March, when the iPhone Software Developer Kit was first released. The Cupertino, Calif.-based cellphone maker specifically bars third-party interpreters that call on non-Apple frameworks and languages, which by definition would include Opera's web rendering engine. This would have left Opera Software converting software unlikely to be released in the near term.
Still, the news doesn't represent the first instance that Apple has rejected apps that would challenge the usefulness of its own code.
Software developer Almerica last month discovered that a submitted podcast download and playback utility Podcaster was rejected for supposedly replicating iTunes -- even though there was no Apple equivalent on the iPhone at the time. However, a recent leak has suggested that Apple may allow podcast downloads in its upcoming iPhone 2.2 update.
On Topic: iPhone
- High resolution images claim to show 'iPhone 5S' and iPhone 5 display assemblies side-by-side
- Briefly: Sprint LTE service expands to 22 more areas
- Inside iOS 7: Apple's Weather app gets animated
- Case intended for Apple's low-cost iPhone shows thicker, rounded design
- AT&T starts nationwide FaceTime over cellular rollout
Previous Comments View All
"Professionally-developed"?
When it was sure to be rejected, I don't think this work was very professional.
Who would WANT to run Opera mini on their iPhone anyway??? Its shite.
The whole "controversy" comes down to the fact that Apple is denying apps that "replicate the core functionality of the iPhone" (i.e. - replacement browsers, email etc.) and that they didn't write that down anywhere.
So what?
Is it a reasonable proscription? Of course. Should they have written it in stone? Sure. Is it possible when designing a whole new platform that they forgot a couple of things? Probably.
Again ... so what?
Gruber and his cronies and friends that are pushing this story are making mountains out of molehills as is their wont. It makes sense to me that a device with such severe limitations in terms of hardware, battery life and performance would want to reserve core functionality for itself. This is an entirely reasonable position to take.
apple is making a big mistake here. Competition enables rapid progress in product improvement. I don't see how browser competition will take away revenue. It is still on the iphone and improved browser functionality will allow for increased attention to the iphone. Poor planning on apples part.
Wrong. It's not a question of anti-competitiveness. It's a question of not allowing apps that run binaries. It's not allowed. Period.
I don't agree with it either but Opera could run Flash and other binaries...this is unallowed...it's also the reason why NES and Gameboy emulators and interpreters such as ScummVM can't be put on the App Store.
It has *nothing* to do with challenging Apple's own Safari.
But equally, Opera could _not_ run flash, just like Safari doesn't. Theres nothing that says Opera will have any more functionality than Safari does. Many applications on the App Store download information and interpret it in various forms (to display lists of train times, geocaches, music tracks etc). I'm not sure what point you draw the line at.
There's nothing magically dangerous about interpreting code. In fact it's generally considered safer - e.g. Java coded is sandboxed from the hardware. We know Apple have these rules, but we'll see that they'll be the first ones allowed to break them, which is, in many ways anti-competitive.
I can't see Apple's justification for such limits, beyond keeping control over their platform.
Virgil-TB2: What's to say that Opera Mini can't be better than Safari - less battery life, better performance etc? Why should Apple prevent third parties from improving 'core functionality'?
This is a one-sided story, without Apple's response.
More likely, Apple won't any any browser due to the restriction on loading other apps. It was designed as a safe measure against virus and worms. Web browser, by definition, may load and run other software (javascript, java, flash etc).
This is a one-sided story, without Apple's response.
More likely, Apple won't any any browser due to the restriction on loading other apps. It was designed as a safe measure against virus and worms. Web browser, by definition, may load and run other software (javascript, java, flash etc).
Exactly so.
Apple said there will be no interpreted code allowed other than what Apple decides should be interpreted. Chances are that Opera submitted it's Opera mini and it was judged capable of interpreting code and thus rejected.
Any emulator or interpreter submitted to the App Store will see this same refusal. If Apple allowed Opera mini, then they would have to allow NES, SNES, Gamboy, PSX, emulators as well as interpreters such as ScummVM. I'd like that very much but as you said, it opens the door to problems.
Man, Apple is evil. If Microsoft pulled this kind of nonsense the justice dept would be on their case in a heartbeat.
Man, Apple is evil. If Microsoft pulled this kind of nonsense the justice dept would be on their case in a heartbeat.
No they wouldn't. Apple created the hardware, it's running their OS, and they run the App Store. They can deny any app they choose. Their practices aren't even remotely related to what Microsoft did. This is a closed system that Apple will let you play in if you follow their rules. There's nothing anti-competitive about what they're doing.
Latest Apple Headlines
-
Inside iOS 7: iBeacons enhance apps' location awareness via Bluetooth LE
~12 minutes ago -
High resolution images claim to show 'iPhone 5S' and iPhone 5 display assemblies side-by-side
~7 hours ago -
Steve Jobs discusses his legacy in rare 1994 video interview
~10 hours ago -
Briefly: Sprint LTE service expands to 22 more areas
~12 hours ago -
Facebook for iOS adds privacy options and status icons in update
~12 hours ago - more...
Want to write for AppleInsider? Submit your application now!
| Model | White | Black | |
|---|---|---|---|
| iPad mini (WiFi only) | |||
| 16GB WiFi |  |
$329.00 | $329.00 |
| 32GB WiFi | |
$429.00 | $429.00 |
| 64GB WiFi | |
$529.00 | $529.00 |
| iPad mini (WiFi + 4G) | |||
 |
 |
 |
|
| 16GB 4G White | $459.00 | $459.00 | $459.00 |
| 32GB 4G White | $559.00 | $539.99 | $559.00 |
| 64GB 4G White | $659.00 | $659.00 | $629.99 |
| 16GB 4G Black | $459.00 | $459.00 | $459.00 |
| 32GB 4G Black | $559.00 | $539.99 | $539.99 |
| 64GB 4G Black | $659.00 | $659.00 | $629.99 |
Lowest Prices Anywhere!
| Model | Price | You Save |
|---|---|---|
| 11"1.3GHz/4GB/128GB | $964.18* | $34.82 |
| 11" 1.3GHz/8GB/128GB | $1,061.18* | $37.82 |
| 11" 1.3GHz/8GB/256GB | $1,255.18* | $43.82 |
| 11"1.7GHz/8GB/128GB | $1,206.68* | $42.32 |
| 11"1.7GHz/8GB/256GB | $1,400.68* | $48.32 |
| 11" 1.7GHz/8GB/512GB | $1,691.68* | $57.32 |
| 13" 1.3GHz/4GB/128GB | $1,061.18* | $37.82 |
| 13" 1.3GHz/4GB/256GB | $1,255.18* | $43.82 |
| 13" 1.3GHz/8GB/256GB | $1,352.18* | $46.82 |
| 13" 1.3GHz/8GB/512GB | $1,643.18* | $46.82 |
| 13" 1.7GHz/8GB/256GB | $1,497.00* | $52.00 |
| 13" 1.7GHz/8GB/512GB | $1,788.68* | $60.32 |
* price with Promo Code:
APPLEINSIDER01
|
||
| Click for even more configurations | ||
Wrong. It's not a question of anti-competitiveness. It's a question of not allowing apps that run binaries. It's not allowed. Period.
I don't agree with it either but Opera could run Flash and other binaries...this is unallowed...it's also the reason why NES and Gameboy emulators and interpreters such as ScummVM can't be put on the App Store.
It has *nothing* to do with challenging Apple's own Safari.