backtop


Print 77 comment(s) - last by AstroCreep.. on Mar 24 at 8:19 PM

"Snowball, Hell; Hell, Snowball." Opera looks to get Opera Mini on the iPhone platform

Opera Software is looking to put Apple on the spot thanks to its Opera Mini browser. The company just announced today that "Opera Mini for iPhone" has been submitted to Apple's iPhone App Store.

Opera Mini for iPhone gets around using interpreted code issues by using server-side rendering. By going with server-side rendering, Opera says that it can compress data by up to 90 percent before it reaches the end user making for faster browsing speeds (and reduced bandwidth needs).

Since Opera Mini for iPhone doesn't use interpreted code, the only reason that we could foresee Apple rejecting the browser would be due to the fact that until now it has only allowed WebKit-based browsers into the App Store. If Apple approves Opera Mini for iPhone, it will be seen as a bold gesture from Apple whose heavy handed approach to app store approvals/rejections is well known. If Apple were to reject Opera Mini for iPhone, many will point to the hypocrisy of allowing "duplication of functionality" for the current Webkit-based browsers available in the App Store.

“The Opera Mini for iPhone sneak peek during MWC told us that we have something special,” said Opera Software's Jon von Tetzchner. “Opera has put every effort into creating a customized, stylized, feature-rich and highly responsive browser that masterfully combines iPhone capabilities with Opera’s renowned Web experience, and the result is a high performing browser for the iPhone.”

It will be interesting to see Apple's reaction to Opera Mini for iPhone -- no matter if the answer is yes or no, the web will likely be abuzz with commentary for days regarding Apple's decision. Opera Software is milking this process for all its worth with a countup timer that shows how long it has been since the app was submitted to Apple.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Does the user come first with Apple?
By Chaser on 3/23/2010 9:32:25 AM , Rating: 3
I Agree on the Ballot debacle the EU court imposed on Microsoft. But in this case I believe Opera's move is exposing a worse culprit: Apple's draconion policies with it's Pied Piper, lemmings over the cliff, iPhone.

I just installed Opera mini on my Android. Nice browser. It's great to have more choices and competition. It's even better to be free of my campy, stylish, Steve Jobs phone.




RE: Does the user come first with Apple?
By tztact on 3/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: Does the user come first with Apple?
By Chaser on 3/23/2010 10:41:08 AM , Rating: 2
Opera was one of the largest proponents in the law suit to the EU courts. It very much as a good deal to do with Opera.

http://www.opera.com/press/releases/2007/12/13/

Opera files antitrust complaint with the EU
Urges Microsoft to give consumers a genuine choice of standards—compliant Web browsers


RE: Does the user come first with Apple?
By leexgx on 3/23/2010 10:55:12 AM , Rating: 2
Ballot update is annoying as had a lot customers ringing me about it (more so XP as its auto ticked under that OS but under Vista/2008+ its not, users have to tick it so not so as annoying, it also does not remove the icon from the desktop after you have picked an Browser)

i use Opera all the time so i have no issues with Opera it self, if you use quite an number of web sites all the time (same ones) you just leave them tabs open and they be there next time you restart opera or if your system crashes they still be there (as long as you pick the restart last session, as opera pops up with that if opera was not closed normally)


By Jason H on 3/23/2010 4:45:32 PM , Rating: 2
Firefox and Chrome have the same ability.


By Fritzr on 3/24/2010 6:48:38 AM , Rating: 2
The restart last session is not reliable as a "saved session" option. It's purpose is to allow you to continue after an unexpected restart of the browser. To get the same tabs each time you start, use "save sessions" instead. You can then have a bookstores session, news sites session, my financial sites session etc. This feature makes it easy to open only sites you want to use on a regular basis for various needs. Even if you need 50 tabs open for a particular use, you just open them once and save the session.

FireFox and Exploder likely have this feature also, but I don't use those on a regular basis :)

On the menus
File->Session->Save Session
File->Session->Manage Sessions
File->Session->{List of saved sessions}


RE: Does the user come first with Apple?
By tztact on 3/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: Does the user come first with Apple?
By Reclaimer77 on 3/23/2010 11:24:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So singling out Opera here and blaming Opera for the ballot screen is quite silly.


Oh please. We all know they were a major player, if not THE most.


RE: Does the user come first with Apple?
By WTFzilla on 3/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: Does the user come first with Apple?
By omnicronx on 3/23/2010 4:54:27 PM , Rating: 4
Yawn...
quote:
http://www.opera.com/press/releases/2007/12/13/
"Opera Software ASA, the only company that can put the Web on any device, filed a complaint with the European Commission yesterday which is aimed at giving consumers a genuine choice of Web browsers."

