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.
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.
65 Comments
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.
"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.