"The Norwegian company, backed by the European Committee for Interoperable Systems (ECIS), a long-time opponent of Microsoft, is asking the EU Commission to force Microsoft to comply with industry standards for web browsers and either unbundle IE from the OS or include other browsers along side IE "

This was in 2007!

This started it all, please don't make it out as though a few blog posts as the reason for the ballot. Microsoft's solution for the antitrust case was to provide a ballot screen. Case and point.. Opera was definitely the catalyst.. to try and claim a few blog posts had more impact than this is completely rediculous.


RE: Does the user come first with Apple?
By WTFzilla on 3/24/2010 3:15:07 AM , Rating: 1
You still fail miserably.

Opera has no power what so ever to demand anything. All they did was to report Microsoft's crimes to the authorities.

It doesn't matter who "started it all".

What matters is that Microsoft broke the law. Whoever reported that is irrelevant.

The ballot screen was Microsoft's own suggestion.

Who said that blog posts were the reason? The reason was that Microsoft broke the law, and came up with several suggestions to avoid a fine from the EU.


RE: Does the user come first with Apple?
By riku0116 on 3/24/2010 4:49:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What matters is that Microsoft broke the law. Whoever reported that is irrelevant.

There was a law in EU that mandates the leader in a competitive market to advertise for it's competitors' products?

... I guess we can expect seeing Bing banners on the European Google homepages soon eh?


By WTFzilla on 3/24/2010 4:53:00 PM , Rating: 2
The EU, like the US, has antitrust laws.

Microsoft needs to show the ballot screen because they broke the law, not because they are the leader in a market.


RE: Does the user come first with Apple?
By formulav8 on 3/24/2010 2:58:55 PM , Rating: 1
The ballot screen came about because of cry babies like Opera. Opera had one of the biggest mouths claiming no one wants our browser because IE comes with Windows, Microsoft is evil, blah, blah, blah.

Firefox doesn't come bundled with Windows yet it continues to do Very well. They haven't been near the whimpering status that Opera has been.

So yes the Ballot screen was Microsofts idea but it came about because of complainers like Opera(and others) and the EU thinking they are God.

I also find it funny that Opera claimed their downloads has soared! since the ballot screen! When in reality its more likely to do with them releasing a new version. And half of those could have been just to try and then uninstalled it or stopped using it like myself and my wife...

Jason


By WTFzilla on 3/24/2010 4:57:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Opera had one of the biggest mouths claiming no one wants our browser because IE comes with Windows, Microsoft is evil, blah, blah, blah.

Opera claimed no such thing. Opera, with support from Mozilla, Google and many others, reported Microsoft's illegal activities to the authorities. That was the extent of their involvement.

quote:
Firefox doesn't come bundled with Windows yet it continues to do Very well. They haven't been near the whimpering status that Opera has been.

Again, you are mistaken. Mozilla fully supported the complaint, and their CEO blogged extensively about the case. In fact, Mozilla made far more official statements on the case, whereas Opera only responded to direct questions from journalists.

quote:
So yes the Ballot screen was Microsofts idea but it came about because of complainers like Opera(and others) and the EU thinking they are God.

The ballot screen is a result of Microsoft breaking the law. You are blaming everyone else for Microsoft's violations, which is hilarious.

quote:
I also find it funny that Opera claimed their downloads has soared! since the ballot screen! When in reality its more likely to do with them releasing a new version.

No, they specifically stated that they were referring to ballot screen downloads. They can easily tell the difference.

What's amazing to me, though, is that crybabies like you keep crying about Opera, while Microsoft has actually filed its own antitrust complaints against Google, and vice versa.

Why are you not whining about Microsoft and Google's antitrust complaints?

Ignorance or hypocrisy?


RE: Does the user come first with Apple?
By omnicronx on 3/23/2010 12:15:53 PM , Rating: 2
Expose to whom? If rejected, I fail to see what this will do outside the tech community. The only people who are going to get worked up about this are non Apple users. Lets also be realistic here, I am a big fan of Opera mobile and mini, but its not like Opera Mini is going to have a better browsing experience than Safari Mobile. i.e unless users think they are missing out, they most likely won't care.

I'm also very confused by Opera's choice as Opera Mini, does not really seem to be a good fit for the iPhone. To me the advantage of Opera Mini was that it works very well on slower devices that do not have the processing power to render pages quickly. Yes the saved bandwidth is nice, but its not really the main reason pages load so quickly, its the fact that little is being rendered on the screen (its basically a picture). As a result you will find the faster your device, the smaller the advantage.


RE: Does the user come first with Apple?
By WTFzilla on 3/23/2010 2:41:41 PM , Rating: 2
Opera Mini is definitely going to bring a better experience to the iPhone, especially because it's crazy fast.

Opera Mini works very well on any phone, as a matter of fact.

And it's not the device speed. It's the connection speed.

Opera Mini will also save money if you pay per MB.


RE: Does the user come first with Apple?
By omnicronx on 3/23/2010 5:22:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And it's not the device speed. It's the connection speed.
Opera Mini is not fast because of compression alone.

Its faster for two reasons;
1)It compresses pages down to 10% of the original size.
2)Hardly anything to render

Forget all the tests I have personally done, just go look at Opera page. Notice the wording.

"Opera Turbo lets you browse the Web more than 2x faster than any other browser when connected at speeds of 100Kbps "

"Opera Turbo uses compression technology that provides significant improvements in browsing speeds over limited-bandwidth connections , for example, when using a crowded Wi-Fi in a cafe or browsing through your mobile phone while commuting."

Faster device = Faster rendering. Thus one can make the case that the performance delta must decrease as the device speed increases.

Opera mobile is at its best when you have a limited connection. I use it all the time when I am up north and I only get 2G access. Yes there is the data aspect, but as studies have shown the average iPhone users comes nowhere near to the monthly download quota. With an alright to good 3g connection or Wifi, your device can pretty much download faster than it can render.

Its also very apparent when comparing a faster to slower rendering engine (for example pocket IE to Opera Mobile) They are both downloading at the same speed, yet Opera is faster.


By omnicronx on 3/23/2010 6:21:21 PM , Rating: 2
An even better example is comparing browsing speeds between the iPhone 3G and 3GS which renders pages almost two times faster with a cpu thats about twice as powerful.


By Omega215D on 3/24/2010 12:58:59 AM , Rating: 2
I don't always browse the web on my phone, but when I do I prefer Opera Mini. Stay nerdy my friends.

=D


RE: Does the user come first with Apple?
By icanhascpu on 3/23/2010 12:32:36 PM , Rating: 1
What is it with people like you putting the iPhone down all the time? Its a good device. People like you are the opposite end of teh spectrum of the apple fanbois and just as retarded. Lemming over the cliff iPhone? What the fuck are you talking about? Get a grip on reality, because most pof the people using the iPhone dont give a fuck about Apple. They just want to talk on the phone listen to music and be happy.


By Fritzr on 3/24/2010 7:02:57 AM , Rating: 2
This has nothing to do with the iPhone as a device. It has everything to do with Apple as the gatekeeper deciding which apps an iPhone can run. In this case a non-webkit browser that transfers less data per page (smaller bill) and prerenders the page before downloading (faster response) and requires permission from Apple to run (If it out performs the Apple equivalent, then probably not allowed)

Which of these items does not apply to 2G, 3G, 4G and other devices capable of running Opera Mini and it's direct competitor's? First clue: iPhone is not in the answer :P


By WTFzilla on 3/23/2010 2:24:57 PM , Rating: 2
Why is the guy who points out the fact that Microsoft themselves suggested the ballot screen, not Opera, get voted down? I don't get it.


By Anoxanmore on 3/23/2010 5:14:51 PM , Rating: 2
I should design a new browser called QQ.

When it installs it shall ask "Do you want to QQ?"

When it finishes it'll say:

"QQ Moar111!!!

Pass it on"

:-)


Opera Sux (but not Opera Mini)
By rembo666 on 3/23/2010 9:47:55 AM , Rating: 2
I share everybody's sentiment about Opera trying to get free advertising with Microsoft's ballot screen. Opera 10.5 for Windows is crap. It's a shiny piece of crap, but it's still crap. I installed it, used it for about 15 minutes, and then I went back to Chrome. Despite their claims of being "the fastest browser", Opera just feels sluggish. Not as sluggish as IE, but definitely not on par with Google Chrome. This leaves me using the two browsers I've been using for a while: Firefox and Chrome.

However, Opera Mini is a great invention for cellphones. Their server-side processing is a god-sent for the slow mobile connections and weak cellphone CPUs. I use both WebKit-based default browser and Opera Mini on my G1 depending on the situation. Their Mobile View is great when reading articles on a small screen and the speed is just awesome.




RE: Opera Sux (but not Opera Mini)
By tztact on 3/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: Opera Sux (but not Opera Mini)
By Chaser on 3/23/2010 10:42:26 AM , Rating: 2
Opera was one of the largest proponents in the law suit to the EU courts. It very much has a good deal to do with Opera.

http://www.opera.com/press/releases/2007/12/13/

Opera files antitrust complaint with the EU
Urges Microsoft to give consumers a genuine choice of standards—compliant Web browsers


RE: Opera Sux (but not Opera Mini)
By tztact on 3/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: Opera Sux (but not Opera Mini)
By Chaser on 3/23/2010 12:30:46 PM , Rating: 2
Here'a a thought, why don't you try reading Opera's own press release? Opera filed the lawsuit through the EU Court system.

There are other alternative browsers, one comes to mind that has a substancially greater amount of market share than Opera but doesn't need to use a biased court system to compete. It stands on its own merits without any "strong arm" court intervention.

Maybe that judge and you are Opera's greatest fanbois?


RE: Opera Sux (but not Opera Mini)
By WTFzilla on 3/23/2010 2:40:29 PM , Rating: 2
Opera did not file a lawsuit.

Opera merely reported Microsoft's criminal activity to the authorities.

Opera did not use the court system at all .

Opera did not strong arm anyone.

Opera merely reported a crime.

Then Mozilla, Google and several other companies joined the complaint.

Please educate yourself.


RE: Opera Sux (but not Opera Mini)
By davepermen on 3/23/2010 11:08:27 AM , Rating: 2
the ballot screen was microsofts idea of the SOLUTION of a problem they had not the idea for. opera brought the idea of ie being unfair placed to the eu, which then had the idea of suing microsoft.

yes, the ballot screen was microsofts idea. but the reason for having that idea did not came out of nowhere. they came, in the beginning, from opera.


RE: Opera Sux (but not Opera Mini)
By WTFzilla on 3/23/2010 2:32:37 PM , Rating: 2
The problem was that Microsoft broke the law.

Opera did not bring the idea to the EU. Opera reported Microsoft's violations of European Competition Law to the authorities. The authorities looked into it, and concluded that MS did indeed break the law.

Again: The idea did not come from Opera.

Again: Microsoft suggested the ballot screen in order to avoid a fine, after having broken the law.

Don't blame Opera for the fact that Microsoft broke the law and made a suggestion themselves on how they could get out of it.


Will they sue?
By Arribajuan on 3/23/2010 1:17:57 PM , Rating: 2
Will Opera sue if they get rejected?

This could be the beginning of problems for apple.

They do not have the blanket of being the minority since they have a huge chunk of the smart-phone market, mp3 sales, etc.




RE: Will they sue?
By WTFzilla on 3/23/2010 2:37:25 PM , Rating: 2
Why would Opera sue? Opera never sued anyone. And Apple didn't break the law.


RE: Will they sue?
By soydios on 3/23/2010 6:30:37 PM , Rating: 2
Antitrust.

Apple is blatantly anticompetitive. The only reason that they haven't gotten in trouble for it like Microsoft did is because they are a much smaller player in the PC market. But they are not a minority player in the media player (iPod) or smart phone (iPhone) markets.


RE: Will they sue?
By WTFzilla on 3/24/2010 3:16:32 AM , Rating: 2
Again, Opera never actually sued anyone.

If Apple broke the law, the authorities will deal with that.


RE: Will they sue?
By Fritzr on 3/24/2010 7:21:13 AM , Rating: 2
Apple may have a large share of the mp3/mp4 player market, but their competitor's are not shut out of the market by the main player's refusal to allow compatible systems. As for iPhone's iron grip on the 3G market...that's largely advertising at the moment. Equally capable alternatives with active developer communities are now widely available. Android OS being the best known group.

You should compare Window's hold on the desktop. How many OSes are Windows compatible? Of the rest how many are supported by the majority of developers targeting the dominant OS?

Apple OSX and Unix/Unix compatibles are market leaders among the alternatives. Proponents of both declare their superiority and often add that they also have Windows to run various programs they need.

That is truly a "trust" situation. Microsoft came close to being broken up some years back when they used their market position to crush the commercial browser market. This EU action is the first effective backlash since Microsoft tried to explain to the US courts that Explorer was an inseparable component of Windows.


So basically Opera gets all your data?
By Kary on 3/24/2010 12:51:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Opera Mini for iPhone gets around using interpreted code issues by using server-side rendering.


This sounds an awe full lot like Opera gets to track everywhere you go on the internet and everything you do on the internet tied to your phone. Basically they are redirecting everything through Opera's proxy servers? (and possibly logging everything at the same time)

Wiretapping at it's finest because your even paying to have it done.




By WTFzilla on 3/24/2010 5:09:09 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, Opera Mini is free.

Yes, it's passing through Opera's servers. That's how they can compress pages up to 90%.

They are not logging anything. It is pure "routing".


By T2k on 3/24/2010 3:23:00 PM , Rating: 1
Seriously.

I *HATE* Opera's CONSTANT WHINING and dozen-a-dime desktop browser - yes, it's same ol' crap and they only come up with idiotc crap like hosting stuff on your own home line especially when everything moves to cloud - BUT this time THEY ARE RIGHT: APple MUST open his stupid "bubble" OR EU WILL BITCHSLAP the egomaniac turtlenecked freak with some MS-sized fee-penis.

Ohhhh, I cannot wait, I cannot wait.... I'm gleeing already, JObs' gets fuckin' humiliated or gets out of fuckin' Europe, losing billions in sales due to his sick ego... ahahahahaha....




By WTFzilla on 3/24/2010 4:59:35 PM , Rating: 2
What whining?

I see no whining here. Just a clever PR stunt by Opera. How is it "whining" to announce that they are submitting an application to the App Store?

Opera has 50 million desktop users, and growing, by the way.

Everything is not moving to the cloud. You clearly don't even understand Unite.


By CharonPDX on 3/23/2010 2:02:22 PM , Rating: 2
The press release is vague, and the commentary on it vaguer.

Is this really a browser that just sends its primary rending off to Opera to do remotely before displaying locally on an Apple-approved WebKit engine?

If so, I fail to see how this is any different than iCab for iPhone... (which sends rendering off to Google.)




By Iridium130m on 3/23/2010 9:10:15 AM , Rating: 1
A rejection here would likely fuel a case that has foreign government regulators regulating openness in the browser market on computers, why would it not extend to phones and other devices (iPad) as well?




Publicity stunt, through and through.
By dflynchimp on 3/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: Publicity stunt, through and through.
By cknobman on 3/23/10, Rating: 0
By Fritzr on 3/24/2010 7:29:41 AM , Rating: 2
More than the usage stats will show. Opera's mask as Explorer/FireFox feature inflates the usage of it's competitor's by lying to sites that refuse to respond to unapproved browsers :P


RE: Publicity stunt, through and through.
By leexgx on 3/23/2010 9:34:32 AM , Rating: 2
works fine for me (prefer the Show menu bar like 10.10 or older)

+ for me is bugs or hacks are very rare on opera (even harder if your using vista or win7 with UAC)
Ram use considering i have 30-40 tabs open is very good (300-400mb), Chrome and firefox seem to use more then 100mb per tab or process
Not really found an page that does not work under opera any more
Most important for me is permanent session tabs, firefox Fails in this case as you cant keep firefox form poping up new windows when its been told to tab {popups}, Chrome does have it once you turn it on but it eats lots of ram per tab

i do use Chrome as my default browser hook but only so MSN, steam or Teamspeak links open in Chrome as i am likely going to close them within an short time, if i want to keep them i copy it into opera new tab


RE: Publicity stunt, through and through.
By Spivonious on 3/23/2010 9:42:05 AM , Rating: 2
I always see huge tab count numbers and wonder how that can even be useful. Do you just open all of your RSS feeds in separate tabs or something?


RE: Publicity stunt, through and through.
By leexgx on 3/23/2010 10:42:44 AM , Rating: 3
sounds like you not closed any of the tabs opera saves the tabs ever session so they come back to the way you had them before (my dad has done this on the laptop i guess has not fingered out how to press the X on the tabs yet as he got 40 tabs open all the same Open uni CD webpages :P)

most web sites use Icons so its quite easy to remember where they are and they stay where they are when ever i restart opera (you still should save the session every so often just in case tabs go away, i have only ever lost all my tabs 4 times in 5 years and they was user fault on 2 of them and other one was and format.. forgot to back up the autosave)

i have an 22" monitor so 30-40 tabs you can still see some of the txt you can also Drag down below the tab and it even gives you an preview of the currant website not as useful when you have the amount of tabs i have open

i have 7-8 web sites open norm with 2-3 tabs relating to each of them, review sites and other stuff, you must have an small screen if your seeing numbers on the left or right of the tabs, i think i have to open about 100 tabs to get to that but you can see see the icons (just opened loads of new tabs to see what happens i gave up at 110 and closed them, i could still see the icons but no text so would be quite hard at that point)

most users would not open the amount of tabs i have open now unless they do not know that you can Close the tabs you no longer need

Tip as well, goto pref > Adv and set Open New Tab Next to Active (this should be Default action really it is in IE and Chrome i report that to Opera)


RE: Publicity stunt, through and through.
By leexgx on 3/23/2010 10:47:12 AM , Rating: 2
may be some spelling issues there :P (every not ever)

(Quite hard to work out witch site is what with +50 tabs open, i did not finish it :) )


By messyunkempt on 3/23/2010 12:08:12 PM , Rating: 1
may be some spelling issues there :P (which not witch)...


RE: Publicity stunt, through and through.
By tztact on 3/23/2010 10:05:09 AM , Rating: 1
@dflynchimp

I'm not sure why you are blaming Opera for the ballot screen.

The ballot screen was Microsoft's own proposal. Opera had nothing to do with it.

So your accusation of free unwarranted publicity obviously falls flat on its face.


RE: Publicity stunt, through and through.
By damianrobertjones on 3/23/2010 11:00:35 AM , Rating: 2
Reply from a previous poster

Opera was one of the largest proponents in the law suit to the EU courts. It very much has a good deal to do with Opera.

http://www.opera.com/press/releases/2007/12/13/

Opera files antitrust complaint with the EU
Urges Microsoft to give consumers a genuine choice of standards—compliant Web browsers


RE: Publicity stunt, through and through.
By WTFzilla on 3/23/2010 2:29:14 PM , Rating: 2
Why are you simply repeating the same misinformation that was just refuted? Here are the facts posted by someone else:

Yes, Opera Software reported Microsoft's violation of European Competition Law to the authorities, but that was also the full extent of Opera's official involvement.

Beyond that, Opera had no authority what so ever to demand anything . Opera was not "proponent" behind the initial report, and it was certainly not a lawsuit on Opera's part.

And again, Microsoft themselves suggested the ballot screen .

I should also mention that both Mozilla, Google and many other companies joined the complaint.

So singling out Opera here and blaming Opera for the ballot screen is quite silly.


RE: Publicity stunt, through and through.
By rennya on 3/24/2010 4:54:54 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft doesn't suggest the ballot screen. The EU did.

What Microsoft has suggested is that Microsoft will ship a version of Windows 7 that doesn't have Internet Explorer in it.


RE: Publicity stunt, through and through.
By WTFzilla on 3/24/2010 12:30:45 PM , Rating: 2
No, you are mistaken.

Microsoft proposed the ballot screen. They also proposed shipping Windows without IE, but that was rejected. So they came up with the ballot scren.


RE: Publicity stunt, through and through.
By rennya on 3/24/2010 1:14:42 PM , Rating: 2
No, the ballot screen was forced on them by EU, after EU rejected the IE-less Windows 7. EU got the ballot idead, of course from Hakum Wie Lie.


By WTFzilla on 3/24/2010 5:01:08 PM , Rating: 2
No, Microsoft proposed the ballot screen.

Opera had no power what so ever to force anything on Microsoft.

The reason Microsoft proposed the ballot screen was that they wanted to avoid fines after being busted red-handed breaking the law.

If Microsoft hadn't broken the law, they wouldn't be in this mess.

So stop blaming everyone else for Microsof's errors.


RE: Publicity stunt, through and through.
By AstroCreep on 3/23/2010 10:39:23 AM , Rating: 3
I personally love Opera. I've been using it since it became a free product a few years back (2005 or 2006, if memory serves). Now I'd be derelict if I failed to mention that I also use Firefox and IE (generally using all three for specific functions). I can't say I agree with their complaint to the EU, but I understand why they did it.

As for Opera on the iPhone, I see this as a bigger issue for Apple , who are now in a "No-win" situation.
If they reject the app then Opera will cry foul again. If they approve it suddenly users have a CHOICE in browsers, which is something Apple doesn't want (for many reasons, but they will claim it's merely for the sake of "Security"), and it will set a dangerous precedence, as you will then have Google, Mozilla, and others submitting browsers to Apple to be approved, which will start the process all over.

Opera put Apple in check. It will be interesting to see how Apple counters.


RE: Publicity stunt, through and through.
By Chaser on 3/23/2010 10:49:18 AM , Rating: 2
I agree it puts Apple in a bind. And overall its good for all iPhone users if Apple prevails, and now that they have precedence they could win. In Europe at least.

But I seriously doubt that Apple is going to provide a "ballot box" on every iPhone. Thsi time if Opera wins they will have to rely upon the intelligent choice of an iPhone user instead of an EU Court to help them.


By Chaser on 3/23/2010 10:51:09 AM , Rating: 2
I meant if Opera prevails.


RE: Publicity stunt, through and through.
By tztact on 3/23/2010 10:59:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But I seriously doubt that Apple is going to provide a "ballot box" on every iPhone. Thsi time if Opera wins they will have to rely upon the intelligent choice of an iPhone user instead of an EU Court to help them.

Opera never relied on an EU court to help them.

The ballot screen was Microsoft's own suggestion. Opera had nothing to do with it.

Opera never asked Apple to provide a ballot screen either.


RE: Publicity stunt, through and through.
By Chaser on 3/23/2010 11:06:38 AM , Rating: 2
Read my posts above and get clue.

Cheers.


RE: Publicity stunt, through and through.
By WTFzilla on 3/23/2010 2:35:26 PM , Rating: 2
Your post is nonsensical because it does not consider the fact that the ballot screen was Microsoft's own idea. That Opera never actually sued. That all they did was to report a crime.


RE: Publicity stunt, through and through.
By Chaser on 3/23/2010 3:05:38 PM , Rating: 2
Opera files antitrust complaint with the EU
http://www.opera.com/press/releases/2007/12/13/

An EU court ruled and ordered Microsoft to add a feature for other browsers. Microsoft created the ballot in response because they had no choice.

You can poke holes in this with simplistic symantics all you like but it was Opera's actions that caused the entire debacle.

Done.


By WTFzilla on 3/23/2010 3:08:41 PM , Rating: 2
Why are you simply repeating the same misinformation that was just refuted? Here are the facts posted by someone else:

Yes, Opera Software reported Microsoft's violation of European Competition Law to the authorities, but that was also the full extent of Opera's official involvement.

Beyond that, Opera had no authority what so ever to demand anything . Opera was not "proponent" behind the initial report, and it was certainly not a lawsuit on Opera's part.

And again, Microsoft themselves suggested the ballot screen .

I should also mention that both Mozilla, Google and many other companies joined the complaint.

So singling out Opera here and blaming Opera for the ballot screen is quite silly.


By Fritzr on 3/24/2010 7:45:28 AM , Rating: 2
Why would a special ballot screen be needed. The Window's ballot is simply a minature catalog. "These browsers are available, here is the price" Which browser would you like to download today?

Much more convenient than waiting until someone asks why aren't you using browser X and the trying to figure out how to get info on browser X and if you happen to wonder if there are alternatives where to find even a mention of the others. Someone earlier asked why the ballot doesn't self destruct after a browser is chosen. The simple answer is; why should you be restricted to just one browser?

The App Store IS the ballot screen. That is why Apple is so careful about what is allowed :)


RE: Publicity stunt, through and through.
By tztact on 3/23/2010 10:58:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If they reject the app then Opera will cry foul again.

This is a fallacy.

Opera has never "cried foul". Opera reported Microsoft to the authorities for breaking the law once .

Apple did not break the law, as the iPhone is not a monopoly, and so Apple can't abuse a non-existing monopoly.


RE: Publicity stunt, through and through.
By AstroCreep on 3/23/2010 1:06:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Opera has never "cried foul". Opera reported Microsoft to the authorities for breaking the law once .

Semantics, my friend. I said they "Cry foul" as in to say "This is not okay for Microsoft to be doing". It's not like I said "They snitched to the police".

quote:
Apple did not break the law, as the iPhone is not a monopoly, and so Apple can't abuse a non-existing monopoly.

Well of course the "iPhone" isn't a monopoly; it is a consumer device, not a company.
Apple, on the otherhand, I consider to be as much of a monopoly as Microsoft, and this example is no different than the complaint lodged by Opera against Microsoft. The iPhone comes with a browser and is shutting-out the competition. Is it that much different in that this is a phone instead of a computer? Perhaps, but remember, I can still load Opera mobile onto my WinMo phone.
And if we want to start splitting hairs about how Microsoft is a big, bad monopoly, lets not forget the following (successful) business model:
Apple sells computers that contain Apple operating systems that contain Apple web browsers .

Microsoft doesn't sell their own computers...


RE: Publicity stunt, through and through.
By HoleInTwo on 3/23/2010 2:40:00 PM , Rating: 2
Apple is not a monopoly.

Microsoft is.

Can you tell the difference?


RE: Publicity stunt, through and through.
By AstroCreep on 3/23/2010 5:42:38 PM , Rating: 2
No, actually, I cannot.
I understand why Microsoft is, and how they abused their position in the market in regards to certain products (bundling IE, Windows Media Player, etc into Windows), but Apple is pulling the same stuff - Apple sells their own computers , with their own OS , and their own productivity/entertainment software ! AND that you're not technically allowed to install OSX on anything other than Apple hardware!
Can I buy OSX on a Pavilion? How about an Inspiron? That alone, in my mind, makes Apple a monopoly.

With all that in mind, please explain to me how Apple is any different than Microsoft in regards to abuse of their position in the market.


RE: Publicity stunt, through and through.
By WTFzilla on 3/24/2010 3:18:58 AM , Rating: 2
Apple is not a market monopoly.

Microsoft is (and was).

That's the difference.

Apple has a "monopoly" over its own products (copyright and all that), but those products do not have a monopoly in the market.


RE: Publicity stunt, through and through.
By Fritzr on 3/24/2010 8:03:11 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft has the same control over their copyrighted software and enforce those rights regularly. They are not hardware vendors, but they do control the hardware that can be used. How many PPC Windows installs do you know of?

Microsoft exercises their control of the hardware market by the very simple expedient of deciding which hardware the OS will run on. If a vendor wishes to develop for Windows then they will design hardware that is compatible with Windows supported hardware. If they wish to develop a new standard to add to the variety of Window's supported hardware then they are required to develop custom hardware and drivers that are compatible with the existing Windows. If it proves popular then MS MAY add native support in future versions of the OS.

Apple chooses to earn money by marketing hardware AND software. They also require licenses for many of the "hooks" needed to get an application to run under an Apple OS and as part of the User Agreement require an Apple OS on Apple hardware to use Apple applications. Their market share is small enough that this control has very little effect on the overall PC market. If they ever come to have the dominance MS now has you can be sure they'd be in court being broken up :P


RE: Publicity stunt, through and through.
By AstroCreep on 3/24/2010 10:51:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If they ever come to have the dominance MS now has you can be sure they'd be in court being broken up :P

That's exactly what I'm getting at; I just wasn't articulating it as such. In the regard of using monopolistic strategies, I think Apple is just as bad as Microsoft, albeit without being branded a monopoly. Seeing that they were able to sue Psystar into bankruptcy, that alone makes them a monopoly in my eyes, because I'm not legally allowed to run OSX on non-Apple hardware, despite OSX being a derivitive of UNIX (by way of BSD). I'm allowed to run BSD on any computer I wish, however.

As for Microsoft controlling the hardware, I understand where you're coming from, but I don't agree that is is because of Microsoft that we only have Intel-based Windows because they used to support Alpha, MIPS, and PowerPC (NT 3.x and 4). They dropped support for non-x86 architectures in NT 5 (Win2000), but later added support for Itanium. Officially they dropped support for the other processor types because of the "state of the market" being x86-heavy.
The most interesting part there is that both x86 and Itanium are Intel platforms (despite Itanium originating at HP). We can all read between the lines there and see what really happened (and why the "Wintel" knickname is considered derogatory by the two companies), but it's very much "Chicken or the Egg" in terms of "Is the PC market the way it is because Microsoft only supports Intel, or because Intel has its massive market share"?

All that said, I'd love to have a Windows-based PowerPC system. :p


RE: Publicity stunt, through and through.
By Fritzr on 3/24/2010 5:42:44 PM , Rating: 2
They get away with the restrictive license due to the license BSD uses. BSD is not a true Unix, like Linux it is an independent system that is System V compatible. Actually the situation today is much the same as the old Compaq made IBM compatibles with the original trying to keep up with the clones :P

The BSD license allows closed source restricted licensing for derivatives, so Apple didn't break any rules even if they are not playing nice. They have always been protective of their hardware business. I remember the Franklin and Orange computers that were Apple II clones. They were also sued out of existence.

Jobs will remember how Compaq took the lead in defining what an IBM compatible was and has no wish to allow that to happen to his company, so Frankintoshes need to be killed off before they take over. Besides, people who want to try OSX should just buy more Apple products :P

For Apple, OSX is just a way of differentiating themselves from the others. Their business is hardware. That is the reason for the sudden change from Macs that ran Windows under an Intel simulation to Mac compatible Wintel machines running OSX and Windows. OSX allows them to remain the elite alternative, Windows compatibility allows their users to run the apps that aren't being ported to OSX.

Best of both worlds for Apple. They can continue to market "The better alternative" and participate in the Wintel hardware market :)


By AstroCreep on 3/24/2010 8:19:18 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I'm familiar with the BSD license and how one can use BSD-licensed software and roll it into a commercial and/or closed-source products.
Just making the point of OSX "Borrowing Heavily" from a freely offered operating system and turning it into OSX. Hell, you can create a decent, if not sparse, clone with other FOSS software. ;)


By sprockkets on 3/23/2010 2:26:47 PM , Rating: 2
Or Apple can play its normal role as gods and simply act as if Opera never submitted the app and/or BS them just like Google Voice and claim "We haven't rejected it, no, we are still evaluating it."


"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki